Editor's Notebook -- How have rights stood up?

I was having an interesting discussion the other day with one of my more conservative friends regarding the Constitution of the United States and how much Bush has savaged one of the most magnificent documents ever written.

With the Fourth of July just around the corner, it seemed appropriate to revisit the document that forms the basis for our government.

Although it is conservatives today who swear up and down by the Constitution, it was written by some of the most liberal thinkers of their time, and at the heart and soul of the document is the Bill of Rights.

In fact, were it not for the first ten amendments to the Constitution, not only would the Constitution probably not have been approved -- or survived -- but the very nature of the form of government we hold so dear might never have happened.

Most of what people think of, when they think of the Constitution, is the Bill of Rights. But surprisingly, some surveys have shown that when presented with certain specific problems involving one of these basic rights, many Americans would reject all or some of them.

So how well have those first ten amendments stood the test of time? Over the next couple of weeks, between now and the Fourth of July, let's look at each of the amendments, beginning with the vital First Amendment:

Amendment 1 -- Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.

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.

There are four parts to the First Amendment. The first, freedom of religion, has actually stood up pretty well. If anything, we've sometimes been a little overzealous in enforcing it. I don't, for example, have a problem with the Ten Commandments being on display in a courthouse, but in that case, I argue that it's an example of law, a basic component of the history of law. I do have problems when somebody wants it in the courthouse to promote their particular (in this case Christian) religion. Which is why it usually gets bounced out. Usually, the people who want it in a public building or on public grounds do so for religious reasons, not historical/legal ones. So by the very argument they use, they are going to lose.

Religion is always part of any society and culture. Religious morality will always be reflected in the laws developed by society. But the constitutional prohibition keeps us from falling into the tyranny of theocracy.

The Constitution does not, however, prevent religions from participating in government, simply government from participating in religion.

Which leads to some interesting political debate some time (e.g. evolution, prayer in school, abortion, stem cell research, etc.).

If you think governments are slow to change and react to new conditions, they work at lightning-fast speed compared to religions, since admission of any error in religious doctrine, no matter how "secular" that doctrine might have been, is often seen as threatening the entire religion. Heck, the Catholic church didn't officially accept Galileo's theories until late in the 20th century.

As a result, I'm not surprised when someone objects to teaching evolution on the grounds that Bishop Usher "proved" a couple hundred years ago that the world is only 6,000 years old, according to his interpretation of the Bible. Science and religion have always knocked heads.

Unfortunately, we live in a world today that is driven by science for our very existence and standard of living. But we still need the morality of religion to form the glue that keeps our society together. In the long run, science is almost always going to win most technical debates, but that doesn't mean it won't take a millennium or two of heated argument before it happens.

So the first part of the amendment, while it may cause some lively debate sometimes, still, overall, appears sound and robust. The amendment works well -- unless you're not a Christian. In that case, say if you're a member of a pagan religion like the Wiccans, or a Buddhist, or even worse, a Muslim, you may have to fight a little bit harder to be allowed to practice your religion. You shouldn't have to at all, but you do. Still, the courts almost always uphold the rights of all religions, so in the end, that section remains strong.

Freedom of speech and the press is a little less so. This ultimately, is the core of what makes our government work, the ability to criticize it without fear of reprisal.

There are limits of course. You can't yell "Fire!" in a theatre, and you can't advocate the violent overthrow of the government. But you can call the president, or a senator, or a mayor, an incompetent nincompoop and there's nothing they can do about it. You can even advocate the overthrow of the government by peaceful means (half a dozen states have made calls over the years for a new Constitutional Convention, for example).

But there have been ominous threats to this right. Nixon put together his "enemies" list to wiretap and burglarize (to find dirt on) some of the people who spoke out against him. It was illegal to do it then and it cost him. Under the Patriot Act, pushed by Bush and approved by Congress, a lot of things Nixon got in trouble over are now legal.

And both of Bush's attorney generals have contended that criticism of the president is tantamount to sedition (contending that the provision in Article III, Section 3, concerning "giving aid and comfort" to our enemies applies -- if you don't support Bush, you're helping our enemies, the argument goes). Fortunately, the courts require a slightly more rigorous test.

Then of course there's the part of current law that won't even let you make certain -- admittedly tasteless, but usually harmless -- jokes or comments in airports. You can get arrested for a bad sense of humor if you put your mouth in motion before you put your brain in gear. The First Amendment doesn't thrive real well in an airport these days.

So while that section of the First Amendment is still strong, there have been threats to it, and the more we move along the line toward an imperial presidency, the greater those threats become -- not so much on the surface, as behind the scenes where the ability to use technology and the Patriot Act to find blackmail on someone can be used to stifle dissent.

The third part of the First Amendment concerns the rights of the people to peaceably assemble. Once again, there's rarely a problem here, although in some places you may have to get a permit to do so (which can be refused). And, while some efforts to assemble peaceably have wound up turning violent, just as rarely agents of the government, usually police agencies, have attacked crowds of peaceful protesters. I remember the '68 Lincoln Avenue and Grant's Park riots when the Chicago police flat out attacked peaceful assemblies of protesters, and of course Kent State, that same year, when National Guard troops fired into a crowd of war protesters.

But overall, those were widely condemned errors and that right remains strong. The only time I know of that the government ever tried and succeeded, by law, to prevent peaceful assembly was during the 1918 flu epidemic, which killed millions, and that was a temporary public health measure.

Finally, the fourth part of the First Amendment involves the right to seek redress of grievances from the government. Actually, in some cases today, you can only sue the government if they let you. More commonly, however, trying to seek redress of grievances is just a royal pain in the rear end, whether you're trying to sue, or hoping to get a zoning waiver, or wanting to get some legislation passed. Yes, you can do it, but nobody said it was ever going to be a piece of cake. The Constitution doesn't guarantee it will be easy.

But overall, the First Amendment, perhaps one of the most important of all in the Bill of Rights, while it may have had a few minor chinks put in its armor, remains one of the cornerstones of our government and our society. Any attacks on it usually fail. It has survived quite well the test of time.

(Next week, a look at Amendments II, III and IV.)