In fact, some of the best proof that the First Amendment was abused as an instrument of oppression comes straight out of SCOTUS. That was exactly the point of Barron v. Baltimore in 1833. It was written by another southerner chief justice who enslaved a lot of people. It is not even conceivable that Chief Justice Marshall did not know th…
In fact, some of the best proof that the First Amendment was abused as an instrument of oppression comes straight out of SCOTUS. That was exactly the point of Barron v. Baltimore in 1833. It was written by another southerner chief justice who enslaved a lot of people. It is not even conceivable that Chief Justice Marshall did not know that, with that opinion, he was protecting people who enslaved other people and he was doing it by defrauding all Americans of our rights and liberties.
Don't take my word for that, take the words of SCOTUS, itself (now that SCOTUS doesn't need to deceive to support slavery). In our “republic” clearly “the people are sovereign” and “the ability” (the power) “of the citizenry to make informed choices” about public servants and public issues “is essential.” Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 346-347 (2010). And SCOTUS explained exactly what our sovereignty means with respect to what we have been misled to believe are mere "rights" against the mere federal government (Congress) under the mere "First Amendment." Our sovereignty necessarily encompasses all our powers necessary and proper to our self-government, which includes speech (which includes suffrage) regarding (and often against) all government.
“The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it.” Citizens United at 339. “Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people.” Id. “Discussion of public issues” is “integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution.” Id. at 340. “For these reasons, political speech must prevail against” any purported legal authority “that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence.” Id. “Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints. Prohibited, too, are restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others. As instruments to censor, these categories are interrelated: Speech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content.” Id.
The First Amendment is not and never should have been portrayed as the primary security of what we have been taught to think of as our First Amendment rights and freedoms. Our sovereignty is the pure source of our liberty. The First Amendment and its focus on "Congress" was designed to deceive (not by everyone, but by some). You could and should take the word of Chief Justice Marshall's contemporaries on SCOTUS.
Our “Constitution begins with the principle that sovereignty rests with the people.” Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 759 (1999). It began by expressly emphasizing that “the people” did “ordain and establish the Constitution.” Id. (quoting U.S. Const., Preamble). The dissent in Alden, was far more powerful and explicit about the power of the sovereign people. They emphasized the opinions of three Framers, including Edmund Randolph (former Attorney General) and two justices (Chief Justice John Jay and Justice James Wilson) “in Chisholm v. Georgia” in 1793 “a bare two years” after “the Tenth Amendment,” was “added to the original Constitution.” Id. at 781 (Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, JJ., dissenting).
The dissenters in Alden emphasized that Wilson (at the Pennsylvania ratifying convention) emphasized that "the sovereignty resides in the people; they have not parted with it; they have only dispensed such portions of the power as were conceived necessary for the public welfare." That was "the major premise of what would later become Justice Wilson's position in Chisholm," i.e., that "the people, and not the States, are sovereign." Sovereigns obviously are free to speak and think for themselves.
Instead of just assuming that the 90 or 100 years of silence (after Barron) about the First Amendment was the way things were meant to be under our Constitution, we must recognize that SCOTUS deceived American sovereigns about and defrauded us of the "rights" we "retained" as sovereigns regardless of whether such rights were "enumerated" in our Constitution (as the Ninth Amendment emphasized, but as SCOTUS (to this day too often ignores)).
In fact, some of the best proof that the First Amendment was abused as an instrument of oppression comes straight out of SCOTUS. That was exactly the point of Barron v. Baltimore in 1833. It was written by another southerner chief justice who enslaved a lot of people. It is not even conceivable that Chief Justice Marshall did not know that, with that opinion, he was protecting people who enslaved other people and he was doing it by defrauding all Americans of our rights and liberties.
Don't take my word for that, take the words of SCOTUS, itself (now that SCOTUS doesn't need to deceive to support slavery). In our “republic” clearly “the people are sovereign” and “the ability” (the power) “of the citizenry to make informed choices” about public servants and public issues “is essential.” Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 346-347 (2010). And SCOTUS explained exactly what our sovereignty means with respect to what we have been misled to believe are mere "rights" against the mere federal government (Congress) under the mere "First Amendment." Our sovereignty necessarily encompasses all our powers necessary and proper to our self-government, which includes speech (which includes suffrage) regarding (and often against) all government.
“The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it.” Citizens United at 339. “Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people.” Id. “Discussion of public issues” is “integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution.” Id. at 340. “For these reasons, political speech must prevail against” any purported legal authority “that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence.” Id. “Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints. Prohibited, too, are restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others. As instruments to censor, these categories are interrelated: Speech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content.” Id.
The First Amendment is not and never should have been portrayed as the primary security of what we have been taught to think of as our First Amendment rights and freedoms. Our sovereignty is the pure source of our liberty. The First Amendment and its focus on "Congress" was designed to deceive (not by everyone, but by some). You could and should take the word of Chief Justice Marshall's contemporaries on SCOTUS.
Our “Constitution begins with the principle that sovereignty rests with the people.” Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 759 (1999). It began by expressly emphasizing that “the people” did “ordain and establish the Constitution.” Id. (quoting U.S. Const., Preamble). The dissent in Alden, was far more powerful and explicit about the power of the sovereign people. They emphasized the opinions of three Framers, including Edmund Randolph (former Attorney General) and two justices (Chief Justice John Jay and Justice James Wilson) “in Chisholm v. Georgia” in 1793 “a bare two years” after “the Tenth Amendment,” was “added to the original Constitution.” Id. at 781 (Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, JJ., dissenting).
The dissenters in Alden emphasized that Wilson (at the Pennsylvania ratifying convention) emphasized that "the sovereignty resides in the people; they have not parted with it; they have only dispensed such portions of the power as were conceived necessary for the public welfare." That was "the major premise of what would later become Justice Wilson's position in Chisholm," i.e., that "the people, and not the States, are sovereign." Sovereigns obviously are free to speak and think for themselves.
Instead of just assuming that the 90 or 100 years of silence (after Barron) about the First Amendment was the way things were meant to be under our Constitution, we must recognize that SCOTUS deceived American sovereigns about and defrauded us of the "rights" we "retained" as sovereigns regardless of whether such rights were "enumerated" in our Constitution (as the Ninth Amendment emphasized, but as SCOTUS (to this day too often ignores)).