Washington (CNN) The Supreme Court will take up one of the most momentous cases of the term on Tuesday as it considers arguments from a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake to celebrate a same-sex couple’s marriage because he believes that God designed marriage to be between a man and a woman.
When explaining their reasoning for why national anthem protests should be allowed, many players have been quick to point out that they’re merely exercising their constitutional rights under the First Amendment. Well, someone who has forgotten more about the First Amendment than any inside linebacker will ever know, says that the constitution offers the players no such protection.
During a radio interview with john Castimatidis on 970 AM in New York, constitutional law scholar Alan Dershowitz said that the players have no constitutional right to kneel.
Dershowitz explained, “The players are entitled to kneel if the owners allow them to. Now the owners could say ‘no’ because the players don’t have a First Amendment right in relation to the owners. They only have a First Amendment right in relation to the government.”
Dershowitz added that he believes, the First Amendment is “working well” in the context of the NFL, because “both sides are being heard.”
Dershowitz is certainly correct in his appraisal of the constitutional implications of the player protests. He’s more right than not, when saying that “both sides are being heard.” However, while both sides of the protest debate have spoken, clearly, the NFL is only listening to one side.
Excerpt from the Book “Whatever Happen To COMMON SENSE”
By: Elmer Thomas Williams Jr.
The definition that has been ascribed to tolerance is that everybody’s lifestyle or opinion is true and carries equal weight, no matter how outrageous it may be. This just isn’t so. I hear people speak about diversity as if it is the highest form of virtue. If I have fifty-two fragrances of cow manure, does this make it smell like roses? I think not. Diversity without substance or standards still stinks.
Most proponents of diversity laud it just as long as it suits their argument. If you suggest that you should be able to say the name of Jesus in a public forum, they will say that this goes against the concept of separation of church and state. They make this argument even though the Constitution does not actually specify that church and state should be separate. If they are so into diversity, why don’t they have an open mind with regard to this aspect of it?
The first amendment says that ([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.” You will notice that the separation of church and state is not specifically referred to. It does say that Congress cannot institute a religion, but it also says Congress cannot make a law “prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” or “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” So if I want to invoke Jesus’ name, you have no right to scream, “Separation of church and state” because I am not attempting to establish a specific religion. Furthermore, I do not work for the government, so do not attempt to violate my first amendment rights.
We have allowed the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and partisan organizations to take our rights without a fight. Benjamin Franklin once said“Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” We are in need of a good rebellion in the greatUnited States of America. This is the only way to stop a hostile takeover by ungodly men and women.
Look at what ([ii]) Thomas Jefferson said about rebellion in a letter to William Smith in 1787:
What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
It might be time to fertilize this country with patriots, saints, tyrants, and dictators.
A man is always more famous after he dies. He has a vision of dying for a cause that is bigger than he is. Most of the time, he never sees the vision come to the light. Historians usually write about a man’s zeal and drive for his particular cause.
Adults always tell children not to give in to peer pressure, but it seems to me that adults are far worse than children when it comes to succumbing to pressures from their friends and family. We buy things we don’t even want in an effort to impress people we don’t even like. You might be at work or at family gathering and sense that something is wrong, but if the majority says everything is all right, you tend to go with the flow. The average person will suppress his or her own convictions just to get along with the views of the majority.
From The Book: “Whatever Happen To Common Sense”
Chapter 1 “Just Tell It Like It Is” – Buy Your Copy Now @