Neither the text nor history is a reliable guide to interpreting the amendment. And don't ask the current SCOTUS
We should have a pool every morning on how may articles you are going to cut & paste from Salon that day.
Much to be derided, I have often expressed the opinion that our U.S. Constitution, now in its third century, is obsolescent, despite numerous Amendments. Then, I have added, somewhat tongue in check, that we ought to burn it and start over. The reality of my remark scares me. I think I'd rather put up with current defects than chance what an entirely new Constitution might bring. We can, however, make improvements. The First Amendment, off all the amendments, including the Second, is the one that must be repealed and replaced with an up to date version if our Republic is to survive beyond its third century. Otherwise we are all living in the final century of our Republic. _________________________ Gore Vidal, a thorough student of American History, went to his grave, in 2012, convinced that we were living in the final century of our Republic. I hope he is proven wrong, but I think he was very likely right.
salon with another lets throw out the constitution so we can just let the cronies rule us like kings... piece of work. even its logic was screwy again... yes politicians act in violation of the constitution. that does not mean the first amendment was not there. your article should really serve as a warning of how dangerous a big central govt can be.
Have you read "The Liberty Amendments" by Mark Levin? If not, give it a read, followed by "Liberty and Tyranny", and "Ameritopia", though not necessarily in any particular order. It would be interesting to see if you still feel the way you do after you read them. I'll get you started...if you're interested. http://www.amazon.com/dp/1451606273/?tag=mh0b-20&hvadid=3484774537&ref=pd_sl_4jhmgsctx8_p