posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 01:16 AM
I would like to present a nagging concern of mine for general discussion. Like everyone else here at ATS, I have strong opinions on several subjects
that impact our daily lives to the extent we may or may not enjoy the freedoms we hope to anymore. What bothers me is the fact that as a people and a
nation we will never fully agree on some of these issues such as where to truly draw the line on freedom of speech (think Westboro Baptist Church),
the right to bear arms ("guns don't kill people, people do"), separation of church and state (VERY strong religious beliefs vs. VERY strong
opposing views), and more. So when the US Supreme Court is called upon to referee a dispute, the one ground rule overriding all others is "what does
the constitution have to say about it?" Even that is hotly disputed as it is virtually impossible to determine the distinction between the intent,
societal evolution since it was written, the "letter" of said rights and privileges, the potential for abuse by a privileged few, etc, etc...
Case in point: the Supreme Court recently ruled on Obamacare and virtually nothing was settled and several times it has been claimed the constitution
was just too vague or silent to offer guidance so the court had to guess. A much earlier ruling (Roe v. Wade) created such controversy and animosity
that a divide opened between genders, politicians, families, churches, and many, many more.
Again, due to the reigning interpretation of the constitution at that time in American history.
Finally to my question.: Where is common sense and what I would consider necessary flexibility and appropriately applied subjectivity? The ability to
color outside the lines if that is the correct action to take? For me personally, the Westboro issue is a prime candidate for restructure. If they
want to hide behind free speech, and the constitution directly or otherwise makes this possible, common sense should enable the law of the land to
stand up, acknowledge the constitution as the incredible guiding light it truly is, but make decisions that are in all good conscience a better
rendering for laws that reflect the best result for the citizens of this country. Westboro would be stripped of all the tax exemptions, any
governmental favoritism afforded religious organizations, and the Baptists would throw them out and disassociate as far away from them as possible. As
I mentioned earlier, I recognize that such interpretive latitude could easily be a double edged sword as judges and supreme court decisions could
intentionally or otherwise abuse the system, but I am at a point where I might be willing to take that risk in order to see better judgment in
establishing the laws of the land.
Respect where respect is due....almost 225 years and only 27 amendments have been deemed necessary. That, my fiends truly is near omniscient. Just not
quite. I am convinced to level the playing filed for the little guy, the under represented, the poverty stricken, the abused, and the many more
subsections of the population that could benefit substationally and rightfully from undue oppression, the vise the constitution has on our society
must be reexamined.
Does anyone understand or share this concern?