1st Ammendment

[Wibee]

Was it originally meant to apply towards the federal government or the states? Or both?

[onebornfreedotblogsp]

@Wibee

Was it originally meant to apply towards the federal government or the states? Or both?

As with all of the other 9 amendments, it was “supposed” to apply to the new, federal government only.

Individual [supposedly “sovereign”] states already had their own bills of rights[ most of them with similar 1st amendments]. In fact, Madisons/Jeffersons Bill of Rights was largely copied from state constitutions.

See my blog post: “Nullifying the Bill of Rights- The Judiciary Act Scam” for more on this.

Regards, onebornfree

@Wibee

Was it originally meant to apply towards the federal government or the states? Or both?

As with all of the other 9 amendments, it was “supposed” to apply to the new, federal government only.

Individual [supposedly “sovereign”] states already had their own bills of rights[ most of them with similar 1st amendments]. In fact, Madisons/Jeffersons Bill of Rights was largely copied from state constitutions.

See my blog post: “Nullifying the Bill of Rights- The Judiciary Act Scam” for more on this.

Regards, onebornfree

@Wibee

Was it originally meant to apply towards the federal government or the states? Or both?

As with all of the other 9 amendments, it was “supposed” to apply to the new, federal government only.

Individual [supposedly “sovereign”] states already had their own bills of rights[ most of them with similar 1st amendments]. In fact, Madisons/Jeffersons Bill of Rights was largely copied from state constitutions.

See my blog post: “Nullifying the Bill of Rights- The Judiciary Act Scam” for more on this.

Regards, onebornfree

[Wibee]

Thanks for this! I was told other-wise. I didn’t believe it. It’s hard to know what to believe anymore especially when you have Constitutional organizations defending Obamacare. And a Constitutional Scholar himself as president doing things so blatantly unconstitutional. Considering the now proper view of the constitution as a living document, means that it could mean anything at anytime.

Thanks again for taking the time to answer.

[Snowflake]

I know they don’t interpret the constitution literally or anything but…

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.^[1]

So its congress this bill restricts.

The judicial and executive branch can still mess with these things.

As they often do

[shazam]

@Sieben

I know they don’t interpret the constitution literally or anything but…

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.^[1]

So its congress this bill restricts.

The judicial and executive branch can still mess with these things.

As they often do

No they can’t because they would violate natural law, plus they aren’t given that power under the Constitution.

[Marked]

So its congress this bill restricts.

The judicial and executive branch can still mess with these things.

As they often do

The 10th amendment “Should have” restricted the Executive and Judicial branches, as there was no power of Judicial Review outlined in the Constitution and the Executive wasn’t permitted to mess with those things either.