The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

The Supreme Court's Reluctance

The Supreme Court appears to be reluctant to address three issues of importance in America today. When it does address these issues, it does so in a timid and restrictive manner rather than a forthright manner. Much speculation as to the reason for their timidity has been put forward, but such timidity is not justified as these issues must be fully resolved to assure the Liberties and Freedoms of all Americans in the future. These issues are:

Restrictions on Religious Freedoms

The First Amendment to the Constitution includes, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”.

America was founded on Judeo-Christian values, with prohibitions on immoral or unethical behaviors as expounded in the Bible codified in the laws of the individual States. Such laws were necessary as they often dealt with criminal actions, but some of these laws established an official religion of the State, with taxes imposed on all residents to support the official religion of the State. While established churches were common in early America, there was also some tolerance for opposing viewpoints or the ability of the opposition to relocating to more friendly environs. Over time, the Colonials began to favor more religious tolerance and less established religions, and with the adoption of the Constitution, this religious tolerance and disestablishment of religion became a foundation for American governance and way of life in America. Although periods of religious fervor swept through American history, there were no laws, despotism, or repression to enforce their religious beliefs.

In Europe, however, established religions and intolerance for opposing viewpoints were commonplace and enforced by governmental actions. In the 19th century, the intelligentsia and artistic classes of Europe had a profound dislike for religions, as religions were often despotic and intolerant to change that the intelligentsia and artistic classes were propounding. Comments of Anti-Religious, Anti-Protestantism, Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Nationality and other Anti-isms were often expressed to disparage these groups in hopes of lessening their power in government and society. The disparagements of these groups continued into the 20th century, even after these groups were no longer a significant factor in government and society. These continued Anti-isms comments by the intelligentsia and artistic classes contributed to the rise of Fascism, Nazism, and hyper-nationalism in Europe.

In America, however, with the Constitutional prohibition of establishing a religion and the free exercise of religion, this despotism and intolerance by religious groups were not a factor in governmental actions. Religious proscriptions were only inflicted upon persons or groups by shame and ignominy against those who behaved immorally or unethically according to their religious beliefs. Today, however, in America, we have seen a rise in comments of Anti-Religious, Anti-Protestantism, Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Nationality, and other Anti-isms by the intelligentsia and artistic classes, and by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. Attempts to prohibit the free exercise of religion are often made under the guise of protecting the rights of an aggrieved person(s) who a religious person does not want to be associated with. The reason for a religious person not wanting to associate with some persons is that they believe that the persons' words and deeds are immoral and unethical and that they are in conflict with, and an affront to, their religious beliefs.

A Jewish person should not be forced to associate with a Neo-Nazi person or group, a black person should not be forced to associate with a KKK person or a racist group, and a religious person should not be forced to associate with any person or group that offends their religious beliefs. The aggrieved person should find a person who is amenable to associating with them, thus not forcing an unwilling person into an association. To force a religious person into an association that is unwanted based on their religious beliefs is a violation of their right to the free exercise of their religion. When a conflict arises between the free exercise of religion and the right to engage in commerce, the free exercise of their religion, as a Constitutional Bill of Rights issue, must take precedence over any commerce right. The rule of thumb to resolve these conflicts is that explicit Constitutional rights must have precedence over implicit Constitutional rights.

It is this issue, the free exercise of religion, that the Supreme Court is afraid to address in a definitive manner. They would rather be insipid in their decisions rather than be definitive in support of this Constitutional and Natural Right.

The Recognition of Natural Rights

The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The question has always been, what are the other rights retained by the people? In the past, the Supreme Court has avoided this question by concentrating on the enumerated rights of the people in the Constitution. Although the questions of the extent and application of these enumerated rights can be complex, they can be legally resolved (but often not without controversy). Today, however, with the complexity of society, and the expansion of government, the question of the other rights retained by the people is more germane. Often governmental laws, rules, and regulations butt up against Natural Rights, with little consideration of these Natural Rights being given by governmental actors. This question of the other rights retained by the people needs to be examined by the Supreme Court to ensure the Liberties and Freedoms of all Americans are not trampled upon by governmental actions.

In my Chirps on "05/07/20 Natural Rights, Human Rights, and Fundamental Rights" and  "09/01/20 The Assault on Our Constitutional Rights", I examine Natural Rights and the violations of our Natural Rights that are occurring in America today. Much of these violations of our Natural Rights are not occurring as the result of government actions but of violations by "Activists and Activism" that are advocating for "Adjective Justice" and/or "Equity and Equality". They do so by utilizing the tactics of  Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Social Engineering, and they justify their actions as being for the Greater Good versus the Common Good. They attempt to stampede Americans into a Herd Mentality to obtain their goals, and many of their efforts are supported by Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media.

As many of their actions are not a result of governmental laws, rules, or regulations, the Supreme Court is reluctant to address this issue. If a person’s Natural Rights are violated outside of governmental actions, it is nevertheless a violation of their Natural Rights, and it should not be tolerated just because it is not the government who violates these Natural Rights. As the anti-slavery crusader Lysander Spooner would explain it thusly:

“A man’s natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime, whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, ... or by millions, calling themselves a government.”

Many of the violations of our Natural Rights by non-governmental actors are an assault on our First and Second Amendment rights, which occur outside of government laws, rules, and regulations. They are often an assault against our Free Speech rights, as I have Chirp on, "02/22/22 Free Speech is Essential". Unfortunately, it is not only our Free Speech rights that are under assault but our other Natural and Constitutional Rights are under assault by non-governmental actors. But without Free Speech, it is not possible to defend these other Natural and Constitutional Rights. Therefore, we must begin to defend these other rights by insisting on the Right to Free Speech in all arenas of our society. Those that would constrict our Free Speech would eventually constrict our other rights, and we have started to see these constrictions in America.  

The thorny question is what can be done, by both the government and private citizens, to end these assaults on our Natural Rights by non-governmental actors? This is the issue that the Supreme Court needs to and is reluctant to address. I can understand the Supreme Court’s reluctance to examine the issue of Natural Rights violations by non-governmental actors, as this would open a hornet’s nest of legal implications and ramifications. However, a hornet’s nest of violations of our Natural Rights by non-governmental actors is already opened this hornet’s nest, much to the deleterious impacts on our society. This issue needs to be resolved by the Supreme Court to ensure the Liberties and Freedoms of all Americans are not trampled upon.

Non-Governmental Restrictions on Natural Rights

The Bill of Rights to the Constitution addresses the Natural Rights of persons that government may not infringe upon. These Amendments speak to government actions (Big Brother) but not the actions of non-government parties or entities (Little Brothers). The only Supreme Court decisions on this issue are to not allow Big Brother from requiring or imposing restrictions upon Little Brothers' Constitutional Rights regarding the government letting of contracts for the purchasing of goods or services.

However, we have seen Little Brother being intimidated by Big Brother or Little Brother currying favor with Big Brother to limit the Natural Rights of those persons within their domain. One of the most important Natural Rights is the Freedom of Speech. As I have Chirped on, “02/22/22 Free Speech is Essential” Free Speech is not only essential in the political sphere but in all spheres of our society.

In today’s society, we have seen an unprecedented assault on Free Speech in all spheres of our society that is being undertaken by Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media. They utilize the tactics of Political Correctness, Activists and Activism, Adjective Justice, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, the Greater Good versus the Common Good, and a Herd Mentality to restrict free speech. As a result, we are living in one of the most extreme anti-free speech periods in our nation’s history. We have never in our history seen the current coalition of political, media, business, and academic figures aligned to limit free speech rights.

In my Article, "Who Needs Government Suppression When You Have Big Tech Suppression?", I have examined the Big Tech suppression of information and the consequences of this suppression. There is, however, another type of suppression in America and the rest of the free world – the suppression of Free Speech by the Little Brothers. Free speech is under assault by Little Brothers under the guise of limiting hate speech, politically incorrect speech, views that are deemed harmful or threatening, mis- dis- or mal-information, and a variety of other excuses. The Little Brothers of "Modern Big Business" and "Social Media" are at the forefront of suppressing Free Speech within their domains. They have even branched out into political activism by supporting or opposing non-business legislation that does or does not fit their political viewpoints and financially supporting candidates who comport with their political viewpoints. Although they have the right to do so, they do not have the right to impose their viewpoint on their workforce, suppliers, or customers.

In Modern Big Business today, we have the spectacle of companies funding charities, social activism, and political policies with other people's monies, as I have explained in my Article, “Other People’s Money (OPM)”. It is not possible for a company to fund any of these activities without expending OPM. When a commercial enterprise makes contributions to any charity, political, or activist organization, they are doing so with OPM, as the monies they contribute come from the owners or shareholder profits from the business or from increasing prices on the consumer of their goods and services to fund these activities, or from both sources. A company is in business to make a profit for its owners or shareholders, and any monies it expends must be made for this purpose. If they expend monies for anything other than this purpose, they are expending OPM from their owners or shareholders or expending OPM from their consumers' additional cost for their products or services. Either way, they are not spending their own monies but Other Peoples Monies. If a company thinks that a charity, political, or activist organization is worthwhile, it should only encourage others to voluntarily contribute to these organizations. The only moral way to fund these organizations is to take the money out of your own pocket and contribute it to the charity, political, or social activism programs that you approve. Otherwise, it is the case of someone taking your money, out of your pocket, without your permission, and spending it on what they feel is proper. And this is an immoral act on their part - it’s called Theft. Or, as Thomas Jefferson has said, "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

Many Little Brothers restrict the free speech rights of their workforce under the rhubarb of assuring that there is no ‘hostile work environment’ or ‘offensive co-workers’ in their workplace. As I have Chirp on, "02/08/22 Comity in the Workplace", an employer should only be interested in assuring comity in the workplace. Such comity is best assured by insisting upon polite and respectful speech in the workplace and no discussions of the outside political, social activism, or religious activities of its employees within the workplace. This is the best means to assure comity in the workplace and that there is no hostile work environment or offensive co-workers in their workplace. The traditional rule of no politicking or proselytization in the workplace often achieved this comity without undue constrictions on the Natural Rights of employees.

Little Brothers also restrict free speech rights, along with other rights, under the guise of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). DEI is abhorrent, as it is an assault on our Natural Rights that needs to be eliminated, as I have Chirped on, “04/05/22 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)”. It is also a violation of our Constitutional Rights, as these terms are often very difficult, if not impossible, to quantify in legal terms that could pass constitutional muster.

Jonathan Turley, the noted and respected professor at George Washington University Law School, has testified in a United States Congressional proceeding about the issues of free speech. His testimony on ‘Fanning The Flames: Disinformation and Extremism In The Media’ can be downloaded here. He also testified on ‘The Right of The People Peacefully To Assemble: Protecting Speech By Stopping Anarchist Violence’, which can be downloaded here. These testimonies are some of the most erudite and intellectual defenses of free speech and the issues and concerns about free speech. He has also written many other columns about free speech; some of his more pertinent columns to this article I have cataloged in my “Three Scholars Understanding and Defending the Constitution” webpage. His other Free Speech articles can be viewed here.

By the Supreme Court only focusing only on governmental actions on free speech and not addressing the Natural Right to speak your mind in all arenas of society, they are assisting in the disintegration of free speech as a societal norm. With this disintegration of free speech as a societal norm, the Natural Right to free speech becomes virtually nonexistent.

What Can be Done about these Occurrences?

I do not expect that Congress will become involved in these violations of our Natural Rights by non-governmental actors, especially as one side, the Democrat Party Side, has politically benefited in the advancement of their policy goals and political agendas from these occurrences in our society. Consequently, the Democrat Party has no interest in seeing these occurrences abated. It is also apparent that Presidents are also not interested in protecting our Natural Rights, as their violations accrue more powers to the Presidency.

This is a blight upon Congress and the Presidency, as one of their most important duties and responsibilities of their office are to assure the Liberties and Freedoms of all Americans. If Congress and Presidents cannot, or will not, act to protect our Natural and Constitutional Rights outside of governmental actions, then it must fall to the Supreme Court to protect our Natural Rights by non-governmental actors.

Absent Congressional legislation and/or Executive actions regarding these affronts to our Natural Rights by non-governmental actors, the only other branch of government that can protect our Natural Rights is the Judicial branch. An old proverb states that “fools rush in where angels fear to tread”. However, Supreme Court judges are not to be fools but to be wise men and women. Therefore, they need to step in and provide their wisdom, guidance, and legal acumen to resolve these violations of our Natural Rights by non-governmental actors.

This is a hornet’s nest of legal implications and ramifications for the Supreme Court to address, but a hornet’s nest for society if they cannot, or will not, address this hornet’s nest. Without the preservation of our Natural Rights, our society will degenerate into subservience and subjugation to the will of governmental and non-governmental actors. Liberty and Freedom will become an abstract concept that is virtually nonexistent in the functioning of our society. This will rip our society apart, and as President Abraham Lincoln said - ‘the last best hope of earth’ will be relegated to the dustbin of history.

The Supreme Court, and all of us, should also remember the words of wisdom from the Irish-born British statesman, economist, and philosopher - Edmund Burke:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing."
 - Edmund Burke