Constitutional Freedom

Is the First Amendment more of a freedom or a protection? While the arguments on either side could fill a volume of encyclopedias, I would posit that it is both. Turning back to the arguments brought by the Framers, proponents described one object of the Bill of Rights is, “to declare and specify the political privileges of the citizens in the structure and administration of government.” Nevertheless, in Federalist No. 84, Hamilton went so far as to call a bill of rights as not only “unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.” Nonetheless, the Anti-Federalists won. Yet the important part is not so much which argument won, as is the process the men went through at the Constitutional Convention to arrive at a final compromise. The fact that the Framers took the time to dissect and rehash an exhausted argument, I believe, shaped the Constitution and resulting amendments we have today.

Essentially, the First Amendment most famously described as the Amendment regarding freedom of the press and freedom of speech, preserves our rights and liberties in those realms. However, it accomplishes much more than a simple preservation of rights. While it is lauded for permitting peaceful public assembly and the right of the press to voice concerns and publish newsworthy information; it also shelters the American people from themselves. It reads:

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.

Couched within the framework of the First Amendment are protections that have developed with regard to defamation. There are also limits upon where people may voice their opinions and how; even though many of such limits are subject to tests of strict Constitutional scrutiny. Maybe it can be better said that freedom is a protection in and of itself. Still, I would add that our freedoms need bounds. Perhaps, this mirrors the fear expressed by Hamilton that a bill of rights would be dangerous and “would afford a colorable pretext [for individuals] to claim more than were granted.” Even today, I would wager that some still hold similar fears as those of Hamilton. However, I believe the very essence and conduct of the Constitutional Convention should assuage those fears as it stands a model of what the First Amendment’s freedoms are all about.

The Convention not only allowed dialogue and argument, but actually encouraged discussion of controversial issues. Nevertheless, decorum was essential and fully recognized within the walls of the Convention. Like the Framers realized, our Constitutional freedoms should never be removed from us, but must be acted upon and utilized within a framework of established civility necessary to the preservation of society. Without so-called limitations upon our freedoms, we would not live in a democracy, but an anarchy.