It’s Not a Suggestion by Tom Reynolds
One of the great problems of today is that the overwhelming majority of the media / press has jumped so far left. The press in the United States has always been biased but there used to be a diversity of biases so we heard a diversity of opinions. Now, much of what we hear are leftist echoes.
Sometimes, when the Left tries to cover themselves with the blanket of intellectual superiority, they go down in flames. Unfortunately, because so much of the media is leftist, this self-immolation is not covered.
Media coverage of Colorado Representative Lauren Boebert is a good example. If the left can discredit her on one issue, they might discredit her on all issues. And any who are familiar with the media’s image of her have probably developed a negative image. But since she is a true 2nd Amendment supporter, she is important to the 2A community.
Boebert’s statements are ridiculed by the liberal media, probably because she doesn’t have a college degree, unlike that Liberal intellectual giant, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. It’s worth exploring some of the things Boebert is criticized for saying as it shows the leftist biases of the media.
She once was criticized for tweeting, “Protecting and defending the Constitution doesn’t mean trying to rewrite the parts you don’t like.” (That struck home for those of us who defend 2A.)
Brilliant minds on the Left immediately said she was an idiot who didn’t know about the Article V of the Constitution, which covers ways of amending the Constitution.
Of course she knows! The issue Boebert was referring to - that somehow escaped the Left’s great minds - is judges rewriting the Constitution according to their personal beliefs and not according to what was written in the Constitution.
The interesting thing is that Boebert outsmarted the liberal press. In criticizing Boebert, the Left was, in spite of themselves, endorsing what Conservatives believe in: that the only way to change the Constitution is to amend it. That’s exactly what the Left does not believe in as they see the Constitution as an impediment to be worked around.
The Left’s latest bit of self-arson was headlined: “Lauren Boebert goes down in flames over latest Constitutional gaffe.” That’s worth exploring in more detail as it involves Constitutional rights.
The article started out: “Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado) received an avalanche of derision on Wednesday morning after she penned a vague-yet-incorrect statement about the United States Constitution.”
Specifically, she tweeted, “The U.S. Constitution was not written as a suggestion”.
Then, the article referenced her comment on amendments, noted above, to again prove she is a constitutional illiterate. But the article never said why Boebert was incorrect to say, "The U.S. Constitution was not written as a suggestion." Probably because what she said was true; the Constitution is not just a suggestion!
The article then disparages her for saying, "The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our Founding Fathers intended it…I'm tired of this separation of church and state junk that's not in the Constitution. It was in a stinking letter, and it means nothing like what they say it does."
Boebert displays far greater understanding of a deeply intellectual issue than the liberal press. She was talking about – and challenging as many others do – an interpretation of Amendment #1. That Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
The current interpretation of the 1st Amendment flows from an 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury, Connecticut, Baptist Association. (That stinking letter the Left seems to be unaware of.) In it, he described the First Amendment as erecting a "wall of separation between church and state.”
The problem is, the interpretation of Jefferson’s wall stops all discourse from both sides – government and nongovernment. The entire U S Constitution, including the 1st Amendment, was meant to only restrict the government, not the people. Remember the 1st Amendment wording is: Congress shall make no law.
Daniel Dreisbach is a professor in the Department of Justice, Law and Society at American University in Washington, D.C., who explains: “The literal text of the First Amendment restricts government only…The wall metaphor implies that the First Amendment restricts people of faith, religious spokesmen, and religious leaders also, but that’s far beyond the requirement of the text of the First Amendment.”
Remember the rest of the 1st Amendment about abridging the freedom of speech? Dreisbach believes the First Amendment, “is intended and designed to create an environment where various ideas and perspectives can compete in a marketplace of ideas on the same terms and conditions…Religious communities and religious perspectives…should be able to compete in that marketplace. An analysis that draws on the wall of separation metaphor…treats religious perspectives differently than other nongovernmental perspectives and actually puts them at a disadvantage.”
Putting up a wall to exclude or to limit the ability of religion to inform public life or to inform about political actions is wrong.
The 1st Amendment enforces that government should not use its overwhelming power to pick winners and losers, nor is it meant to silence either the winners or losers.
But the Left was never big on disagreements with their principles. We know that from their attacks on the 2nd Amendment.