Evaluating Clinton's claim to "reasonable regulation" of Constitutional rights

[Stan]

Constitutional rights, particularly those in the Bill of Rights are guarantees of personal freedoms and are expressed in terms of the government's limited powers.

The post Evaluating Clinton's claim to "reasonable regulation" of Constitutional rights appeared first on ReligiousLiberty.TV - Celebrating Liberty of Conscience.

View the full article

[Tom Wetmore]

The quarrel, even by the author's apparent reasoning, is not with regulation.  Clinton was correct that all Constitutional rights are indeed subject to regulation on at least some level.  The quarrel is over the word "reasonable".  Nobody seems to be able to agree on what is reasonable.  Any law, no matter the issue, that stands in the way of one person's actions, is inherently unreasonable  to that person, without regard to reason.  Everyone myopically sees it only from their own biased self-interests, as if my personal opinions, ideas, desired actions, and perceived rights just naturally should trump everyone else's.

The author's final paragraph speaks of the very regulation of the freedom of speech - "time, place, and manner" restrictions.  That is regulation.  It is the standard pronounced by the US Supreme Court by which any governmental regulation is to be measured.  It defines what the court would see as constitutionally acceptable, yes, reasonable.  Free speech is only free within the bounds of such reasonable time, place, and manner regulation.  One cannot tread on others fundamental rights just because they may feel a need of exercise their freedom of speech.  No carelessly yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.  No marching up on private property and protesting the actions of the property owner in violation of trespass laws and regulations.  No loud performance of ones Freedom of Expression through music, in the middle of the night in a residential neighborhood.  No freedom of expression through performance by dancing naked through the streets.

Why is it that when it comes to the Second Amendment no regulation is deemed reasonable from the perspective of the powerful gun lobby interests?  Why have we totally disregarded the simply truth that is contained in the language of that very Amendment? It is contained in the root word that seems so much in contention.  Indeed it is in the opening clause, the preface, the foundation for what follows - "A well regulated Militia..."  What would be the need of a well regulated Militia? Not just simply "regulated", but a well regulated Militia. Well, the next clause tells us - "...being necessary to the security of a free state..." The framers assumed some element of regulation as necessary that would inherently effect, without infringing, the right of the people to keep and to bear arms.  It was not just simply a private keeping and carrying weapons.  It was a means to the prefaced objective.  Those in charge of the Militia charged with the protection of the free state would need to insure some amount of disciple and training for the effective and safe use of the available arms.  The "keep" part, within that period of history not only implies a verb form of the word, but the the noun form - the "keep" within a castle where the weapons were in fact kept.  An inventory was reasonable to know what was available to defend the castle. Why is it unreasonable for the government dependent on the citizenry for its defense, to make sure those who have guns be known, how many guns are available and where they are kept and that those who have them be qualified and competent to use them?

[Tom Wetmore]

And to the point of this sub-forum, can there be reasonable regulation of religion?   The answer is simply "yes". Limited. Balancing the interests and rights of everyone.  If my religion calls for me to physically punish, whip, or even stone sinners, is it reasonable to draw a line that regulates, or even prevents the exercise of that religious belief so that it cannot be practiced?  The old adage pertains - "Your rights end where my nose begins." Does my right to praise God, to "make a joyful noise" to Him give me unfettered right to do so anytime, anywhere, or by whatever means I desire?  Of course not.  Somehow that reasonably gets regulated. (Remember, "time, place, and manner"?)

[Gregory Matthews]

I had planned to respond to this and say that the Courts have  (Court has) ruled that the rights listed in the Bill of Rights and other provisions of the Constitution have been ruled to allow a proper regulation.

But, Tom said it much better.  Read his posts again.

 

  

[Jeannieb43]

Amen.    Tom and Gregory.   I agree.

 

[Now, if this all adds up to "religious control" I don't see it.   Not at present, anyway.   Although that, too, will show its face sooner or later.]