Could the Founding Fathers have been ANY clearer?

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

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

The Founders didn’t write, ” shall make few laws” or “shall make no law except…”.

They wrote “shall make NO law.”

What language could have been stronger than “shall make no law”?

Would adding “no laws. Really. None. Zero. Zip,” have kept the various Federal, State and local governments from restricting commercial speech, political speech, and so-called hate speech?

How could the Founders have been any clearer?

The same thing with the Second Amendment.

It reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

“Shall not be infringed” translates to “shall not undermine or encroach on.”

Who thinks the People’s right to keep and bear Arms has not been infringed on in the United States of America?

(Remember, I live in a part of the country where it is ILLEGAL for me to carry a gun. Period. Despite the Wisconsin Constitution literally guaranteeing my right to do so.)

There is no ambuguity in phrases like “shall make no laws” and “shall not be infringed.”

There are no gray areas.

There is no room for interpretation.

And yet the absolutes written into the Constitution have been absolutely violated by Congress, the Executive Branch, and, worst of all, the Judicial Branch for more than 200 years.

So answer my question: if the words “shall make no law” weren’t strong enough to keep us from having laws like the one I referenced in my last post, what language would have been?

8 comments March 14th, 2008