The recent attempt by a school principal here in Nebraska to forbid the celebration of Christmas got me to thinking; maybe it’s time we made the observance and expression of Christmas into a constitutional right.
Other religious holidays too, but it’s obvious which one’s currently in the greatest peril.
Of course, my suggestion isn’t serious, only tongue-in-cheek…..but not wholly so.
It appears that the First Amendment freedoms of expression and of the practice of religion would cover instances such as the celebration of Christmas, but one doubts that Demos and their allies understand what the First Amendment means.
Maybe it should be spelled out for them.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The advantage to such a constitutional amendment is not only that it would be more easily understood, but more difficult to change. Changing constitutions is rather more difficult and time-consuming than simply passing laws.
I’m not familiar with firearms laws, and anyone is free to correct me if I’m wrong, but I have the impression that Vermont, the most dingbat state in the union, has some of the freest and loosest laws in America governing firearms.
This apparently is because the right to keep and bear arms is actually in the constitution of that state. Most states omit it because they assume the right is embodied in the federal constitution anyway.
But because it’s more difficult to change a constitution than to pass a law, despite Vermont trending towards leftist absolutism the past couple of generations, it still gives its citizens the right to keep and bear arms.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
There’s an advantage to the detailed itemizing of rights and liberties in a constitution; for example, the right to fish and hunt is embodied in the Nebraska constitution, which keeps the powerful and well-financed anti-hunting lobby here from making such activities illegal.
It’d be a lot easier if they could just pass anti-hunting laws, but they can’t do that; they have to change the state constitution.
Some years ago, North Dakota considered changing their constitution to making farming a constitutional right in that state.
The Demos and their allies protested; “This is a farming state; farming’s the main economic lifeblood of this state. We only want to regulate it, we have no intention of banning farming.”
When the Demos and their allies insist they have “no intention,” they actually have every intention in the world of doing what they say they won’t.
They after all are the masters of the slippery slope.
So…..even if it made the constitution two million words long, would it be a good idea or not, to enumerate and describe all of our rights and liberties, rather than assuming general statements cover them?