Amendment 1

« Back to Glossary Index

“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.” It is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. The First Amendment has been under assault with the Bible and prayer being removed from schools and government institutions (1960’s), so-called “Free Speech Zones” popping up on  “public” land, and governing bodies instituting “permit” processes before individuals or groups can assemble to exercise political speech. The deep state is also using social media platforms to silence dissenting voices as ‘hate speech, etc.

When the original constitution was created there was significant opposition due to the lack of adequate guarantees for civil freedoms. To offer such liberties, the First Amendment (in addition to the rest of the Bill of Rights) was offered to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789 and later adopted on December 15, 1791. The First Amendment was written to protect that which is controversial and often, unpopular. These rights are a direct threat to the authority of the State, and if those in power can control the message in the public square, they neutralize the threat.

Religious Freedom

Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination – a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:

[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly.

Religious freedom is being eroded in various states, as private business owners are now being forced to either violate personal religious tenets or close up shop.

America was founded by pilgrims who came here to escape religious tyranny and to practice their faiths freely. Years later, our Founding Fathers would underscore the importance of this fundamental principled, often called the “First Freedom,” by enshrining it in the first amendment.

In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.

The election of Jefferson – America’s first Anti-Federalist President – elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.

Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him:

Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity . . . to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. . . . [W]e have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which He bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. . . . And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator. [1]

However, in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for “the free exercise of religion”:

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. [2]

In short, the inclusion of protection for the “free exercise of religion” in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected-unless, as they had explained, someone’s religious practice caused him to “work ill to his neighbor.”
Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:

[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Kentucky Resolution, 1798 [3]
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 [4]
[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 [5]

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 [6]

Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long
witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster:

It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors . . . and which experience has nevertheless proved they [the government] will be constantly encroaching on if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious [effective] against wrong and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion. [7]

Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination – a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:

[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. [8]

Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity” by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.

Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:

Gentlemen, – The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem. [9]

Jefferson’s reference to “natural rights” invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase “natural rights” communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.

By definition, “natural rights” included “that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain.” [10] That is, “natural rights” incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their “natural rights” they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.

So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America’s inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? [11]

Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence” of the Webster letter and the “wall” of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.

Earlier courts long understood Jefferson’s intent. In fact, when Jefferson’s letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only twice prior to the 1947 Everson case – the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today’s Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson’s entire letter and then concluded:

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson’s letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. (emphasis added) [12]

That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson’s intent for “separation of church and state”:

[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. [13]

With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government “to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.”

That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People), identified actions into which – if perpetrated in the name of religion – the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc.
Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were “subversive of good order” and were “overt acts against peace.” However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in “the Books of the Law and the Gospel” – whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.

Therefore, if Jefferson’s letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given – as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson’s Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America’s history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter – words clearly divorced from their context – have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson’s Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson’s views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment.

For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the “power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States” (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.

One further note should be made about the now infamous “separation” dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase “separation of church and state.” It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment – as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did.

In summary, the “separation” phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson’s explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. “Separation of church and state” currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.

https://wallbuilders.com/separation-church-state/

Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment and is re-established in the majority of state and federal laws. This particular clause typically protects and individual’s right to partake in even distasteful rhetoric, such as racist or sexist comments and distasteful remarks towards public policy. Speech directed towards some subjects; however, such as child pornography or speech that incites an imminent threat, as well commercial forms of speech are regulated.

Grassroots activists and the organizations they affiliate with are under attack and laws, dubbed “Gag Acts,” are being proposed that will suppress their outreach efforts, while powerful corporate lobbyists are gaining ever more control over politicians. And under the guise of “Campaign Finance Reform,” states across the nation are proposing legislation that would force citizens to fund politicians’ campaigns using taxpayer dollars. (via CampaignForLiberty)

Leftists are the biggest opponents of free speech, as they demand liberal censorship of views they do not like, especially Christian, patriot, conservative, or libertarian ones. Such views are often demonized in the liberal media with its media bias. Ironically, however, Leftists used free speech to orchestrate the French Revolution by publishing damaging lies against King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, as well as lies against Christianity, as well as ensure the promotion and domination of destructive ideologies such as Communism and Socialism during the Free Speech Movement of 1964, along with promoting leftist ideology in general through free speech. Generally, the Left only favors free speech when it is convenient for them, but they are quick to demand that anyone who simply disagrees with their views and opinions be stripped of the right to free speech and, in violation of the First Amendment (or similar laws guaranteeing free speech in other countries, such as Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms), illegally try to do so through corrupt liberal public officials and leftist activists with the use of deceit (including false claims of “hate speech”), threats, intimidation and criminal tactics. In fact, federal law makes it illegal for anyone to conspire to suppress free speech or any other freedoms enjoyed by the public under the Constitution or federal law, although leftists in the public sphere have gone out of their way to ignore such laws as not being convenient to their goals.

Free speech is threatened by “hate speech” codes favored by the Left which define certain types of statements as “hate crimes” (as defined by liberal politicians). While supposedly protecting vulnerable groups (such as “questioning gay teens”) from verbal abuse, rules and laws provide no clear distinction between “hurtful” speech and simply expressing one’s opinion. Religious people, accordingly, worry that “hate crimes” legislation in America will be used to stop preachers and others from saying out loud or in print that homosexuality is evil, dangerous and basically anti-life.

Not every form of expression is protected as free speech. For example, statements connected with unlawful conduct (including death threats against others and incitement to riot, vandalism, assault, terrorism and other criminal acts) are typically illegal.

(via Conservapedia)

Free Press

Freedom of the press is the right to publish materials without government interference or censorship. It is an explicit part of the free speech protections of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights. However, press freedom is in the crosshairs of federal, state, and local governing bodies, causing a chilling effect on reporting.

Local ordinances requiring a permit to organize or exercise speech are on the rise, and fees are often charged in order to acquire the permit. Acquiring a permit can be an arduous process, and delays in application approval can hamstring even the most prepared grassroots groups.

Orwellian no speech and free speech “zones” have been increasingly used by government entities over the past two decades. Citizens wanting to exercise their right to peacefully assemble are corralled into cages or cordoned-off areas, often far-removed from the media, politicians, or officials they are attempting to appeal to.

The use of free speech zones proliferated after 9/11 and expanded even more in recent years. And while they’re most commonly used to limit political speech, they’ve also been used to constrain religious speech. For instance, at the San Francisco National Airport, individuals wishing to hand out religious pamphlets must first acquire a permit and then are confined to “free speech booths.”

At the same time various governing bodies move to restrict individual First Amendment rights, media censorship is on the rise. For instance, media is often barred from accessing free speech zones. This is a dangerous practice, as it removes all accountability and permits government officials to control the narrative unchecked.

In August 2014, after riots and demonstrations broke out in Ferguson, Missouri, a “no fly zone” was quickly established over the area. Initially, local authorities denied the purpose of the restriction was to keep the media out, but in November 2014, according to the Associated Press, audio recordings proved otherwise.

During that same event, two journalists on the ground settled into a restaurant several blocks from the activity so they could recharge their phones. They attempted to follow orders to leave given by police in riot gear, but they received conflicting orders, then were allegedly roughed up and arrested. Another media crew was fired on with tear gas and rubber bullets.

These are just a couple of stories of many involving suppression of the media, and as Thomas Jefferson warned, without freedom of the press, liberty will be lost. When journalists are threatened with jail time for doing their job, they begin to question whether it’s worth the risk to bring you the news.

And a distinction is now being made between “professional” media and “citizen journalists.” This is a clear attempt to discount the reporting of private citizens attempting to bring attention to issues of concern to them.

In response to the popularity of social media, such as blogs, Facebook, and Twitter, officials are now increasing their online presence in an attempt to invalidate public criticism.

It is not the responsibility of government to limit speech in the public square in order to protect citizens from controversial views; rather, it is the prerogative of citizens to discern for themselves what they want to listen to, read, research, and believe. The First Amendment was written to restrain government, not the people.

There is much that can be done at the state and local level to stop many of these infringements, such as Gag Acts, Public Campaign Financing, speech “permits,” and the establishment of free speech zones. Campaign for Liberty state groups have derailed assaults on political speech in a number of states already, but there is more work to do. That’s why we need your help.

Freedom of assembly is the right of the people to get together (as for conferences or demonstrations) to petition the government with grievances.

The Right to petition is one of the five key rights protected by the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It has its origins in Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, and the English Bill of Rights.

Current First Amendment Battles


In the first extensive commentary on our Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story explained that the First Amendment means Christianity only, not any other belief. This is the intent of our Founding Fathers. Justice Story’s popular 1833 work was reprinted for 72 years. He had been on the Supreme Court since 1811 and he wrote:

“The real object of the [First] Amendment was, not to countenance [approve], much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity [secularism], by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects [denominations]…”

The First Amendment of our Christian nation says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of [one Christian denomination] religion, or prohibiting the free exercise [of Christian religion] thereof…”

The First Amendment is not meant for other religions but to allow Americans to practice Christianity in their Christian denomination. Our Founding Fathers declared independence with Christian liberty. Also notice the oaths taken in our nation to God on the Holy Bible. By including the Holy Bible we show this is to the LORD not a foreign god. It is important to understand these two points about our Founding Fathers. They believed:

1.  Christian faith is the most important part of life, and

2.  USA freedom is for Christian freedom, not all “freedoms”.

Sources:

Chronological History of Events Related to the First Amendment

Whistleblower Tony Bobulinski Releases Statement that He Personally Witnessed Former VP Joe Biden Involved in Deals with Hunter Biden

Whistleblower Tony Bobulinski Releases Statement that He Personally Witnessed Former VP Joe Biden Involved in Deals with Hunter Biden

(Breitbart) A whistleblower CEO and Biden insider, Tony Bobulinski, released a public statement on Wednesday evening backing up the reporting of the New York Post from last week and claiming that he personally witnessed Democrat presidential nominee former Vice President Joe Biden discussing business deals with his son, Hunter Biden. Sources familiar with the matter told Breitbart News that Bobulinski is the person whose allegations and inside information ...
Read More
Twitter Changes Retweet Functionality to Add ‘Friction’ Before Election

Twitter Changes Retweet Functionality to Add ‘Friction’ Before Election

Social media site Twitter is reportedly altering how retweets work on its platform ahead of the November presidential election in an attempt to prevent the spread of what it considers “misinformation” on the platform. The company hopes that adding “friction,” or extra clicks, will slow down the virality of content like the New York Post Biden bombshells the company clumsily censored last week. The Verge reports that social media giant ...
Read More
DOJ Files Long-Awaited Antitrust Suit Against Google

DOJ Files Long-Awaited Antitrust Suit Against Google

The Justice Department has filed its long-awaited antitrust lawsuit against Google, alleging that the Big Tech Masters of the Universe engaged in anticompetitive practices to preserve its monopoly power and crush competitors to its search and advertising businesses. The Wall Street Journal first broke the story on Tuesday morning that the lawsuit would finally be filed. According to a report by Reuters, the DOJ has filed its hotly-anticipated antitrust lawsuit ...
Read More
Facebook Whistleblower Exposes "Hate-Speech Engineering" Group, Staffed With Chinese Nationals; NYPost

Facebook Whistleblower Exposes “Hate-Speech Engineering” Group, Staffed With Chinese Nationals; NYPost

Republican criticism of Facebook is that the social network suppresses conservative speech, though the company has long rejected such allegations. But a new report, via NYPost, reveals at least half a dozen "Chinese nationals" are working with the social media company to develop complex algorithms and neural networks for censoring newsfeeds. Lately, Republicans have been infuriated by Facebook and Twitter for their limitations, or in some cases, the complete ...
Read More
Project Veritas Strikes Again! Google Program Manager Confirms Election Interference in Favor of Joe Biden

Project Veritas Strikes Again! Google Program Manager Confirms Election Interference in Favor of Joe Biden

Project Veritas on Monday evening released undercover video of a Google program manager confirming election interference in favor of Joe Biden. “When you type in Donald Trump it’s all negative and when you type in Joe Biden it’s all positive,” Project Veritas said to Google program manager Ritesh Lakhkar. Ritesh Lakhkar responded and said, “It’s skewed by owners and drivers of the algorithm.” “If Trump wins, ...
Read More