Why the First Amendment IS an anti trust law.

[Brian37]

RationalPoet........Ok folks here is the complete text of the First Amendment. Now, I just had a typical Ayn Rand atheist argue that the First Amendment was NOT an anti monopoly/anti trust law. I have argued a long time that it IS. Without the tool of challenge to power you allow for a monopoly to arise.

FIRST AMENDMENT "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" ...........

It is because of the last part that is why it is an anti monopoly/anti trust law.. It is not a given that the majority or minority will win, but merely a tool allowing ANYONE to challenge laws they may see as hurting their rights on anyone of those issues. That is what makes it an anti monopoly law.

[Minimalist]

to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" ...........

Yeah...but...the people they are petitioning are already owned by the upper 1% which makes the whole thing academic.

[Brian37]

to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" ...........

Yeah...but...the people they are petitioning are already owned by the upper 1% which makes the whole thing academic.

You can argue the pendulum is lopsided and is currently stuck at this point. That does not mean we do not have the power with a sustained push to counter and fix this lopsidedness. The tool itself is there for us to us. Along with the rest of the First Amendment.

[KUSA]

That does not mean we do not have the power with a sustained push to counter and fix this lopsidedness. The tool itself is there for us to us.

That would be the second amendment.

[Dystopia]

It's always fun to see how different American laws can be when compared to European ones, particularly the dichotomy of the Commonwealth system V. the Civil Law system based on Roman law.

A European version of the same constituional principle would say Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances - Except if any of those rights represent an attempt towards other individuals' fundamental rights, such as life, physical integrity or any other no one can abide~

Out of curiosity - Why put in the same amendment freedom of speech, religion press and freedom of assembly all mixed up in the same paragraph? Why not create an article or law for every one of those rights, since they are connected to an extent but are intrinsically different?

[Minimalist]

That does not mean we do not have the power with a sustained push to counter and fix this lopsidedness. The tool itself is there for us to us. Along with the rest of the First Amendment.

When you figure out how to rouse the American public from its lethargy let me know.

[Brian37]

That does not mean we do not have the power with a sustained push to counter and fix this lopsidedness. The tool itself is there for us to us.

That would be the second amendment.

Um no, if you value Tea Party nuts you are barking up the wrong tree. Or if you value Che as a solution, you are also barking up the wrong tree with me.

I do not value the idea of a revolution just to have one. I have seen too much of human history in print and even within my lifetime on the news to know you simply don't tip over power just because you don't like the way things are currently going. Most of the time when people do that it ends up as simply a power vacuum that shifts one monopoly to another monopoly.

I think our secular west has done far better than one party states or theocracies as far as human rights. I value our constitution and do not see a need to throw it out because I do not like the way some are abusing it currently.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Out of curiosity - Why put in the same amendment freedom of speech, religion press and freedom of assembly all mixed up in the same paragraph? Why not create an article or law for every one of those rights, since they are connected to an extent but are intrinsically different?

Probably because they were seen as equally vital to democracy, and in many ways achieve their full value only when used in conjunction with each other.

[Minimalist]

That would be the second amendment.

You're so funny, man. The gun nuts would be cheering the forces of repression - not fighting it.

They may have conned you with their 'freedom' bullshit but not me.

[Dystopia]

Out of curiosity - Why put in the same amendment freedom of speech, religion press and freedom of assembly all mixed up in the same paragraph? Why not create an article or law for every one of those rights, since they are connected to an extent but are intrinsically different?

Probably because they were seen as equally vital to democracy, and in many ways achieve their full value only when used in conjunction with each other.

Yes, however you could simply write the first amendment and, put, let's say, 10 articles to spit out all rights, and they wouldn't have to be unequally important - But I understand different legislative traditions and habits give origin to different ways to write down and express legal definition on paper. I was just curious