All Comments on 'Personal Constitution'

If it only were that easy... Truth is 'interest groups' hold the center stage and influence in ways we barely notice. None the less each individual must fight for against their might if we are ever to restore some balance. Well done.

I absolutely agree with you- you live it, not just talk about it.

You live it, and never let those trying to shout you down win! Good job!

Indeed, you do sound like someone trying to uphold one side of a debate. But that's okay; it's a First Amendment right.

Much of what you wrote is valid, but I do think you have missed a few points. First, a couple of minor details. It's probably a typo, but the Constitution was written in 1787, not 1778. And the first ten Amendments (the "Bill of Rights") were ratified in 1791. Onward, to more substantial matters.

The First Amendment does provide your freedom of speech. The President cannot pass law, so he isn't abridging your rights. And the House of Representatives is a part of Congress, so it is prohibited from abridging your free speech rights. Of course, that didn't prevent the passage of campaign finance "reform", which effectively limits how you spend your money to purchase time and space to express your political opinions. But that's another topic.

As to the Press, you have a point. Far too much of what is served up as "news" is skewed by editorial opinion, both in the content and also in the headlines chosen and the basic selection of what news is included. Frankly, it appears to me that such is precisely the reason that print newspapers and mainstream networks are losing their respective audiences. People have learned that there is bias, and that there are other sources of information. Most notably, there is the internet with its virtually immediate access to information, worldwide. In any event, the free market becomes a major factor. If your "news agency" offers too much editorial and too little news, you demonstrate your displeasure with your pocketbook; you take your business elsewhere. (It works very well.)

You mention law enforcement using pepper spray on "those assembling peacefully". I submit for your consideration that, generally speaking, such tactics come into play only when the assembling has become less than peaceful. And if that is not the case, there is legal redress for the matter. But "peaceful assembly" means peaceful. In the absence of "peaceful", law enforcement must step in protect the larger good, the public at large.

I encourage you to exercise your right of free speech. And I applaud your acknowledgement that there may be positive or negative consequences. The one thing I would add is that people should be aware that they are guaranteed free expression of their opinions, but they are not guaranteed a stage, or microphone, or TV camera. You can state your opinions, but one of the potential negative consequences is that you might lose your venue of expression, unless you own it. You're entitled to a voice, but you're not guaranteed an audience.

-- KVK

Thank you for exercising your right to freedom of speech.

..."You don't". I agree with you. We all need to live it, not just talk about it. :)~Minx

Good luck in the contest! ~Imp

and well written besides! Good luck!