Hello?! Sen. Durbin?! Constitution Equals Protection for ALL Citizens! 

800px-First_amendment_area_Muir_WoodsThe idiocy of the left is at it again.  This time it was Senator Dick Durbin from Illinois. 

They don’t come much more liberal than Durbin, but I thought that he could at least read.  Apparently not, because he made a statement over this past weekend that made me realize that reading and understanding the simple statement made in the First Amendment to the US Constitution was beyond his abilities.             

The illustrious Senator Durbin was on Fox News Sunday and made the following statement:

But here is the bottom line, the media shield law, which I am prepared to support, and I know Senator Graham supports, still leaves an unanswered question, which I have raised many times: What is a journalist today in 2013?  We know it’s someone that works for Fox or AP, but does it include a blogger? Does it include someone who is tweeting? Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection. We need to ask 21st century questions about a provision that was written over 200 years ago.

Wow … just wow.             

Hey, Senator Durbin, the First Amendment of the Constitution protects ALL CITIZENS, period, without restriction or reservation. Whether you like bloggers, tweeters, journalists or the occasional contributor to a newspaper or online media site, we ALL are protected under the 1st Amendment.  Sounds like it’s time for a primer in the Constitution. 

Let’s look at the language, shall we?  “Amendment 1:  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  

Ok, seems simple enough, but given the statement above, simple is beyond the grasp of the left. “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”  Notice it doesn’t say freedom “from” religion, it says that Congress cannot establish a state religion.  

The framers of the Constitution largely came from England, which had a church, the Church of England.  This church was established by Henry VIII after he had a temper tantrum aimed at the Catholic Church.  Since then, with very few exceptions, the Crown controlled how it’s subject worshipped.  Looking back at the history of religion in England, belonging to a church not sanctioned by the Crown was, at times, life threatening.  Our forefathers decided, wisely, that having your life threatened for choosing to attend the church of your choice, or not, as the case may be, shouldn’t be a crime.  

It doesn’t say that the public square should be bereft of religious symbols or discussion.  Far from it.  So the next time someone tells you religion doesn’t belong in public needs a Constitutional refresher course. 

Suzanne Olden

About the author, Suzanne Olden: Suzanne Reisig Olden is a Catholic Christian, Conservative, married mother of two, who loves God, family and country in that order. She lives northwest of Baltimore, in Carroll County, Maryland. She graduated from Villa Julie College/Stevenson University with a BS in Paralegal Studies and works as a paralegal for a franchise company, specializing in franchise law and intellectual property. Originally from Baltimore, and after many moves, she came home to raise her son and daughter, now high school and college aged, in her home state. Suzanne also writes for The Firebreathing Conservative website ( and hopes you'll come visit there as well for even more discussion of conservative issues. View all articles by Suzanne Olden

Like Clash? Like Clash.

Leave a Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.