1. Free Speech. This one seems to come up when someone says something hateful or stupid (to some folks) and faces a consequence for it. Those who like what that person said often run about bemoaning that the person saying hateful or stupid (to some people) things has been deprived of "free speech". Not only is that completely wrong, but it is compounded by the fact that what the bemoaners are running about bemoaning is ALSO the exercise of First Amendment rights. Let's take the "Duck Dynasty" contretemps. Phil Robertson said something hateful and stupid (to some people). He was exercising his right to free speech. No government, whether federal, state, or local, tried to stop him from saying it, nor did any government punish him for saying it. That's really the end of the story as it regards the First Amendment. As long as the government does not try to stop you from saying something or punish you for saying it, you have enjoyed your entire rights to free speech. BUT, other folks are also free to complain that what was said was hateful or stupid (to some people), employers (absent some contract provision or, heaven forbid, union agreement) can fire/suspend/whatever someone for such speech, AND, by exercising the right to free assembly, folks can organize boycotts or public protests of the hateful and stupid (to some people) speech. So, when "Duck Dynasty" was temporarily suspended by the A&E Network, when Mr. Robertson was loudly criticized, when boycotts of the show were urged, that was not some nefarious infringement of Mr. Robertson's Constitutional rights carried out by the purveyors of "political correctness" (which I've come to understand is code for "my right to say hateful or stupid {to some people}things") but simply a vigorous exercise of First Amendment rights. So, in summary, say all the hateful or stupid (to some people) things you want--just be prepared for others to exercise their right to free speech in response.
2. Guns. Oh boy. No, I don't have enough time or space to deal with all (or even many) of the issues. My opinion is that a significant minority of Americans have become completely unhinged about guns and their fantasy that they are some type of cross between Jason Bourne/Dirty Harry/Nathan Hale and whomever else is a real danger. But let me just leave it at this. The notion that an individual had the right to keep and bear arms, at all, was not a settled issue until the 2008 Supreme Court decision of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (text of opinion) and that was a bare 5-4 majority. BUT, I repeat, BUT,even the conservative majority in Heller, led by the author of the opinion, Antonin Scalia, recognized that this right was clearly subject to regulation: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever, in any manner whatsoever, and for whatever purpose". So, when someone proposes gun regulation (NOT gun prohibition) stop running about shrieking about the deprivation of your Second Amendment rights, because they are not being infringed. Don't take my word for it, take Justice Scalia's.
4. Yes, I skipped 3, because I'm not going to talk about the Third Amendment right now, although there are some fascinating potential Third Amendment issues surrounding the militarization of police forces. But that's for another post. My last point for THIS post is the "technicalities" amendment. I always hear people say that a person charged with a crime was acquitted "on a technicality". In fact, I heard a potential juror say it in a trial I had recently. That term has always enraged me, so, me being me, I decided to confront this juror as to what he meant by a "technicality". Seems what he meant, and what most people who use that term mean, is that evidence did not come into a trial because it was deemed by the court to be inadmissible. The most common reason evidence is inadmissible is that it was obtained in violation of either the Fourth (search and seizure/due process) or the Sixth (confrontation) Amendments. Why is the protection of someone's Constitutional rights considered a "technicality"? Because they are charged with a crime? Because law enforcement is always a force for good? I'm not going to go into the specifics of the rationale behind Fourth and Sixth (and, actually Fifth and Fourteenth as well) Amendment law, but suffice it to say that if you fear real and not imagined government intrusion into your everyday life, you should not consider the suppression of evidence as a "technicality" to "get criminals off". And, yes, that goes for the people who are "really guilty" too.
So, this has been fun, and there's lots more to get to but that's enough for one sitting. Bottom line: chances are that most of the people you hear or read blathering about "The Constitution" or waiving their pocket copy of it around, don't have the slightest clue what it really says or really means. Don't fall for it. And next time you are inclined to think something is or isn't Constitutional, stop and do a little research first.
