2007-12-11 02:42:46 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Um... I don't think so.
Allowing silence doesn't mean banning speech, logically speaking.
And free speech gets at the expression of one's honest beliefs and opinions. It doesn't mean people don't have to shut their mouths every now and then so that society can function.
2007-12-11 02:49:46 · answer #1 · answered by Buying is Voting 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We don't need to amend the Constitution to have a moment of silence as a moment of silence is already protected by the First Amendment.
2007-12-11 02:50:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
the government is setup with exams and balances. even yet it variety of feels like the ideally suited court docket is all useful they are no longer. If a regulation is asserted unconstitutional the Congress can rewrite the regulation so as that it does bypass constitutional muster. the single undertaking i could desire to be certain replace is lifetime appointments for all federal judges. I do believe the ideally suited court docket could be a life-time appointment to maintain them from undo political rigidity, yet there is not any reason this could word to all federal choose ships. putting capability thoroughly interior the palms of the people is going against the way our equipment is setup. we are no longer democracy. we are representative republic. The framers totally meant for this to be the case to keep away from "tyranny of maximum folk". Their objective became to make sure the excellent possible government with all voters being represented. As to the pending appointment and your objections. for this reason Congress has the best to check, question and then vote on the nominee only before confirming. The President would not hire judges with the help of fiat. This technique additionally has outfitted in exams and balances. only positioned, no equipment is nice and no equipment ever would be. you will no longer, nor must you ever be thoroughly pleased with all judgements made.
2016-12-10 19:36:43 · answer #3 · answered by crumley 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, providing that the moment of silence was not in any way intended to be religious, for example if people were actively encouraged to pray in silence.
Plus, you wouldn't need to allow silence as it's already protected by the 1A.
2007-12-11 03:43:19 · answer #4 · answered by raisingtheblinds 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wouldn't the opposite undermine the 1st amendment?
Right to free speech surely means the right to have private thoughts on a matter with whatever deity you prefer or with yourself if you don't. Why does speech have to be verbal and audible?
2007-12-11 02:50:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. The term "moment of silence" is a ploy being used by the religious nutcases in order to slide prayer back in public schools.
If one needs a "moment of silence" - or to say a prayer, one can take care of that before class....
It's baloney.
2007-12-11 05:38:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I believe the Constitution would allow it even without amendment, if the First Amendment were interpreted correctly.
So my answer is NO.
2007-12-11 02:54:45 · answer #7 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋