Talk:First Amendment to the United States Constitution

John Leland, James Madison, and political dealmaking

I've just introduced a citation of this book into the Separation of church and state in the United States article. Separately from the point for which I cited it, the book describes some wheeling and dealing re the First Amendment between John Leland and James Madison. The book says that Leland had planned a campaign against ratification of the constitution, that as a powerful Baptist he would probably have been able to prevent ratification by Virginia, and that without ratification by Virginia the constitution would have failed. However, Madison and Leland cut a deal for Leland to withdraw as an antiratification candidate and instead work to convince Baptists to vote for ratification in exchange for Madison introducing an amendment in the first Congress with the wording of the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Serious scholars probably know the story, but it was new to me and was interesting to learn. I thought that it might deserve a mention here, but I didn't want to make a ham-fisted edit of the Background section and plunk it in. Instead, I've mentioned it here thinking that one of the regular editors of this article might put it in a bit more artfully than I would have. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ex Parte Jackson

Under the Freedom of Speech section, the article states that, "The Supreme Court never ruled on the constitutionality of any federal law regarding the Free Speech Clause until the 20th century". I think that this statement is wrong. In Ex Parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727 (1877), the Supreme Court upheld the Comstock Act against a First Amendment challenge (among other things). While it is true that Jackson also deals with Enumerated Powers and Fourth Amendment issues, the freedom of speech issue is addressed and settled:

"In excluding various articles from the mail, the object of Congress has not been to interfere with the freedom of the press, or with any other rights of the people; but to refuse its facilities for the distribution of matter deemed injurious to the public morals." (id., at 736)

So I think that, unless we want to be picky about distinguising freedom of speech from freedom of press, at least one pre-1900 Supreme Court case concerned the constitutionality of a federal law on free speech grounds.

Accordingly, I think the article should be amended, but as an anonymous user lack the means to do this.

128.12.32.48 (talk) 08:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Separation of church and state

Neither the phrase nor the concept of "separation of church and state" can be found in the First Amendment. The phrase "separation of church and state" has been taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. The letter was unrelated to constitutional documents authored by Jefferson. Wikipedia has inserted this phrase into the definition of the First Amendment to insinuate that this phrase or its concept exists within the First Amendment itself. It does not, and should be removed. Duffbash (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... The final sentence of the lead para reads, "The amendment is also interpreted as the constitutional origin of the separation of church and state as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States.", supported by an explanatory footnote citing several sources. I think that footnote and the cited sources do provide good support for the "... is also interpreted as ..." characterization. Out of curiosity, I took a look at the timeline:

• 1787-09-17 - Ratification of the U.S. Constitution[1]
• 1791-12-15 - Ratification of the first Amendment[2]
• 1802-01-01 - Date of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association[3]

Over ten years between the ratification of the first amendment and Jefferson's 1802 letter. The explanatory footnote mentions subsequent SCOTUS cases in 1879 and 1947. However, see Thomas White (2007), First Freedom: The Baptist Perspective on Religious Liberty, B&H Publishing Group, pp. 105-107, ISBN 9780805443875, re interaction between Jefferson and John Leland prior to the ratification of the constitution. Also see Paul Charles Kemeny; Clarke E. Cochran; Derek H. Davis (2007), Church, state, and public justice: five views, InterVarsity Press, pp. 96–99, ISBN 9780830827961, and no doubt other relevant sources.

IMHO the statement in the lede, though adequately supported by the footnote, could use clarification later in the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I improved the wording of the Establishment Clause material in the Introduction. I also removed the footnote's reference to the Establishment Clause being "under attack" by some federal judges. "Attack" is a loaded word and there could be other reasons for those judges disagreeing with the separation interpretation of the Establishment Clause (e.g., they could believe the Clause requires governmental neutrality toward religion, rather than governmental separation from it). SMP0328. (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of Speech, where it has limits

The U.S. Consitution does not ban nor promote any laws, be it federal or state, to ban speech in the public. However, there are laws in existence to prevent libel, slander, defamation of ones' character and verbal hate crimes ("hate speech").

Five known public arenas where the freedom of speech does not completely apply in:

• 1. Private property - such as the workplace, a for-profit business can prohibit any form of speech the business management and executive wants or desires, out of concerns for professionalism. The consequences of violating workplace rules may or will include termination, and a discharged former employee can't always fight back for their job, when their speech was proved to be disruptive in a work environment.

• 2. Government-run entities - Public education or schools for instance, and buildings of functions where the government provides services to the public. In a public school like a grade, middle/Junior high or (senior) high levels, a pupil or student can get expelled, suspended and/or put in detention for verbal abuse and talking inappropriately during class or within the boundaries of school campus.

• 3. Indian Reservations - Indian tribes are separate governmental bodies, said the part of the U.S. constitution that calls for state, federal and tribal laws. They can have their own laws, their own enforcement and their own prosecution in the B.I.A. (Bureau of Indian Affairs) court sustem. But, all Indian reservations and communities in the U.S. recognize the constitution and tribal members of all 565 federally-recognized and 100? state-recognized tribes/nations are U.S. citizens.

• 4. The Military - The U.S. Military Code applies on the bases wherever they are located, in the contiguous U.S., territorial jurisdictions or outside the U.S. et al. They have their own police (the MP), military courts and prisons, and in the Military Code 174 prohibits officers or employees in the armed forces (esp. in uniform on duty) from criticizing the president of the United States, in most part because the president is their Commander-in-Chief of the U.S Armed Forces.

• and 5. Churches or places of worship - There is complete separation for churchs and religious sects on their own properties to decide on legal matters, one reason why you read/hear about news stories of runaway fugitives/criminals seek refuge in a place of worship away from the police during chases, and that law enforcement awaits on the perimeter of church property until the surrender or the go-ahead by the church (most have their own security) in case they are in danger. + 71.102.12.55 (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)