The First amendment of the United States Constitution is probably the most well-known and possibly most important amendment. With its ratification on December 15th, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, Americans possessed these fundamental human rights as a formal addition to their nations founding document. One of the most interesting developments that derive from these amendments is the philosophical arguments that sprout from them, some of which are still debated to this day. Very complex and nuanced questions that require answers like where exactly do we draw the line on protected speech and press? Who is allowed to enforce those demarcations? And how do we prevent an abuse of power of such an entity? These are all questions that will be explored to begin uncovering the principles of a free nation, The United States.
In an attempt to answer such questions, or at least gain some more insight on their foundation, we look to the historical context in which these amendments and related documents were written. The study of these documents is necessary not only for the concept but for the language as well, as the diction the founding fathers used was not arbitrary, the specific words were chosen for a reason. This lays bare yet another reason why studying history is of upmost importance, for it is the only way that we can attempt to understand these concepts from the perspective of their authors.
Purpose of the first amendment
Remember that the first amendment was ratified a little over a decade after the revolutionary war. Americans had just finished fighting a war in which they criticized the government and to declare they wanted no part of it anymore. In this way, the first amendment allows people to repeat their actions. Essentially, these five freedoms prevented the government from not allowing the people to criticize them.
The idea that people have the natural rights of thought, expression and conscience permeates the entire document as well as is explicitly stated within the Declaration of Independence. Directly, I am referring to the “unalienable rights” of which the founders wrote. Essentially, the five freedoms are restrictions on the government to protect these natural (unalienable) rights that are “endowed by (our) creator” from the government that was instated to protect such rights. Both these unalienable rights and the reason why a government is necessary for a country are stated near the beginning of the Declaration of Independence,
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Declaration of Independence (US 1776)
So essentially, the government is meant to protect the rights of its people at their consent. However, if the government fails to protect or actively infringes upon these rights, the bill of rights is established to grant the citizens the ability to protect their rights themselves. This is why we must study other historical documents as well, not only the constitution. For example, some source even state that the James Madison literally had some of the revolutionary state constitutions at his side when he drafted the constitution and the bill of rights.
Why even bring up the First Amendment now?
For one, it is an obvious example of how these fundamental natural rights of people manifest in these documents. The Five freedoms are an obvious derivative of the right of expression. Secondly, it is a great example of how there are still arguments today about where exactly government involvement should be allowed. Especially with the amount of censorship today in seemingly all formats.
In a way, the first amendment symbolizes the need of the people to protect themselves from their fellow man in the case that the government converts the country from that of law to that of man. The reason for having such a constitution is to maintain a country of law that is based on logical reason and conscience. However, the government is comprised of the citizens fellow man, and therefore are subject to the same flaws as the citizenry. In the event of a nation that runs purely on the rule of law, where that law is based upon reason, there might be a sound argument that the first amendment is not necessary. Nonetheless, the world is obviously not perfect, nor based upon pure sound reason, therefore the first amendment serves as a check on the government to conserve the balance of the nation’s society.
Final Thoughts
One thing to remain cognizant of while we seek answers for the rather philosophical questions and a deeper understanding of the principles on which the United States was founded, is the need to keep political views separate from constitutional views. Everyone has an opinion on what the government SHOULD do in a given situation, but we need to understand what the government is ALLOWED to do. The answer posed for the same question can be radically different if these two sets of views are combined.
As always, comments and feedback are extremely welcome. As are alternate points of view. The topics involves in this series are not to be taken lightly. We are discussing principles that for countries, societies, and nations. History proves that basing the foundation of a nation upon loose principles does not end well to say the least. That is why it is necessary to discuss these topics in full sunlight, for all to see because any weakness in the principles themselves can lead to the crumbling of the foundation of a society itself.
To your wealth and future,
James Forsythe
For more on the subject
https://jamesdforsythe.com/why-is-the-bill-of-rights-so-important/
