I Can See The First Amendment From My Front Porch: Palin's Botched Defense of Dr. Laura

Sarah Palin recently defended Dr. Laura Schlessinger after she had a sudden bout of N-word diarrhea during her radio show. After the public outcry, Schlessinger ended her radio program, but she screamed foul play, arguing that her constitutional rights were violated.

Professor Palin offered her trademark "common sense" advise to Schlessinger in a series of Twitter posts. In so doing, Palin proves, yet again, that common sense is merely an excuse for not reading.

Palin sent the following message to Schlessinger:

“Dr.Laura: don't retreat ... reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence"isn't American,not fair")"

She then posted a follow-up:

“Dr.Laura=even more powerful & effective w/out the shackles,so watch out Constitutional obstructionists. And b thankful 4 her voice, America!)"

Apparently, the Bloggacuda does not know much about the First Amendment, because Schlessinger's right to free speech remains fully intact. The First Amendment Center, a nonprofit organization devoted to free expression, has fully rebutted Palin's botched constitutional analysis. The organization also makes the interesting argument that while Palin often criticizes the government for trampling upon the Constitution, it is clear that she lacks a basic understanding of some of its central principles.

As a Professor of Constitutional Law, I could write more on this issue, but the First Amendment Center does a great job. Here is a clip from the article:

• The First Amendment protects us from the government, and not from other Americans who disagree with what we have to say. “Congress shall make no law” — the first five words of the First Amendment — say it all: No government body can limit our rights to speak out. In this case, there’s no government action, just public outrage and pressure.

• Boycotts are also protected by the First Amendment. Dr. Laura complains about being “bullied” by those who might pressure her radio affiliates or advertisers, but boycotts are a time-honored use of the First Amendment. . . .

• Efforts to punish controversial speech comes from the right and the left. It’s true that liberal organizations are attacking Dr. Laura for use of the racial epithet, just as conservative organizations burned Dixie Chicks CDs when Natalie Maines told a London audience that she was embarrassed that President Bush came from Texas. . . .

• Dr. Laura’s First Amendment rights are alive and well. Although she’s leaving her radio show, she says she’ll continue to share her views through public speaking, TV interviews, in print, online, and in a new book due in January, all made possible by the First Amendment.

So, is Palin wrong again? You betcha!

Sarah Palin's Two-Faced Arguments Regarding "Ground Zero Mosque"

The so-called Ground Zero Mosque occupied the headlines over the weekend, following President Obama's endorsement of the group's right to build the mosque. Although Obama plainly limited his comments to a discussion of religious freedom and equality, the media reported the story with a much broader sweep. According to most media reports, Obama had, in fact, endorsed the decision making behind the location of the mosque.

Yesterday, he clarified his remarks, which led to another round of botched media reporting. Now, Obama has supposedly "walked back" or "narrowed" the scope of his comments. He did no such thing.

The Bloggacuda Enters the Fray

Liberals and conservatives alike have criticized Obama's imaginary walk-back. Conservatives, however, now argue that Obama should express his opinion regarding the "wisdom" of the project. The Bloggacuda herself -- Sarah Palin -- scribbled out a Facebook entry demanding that Obama state whether mosque proponents should build the mosque near ground zero.

Palin, like other conservatives, claims that she agrees that the mosque proponents have the right to build the mosque, but she argues that they should not. She claims that building the mosque will cause religious tension, and she wants Obama to enter this thicket. This is a contradictory position.

Religious Freedom Means The Government Does Not Make Decisions For Religious Groups

Religious freedom is guaranteed by the First Amendment. The US Constitution allows mosque proponents to construct the mosque if they, as Obama stated during his speech, comply with local and state laws. Generally, it is not the role of government to tell religious individuals and organizations whether and how they should exercise their constitutional rights, particularly when, as here, the government's input could have a decisive impact.

If Obama told Palin that he respects her First Amendment right to post hate essays on Facebook, but that she should not do so because she is divisive, she would not appreciate the interference. In fact, she and her minions would probably (re)accuse Obama of being a socialist, radical, communist. Nevertheless, Palin wants Obama to comment on the wisdom of a religious group's decision to locate a mosque in lower Manhattan.

Palin has a two-faced view of constitutional liberty -- as do all of the other commentators who want Obama to go more deeply into this conflict. Religious freedom means that so long as people comply with laws of general application then the government should not interfere with their religious practices. I suspect that Palin and other opponents of the mosque would cheer a decision by local authorities to block the mosque project. This, however, does not reflect an embrace of religious freedom.

If liberals and conservatives actually support religious freedom, they must accept the building of the mosque -- regardless of whether they believe it is a good idea or not. This is all Obama said during his speech. For this, I commend him. On this issue, all sides must accept a "wall of separation between mosque and state."

UPDATE: This essay was edited for clarity.

Also on Dissenting Justice:

Media Continues to Misstate Obama's Position on Mosque (Updated)

Media Misstates Obama's Position on Mosque; Obama Clarifies Stance

Media Continues to Misstate Obama's Position on Mosque (Updated)

The back-and-forth over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque continues. Yesterday, President Obama endorsed the constitutional rights of individuals who want to build a mosque near the former site of the World Trade Center. The media, in an apparent desire for controversial headlines, reported that Obama supported building a mosque at ground zero.

Today, President Obama clarified his comments, emphasizing that he endorsed the rights of the mosque proponents and that he remained neutral regarding the wisdom of the project. This is an important distinction. Upholding the US Constitution is a duty of the President. Deciding local construction policy is not.

Now that President Obama has clarified his position, some media commentators are arguing that he is shifting or backtracking. Ben Smith of Politico offers the most egregious example of this in his blog post: Obama narrows mosque defense. Smith argues that:

The signal Obama sent with his rhetoric last night wasn't that he had chosen to make a trivial, legal point about the First Amendment. He chose to make headlines in support of the mosque project, and he won't be able to walk them back now with this sprinkling of doubt. All he'll do is frustrate some of the people who so eagerly welcomed his words yesterday as a return to form.

Signal? Rather than using subliminal messaging to decode what Obama was saying, try looking at the transcript and judge for yourself.

Smith's description of the First Amendment as "trivial" is shocking. That same legal document allows him to blog on political issues -- even if incorrectly. The speech and religion clauses of the First Amendment are very important parts of US constitutional law. It is commendable that Obama embraced these concepts for a disparaged religious community.

Finally, the notion that one could embrace a person's right to do something -- without necessarily advising that person to do anything specific -- is not complicated. For example, many people are pro-choice, even though they say they would not have an abortion themselves. Some people are atheist, but they support religious freedom (including the freedom not to believe). One can believe in the First Amendment, but also believe that the news media is becoming a worthless part of American culture. Similarly, Obama can endorse the rights of the mosque proponents, while remaining aloof to the controversy about its location.

Anyone who reads Dissenting Justice knows that this blog is a fearless critic of Obama. This, however, is not a moment to criticize him.

UPDATE: The evolving commentary on this subject brings two issues to mind. First, many leftists are upset and believe that Obama is compromising or going back on his word. During the Democratic primaries, many progressives projected leftwing values onto Obama based on things he said that, if interpreted broadly, could mean he was a progressive. Apparently, many of them have not learned to construe his words narrowly (and even then, he sometimes falls short, like all politicians).

Second, this situation looks like the Shirley Sherrod matter. Although Obama's actual words are available for all to see, people are still misreporting them.

Also on Dissenting Justice:

Sarah Palin's Two-Faced Arguments Regarding "Ground Zero Mosque"

Media Misstates Obama's Position on Mosque; Obama Clarifies Stance

Maryland Teacher Called Police to Remove Student From Class for Refusing to Recite Pledge of Allegiance

In January, a Maryland school teacher called two police officers to escort a student from her classroom because the 13-year-old exercised her constitutional rights and refused to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The student also refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance on the previous day of school.

The teacher's attempt to force the student to recite the Pledge of Allegiance violates the constitutional doctrine stated by the Supreme Court in the 1943 ruling West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette. In Barnette, the Court overruled prior caselaw and held that forcing students to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance "transcends constitutional limitations on [the school officials'] power and invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control" (emphasis added).

The teacher's conduct also violates state policy. A Maryland student handbook states that: "You cannot be required to say a pledge, sing an anthem, or take part in patriotic exercises. No one will be permitted to intentionally embarrass you if you choose not to participate" (emphasis added). The other students in the class mocked the defiant student as police escorted her away from the classroom.

On the first day that the student refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, the teacher yelled at her. Now, the teacher must apologize -- thanks to a settlement negotiated by the ACLU.