The Constitution Cannot Be Amended By Changing The Meaning Of Words

The Constitution of the United States defines two methods by which it can be changed: by Amendment and by Constitutional Convention.  In both cases, two thirds of the States must accept the changes in order for them to be ratified and become a permanent part of our Constitution.  Any attempt to change the Constitution outside of these two methods is – by definition – unconstitutional.  This means it is not law and the people have no moral obligation to hold themselves bound by the change.  In fact, an attempt to alter or change the Constitution by any means other than the amendment or convention process constitutes subversion, which every citizen has a moral obligation to resist.  This applies to Congress’ latest attempt to nullify the 1^st Amendment:

Bill to protect journalists clears Senate panel

The Senate Judiciary Committee approves a media shield bill to keep ‘real reporters’ from having to testify on their work.

On the surface, this story makes it sound as though Congress is trying to protect the 1^st Amendment, but, as with so many things in Washington, the reality is just the opposite.  This story is about Congress establishing control over the 1^st Amendment by giving itself the power to define the meaning of words:

Senate Amendment Would Give DOJ Power to Determine Who Is a ‘Journalist’

The 1^st Amendment reads:

Amendment I

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.

But notice: these stories are about a bill addressing journalism, not the press.  This is the first deliberate attempt at deception.  It provides Congress with a false defense.  They will claim they did not write a law concerning the press, therefore, they did not violate the 1^st Amendment.  But they cannot get away with this if we know the truth behind the words of the 1^st Amendment.  The definition of press reads as follows:

Definition of PRESS

b :  the act or the process of printing

c :  a printing or publishing establishment

7a :  the gathering and publishing or broadcasting of news :  journalism

b :  newspapers, periodicals, and often radio and television news broadcasting

c :  news reporters, publishers, and broadcasters

d :  comment or notice in newspapers and periodicals <is getting a good press>

Notice, journalism is only one aspect of the definition of ‘press.’  Now, in our founders’ time, this was not the definition they used.  Thomas Paine, the man who wrote “Common Sense” and several other pamphlets responsible for helping to launch the American Revolution, was not a journalist: he was a pamphleteer, a commentator, and opinion man.  In other words, he was the equivalent of a Revolutionary-age blogger.  This is what our founder’s meant when they said Congress has no authority over the press.

But there’s more.  Notice these words in the 1^st Amendment:

 “…or abridging the freedom of speech,…”

This is a guarantee to every individual, and it is yet another place where Congress and the courts have altered the Constitution without amending it or going through the convention process.  The right to free speech never extended to the right to say whatever we feel like, and it definitely did not extend to actions.  Actions are not speech, but we have given them the equivalent of speech under our laws.  This is a bastardization of the law.  What our founders intended to protect was political speech; the ability to object to our government and to the policies of those in government without fear of reprisal from that government.  This is exactly what the ‘Journalism Shield’ law is all about: a reprisal against those who are objecting to those in power.

Under this new law, only the people our government decides it will recognize as journalists will be afforded their Constitutional protections.  Anyone outside the government definition of journalist will be subject to differential treatment under the law – another violation of the Constitution (this time, the 14^th Amendment).  By any objective standard, this is a clear act of subversion: it is the deceitful dismantling of our 1^st Amendment protections.  Simply stated, this is an act of tyranny.

Before leaving this subject, let’s remind ourselves that this is how slavery was justified and the Holocaust, too: by re-defining who is and who is not human.  If they can do that to human beings simply by changing the definition of words, then what is to stop them from doing whatever they wish – except opposition from you and I?

This story is an indication of how far we have strayed from the society which founded this nation:

Google’s Eric Schmidt says government spying is ‘the nature of our society’

Tech giant’s executive chairman calls for greater transparency but declines to ‘pass judgment’ on spying operations

Our nation was founded upon the principles of Natural Law, Natural Rights and the Social Contract – as Locke understood them.  Under this understanding – the understanding of our founding fathers – the government can have no authority to do anything that you and I do not have.  In other words, government can never become greater than any of its individual creators.  Government is a servant and never the master.  Therefore, unless you and I can claim a Natural Right to spy on each other – which we cannot do under Natural Law – then the government cannot claim such a right.  The best we can do is to grant a civil authorization to government to do so and even then, only under very narrowly defined conditions.  This is why we have a 4^th Amendment: to define these narrow conditions.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Essentially, the right to be secure in our person, property, papers and effects is the right to privacy.  The nature of a ‘reasonable’ search depends upon the evidence that we have violated an essential term of the Social Contract.  Government’s power to look into our private affairs comes from the reason for the Social Contract: to protect individual rights and liberty.  If there is no indication that a citizen has actually harmed another person or caused monetary damage to the private property of another person, then there can be no authority for government to infringe on that person’s Natural Right to privacy.  The government cannot first look for that evidence and then claim authority; the evidence must be presented before government can claim the authority to look into our private affairs.  This is why the 4^th Amendment stipulates that someone must swear an oath or affirmation of what it is I am said to have done and what the government is supposed to look for and where the government should look to find it.  Any search or discovery outside the thing(s) this oath alleges would not be within government’s power to investigate – period.

In this sense, a government search is the transfer of our collective Natural Right of self-defense to the government.  We have no Natural Right to invade each other’s privacy.  However, if we know that another person has caused harm, or we have reasonable cause to suspect another person has caused harm, then we do have a Natural Right to defend ourselves and our neighbors from that harm.  This would then give us a Natural Right to investigate the person suspected of having caused the harm – but not before or without reasonable cause.  When we enter into a society (i.e. agree to the Social Contract which formed that society), we agree to transfer the majority of our Natural Right to self defense to the government.  However, under Natural Law – as our founders understood it – the government is still bound by the same restrictions as each of us is individually.  Thus, the government still needs a citizen or citizens to present the evidence that justifies a search.  We cannot just ‘spy’ on each other until we find evidence, then go back and use the results of our spying against that person after the fact because, before the evidence is presented, it is we who are violating Natural Law.  And, in the case of government spying before hand, the government is violating both Natural Law and the Social Contract.

This is why the NSA and other domestic spying programs is such an egregious offense.  It amounts to a total reversal of the foundation of this nation.  Hobbes is the one who argued that our rights come from government.  The European model is the system of justice where a person is assumed guilty and must prove they are innocent.  None of this is “American” in nature.  None of this is in accordance with the principles of individual rights and liberty.

Nor can we claim that a violation of the Social Contract/Natural Law is allowable in the name of security.  The government mandate to protect and defend is not a mandate of ordered importance.  In other words, it is not above the government’s mandate to protect the Natural Rights of every individual.  If this means our society is put at risk in order to protect the individual rights of our citizens, then this is simply the price that a free society must be willing to pay.  To claim otherwise is to claim society is greater than the sum of its parts, thereby rendering the Social Contract null and void. Republican government and the rule of law cannot recognize an artificial entity as having more rights than any of the real persons who created that artificial entity.  At the point where the rights of society (artificial) are asserted to be greater than the rights of any one citizen (real), liberty and the rule of law end and tyranny begins.