Categories
Life Style

Psychic Science and the First Amendment

Psychic Science is a relatively new idea and there is some scepticism that it actually works. The only people who doubt its efficacy are the people who believe in witches and necromancers. I was once with a lady in her late thirties who were trying to make a career out of the occult, but she had a hard time explaining how all this worked and she kept referring to horoscopes and palm reading as if they were the claddagh rings of the Egyptians or the dodecagon of the Greeks. So I asked her if she minded if I might explain to her what science was. She looked a little surprised at my question, but I think she was relieved when I explained it was something that had actually been proved by observation and experiment.Science of Psychic Phenomena

Psychic science is based on the observation that most things in the universe appear to be random and that our observations of these things are consistent over time, despite what theists say. Now this is where the similarity to the first amendment ends because in Sec. 1 of the United States Constitution, we are allowed to keep and bear arms, according to the second amendment. In fact, the constitution goes a bit further than just saying you have a right to bear arms, for instance, there is an enumeration of the exceptions to the right to arms than so hoc.

There are many enumerations, but perhaps the most important one is the second amendment protection. According to the first amendment, the government may not deprive any person of his right to vote, to hold office, to worship freely, or to practice religion according to his own religion. If the government tries to exclude someone from one of these rights in violation of the constitution, the courts have the authority to step in and set aside such legislation. This was the very first thing the Supreme Court ever decided, in 18lake v. pewterstone. The decision in this case essentially left the matter of religious freedom up to each state to decide, and the decision in the present is not expected to change much in the near future.

Many citizens believe that the amendment protects only speech that incites violence or hate against any particular group of people. This article I, section 2, of the Massachusetts Constitution, also includes other types of speech like libel, news, and comment. It is therefore up to the Massachusetts legislature to determine how the section of the first amendment will be interpreted. The legislature has the ability to pass laws against libel, but they cannot pass laws against hate speech.

Some scholars believe that the framers of the US constitution didn’t understand what they were actually doing when they included the first amendment in the constitution. Some even believe that in its original form, free speech was not protected by the US constitution. Many other scholars, including some of the Originalist supporters of the constitution, believe that free speech in general is fundamentally wrong, as it encourages the corruption within the legislative body and government itself. Spiritual and religious people argue that spiritual and religious speech should be protected under the first amendment, as it invites people to express their views in a neutral, detached manner.

The third amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting transactions or rights of property, and that right applies to all laws concerning corporations, including naturalization, copyrights, trademarks, and patents. In order for a law to be considered Constitutional, it must have a direct purpose and be established by the United States Congress. If the framers of the US constitution never intended to restrict free speech in this way, why would they have included it in the first amendment? Is it not an attempt to give the Supreme Court the power to declare that every citizen has the right to say anything they want, anywhere they want, even if they might be uttering against the majority’s interest? In short, is it not blatantly obvious that the United States government is trying to control the press and further limit freedom of speech and turn what should be a free and open marketplace into a tightly controlled censorship society.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *