The Weaponized First Amendment

Allen Ray

Recently, the Democrats accused the GOP of “weaponizing the First Amendment” based on The Supreme Court ruling (Janus v. AFSCME) that nonunion workers cannot be forced to pay fees to public sector unions. This act by SCOTUS threw the entire left into a frenzy. True to form, they promised the middle class would “suffer” from this decision. Funny statement from the party that touts “freedom of choice” as one of its fundamental platforms. (Can you feel my eyes roll?)

​As I often do, I contemplated the phrase “weaponizing the First Amendment” for several days. Now, I know exactly what they meant by that accusation. They are upset because a major source of the Democratic Party funding has just become optional for anyone tired of having their hard-earned pay taken against their will and given to a political party that may not represent their values. It surely is no secret that unions overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party and use union dues to fund Democrat candidates, who often end up kicking these same union members in the teeth by supporting ideas like open borders, hiring illegal aliens at lower wages, and raising taxes on corporations, which effectively chokes off their ability to grow and create jobs.
  
But set that aside for a moment and let us look at the idea of weaponizing free speech. The first fallacy of these moronic malcontents is the idea that speech can be chained. Our great nation came to exist through “weaponized speech”. Our forefather’s speech was by no means legal, but it was by no means chained. Oh sure, King George banned words, forbade content, created social taboos to shame undesirable facets of colonial society (sound familiar?), but did he really bury the idea of a free nation? By no means. In fact, history is replete with examples of radical concepts that were outlawed, yet somehow spread like wildfire to inflame the population into actions based on those same banned concepts. The Declaration of Independence is simply another manifestation of repressed speech that is pushed underground like a seed, only to take root and grow like a wild grape vine, entangling its tyrannical repressers in the process. In short, these “educated elites” who believe the First Amendment should be updated to ban words, ideas, and philosophies that offend the hyper-sensitive are ignorant to the fact that repressed speech inevitably turns into hushed whispers behind closed doors and will most assuredly become even more weaponized.
  
Finally, let’s pause to reflect on the idea of “weaponizing the First Amendment." Those that have studied the documents behind The Document (Constitution), know our forefathers realized that it is the inevitable fate of any government to eventually become corrupt and self-serving. Thus, they implemented a system of hurdles to limit the power of government (Bill of Rights), a warning system (First Amendment), a built-in revolution to oust undesirable leaders (elections), and a nuclear option in case tyranny prevailed (Second Amendment).

Many of those in power, some even professing to be “Constitutional Conservatives”, cringe at the idea that our system of government was set up to allow the people to wield ultimate power over the government, and not the opposite. Over the years, our leaders have done an exemplary job of convincing “We the People” that they are in control. However, I remember a few short years ago when the concept of voting every incumbent out of office to shake the power-mongers out of the D.C. bubble started gaining steam, and it made a LOT of the elected very nervous. As I recall, there were several statements made by life-long politicians condemning, almost pleading with voters to ignore that concept. At that moment, Americans came very close to waking up and realizing the true power of elections. At the very least, We the People should have realized that the mere mention of a peaceful and absolute government overthrow via elections created panic in the ranks of the D.C. elite. This little episode in our history should solidify the notion that our right to peaceably petition the government with our grievances, even when THEY are the subject of that grievance, is one of the most powerful weapons an American citizen has in their arsenal.

So, in answer to these disgruntled Democrats crying foul, you are absolutely correct that the First Amendment is a weapon. It is a very powerful weapon that you yourselves have been using for years against anyone that opposes you. You should be thankful it exists, because it protects you as much as it protects those that you wish to silence. That is simply how freedom works.

God Bless America!
Allen Ray