The much-written-about First Amendment is sacred (or as close as one can get in this brave new secular society which forgets a whole lot of history) for both Conservatives and non-Conservatives. Or not:
The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. The newly-minted American policy was rolled out at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which ended in Geneva on Friday. American diplomats were there for the first time as full Council members and intent on making friends.
The new resolution, championed by the Obama administration, has a number of disturbing elements. It emphasizes that “the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . .” which include taking action against anything meeting the description of “negative racial and religious stereotyping.” It also purports to “recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media” and supports “the media’s elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct” in relation to “combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.”
There are roughly three approaches that our government can take to change the Constitution, including the First Amendment:
- Follow existing law and pass more to make changes (backed up by the courts). This would include creating amendments to the Constitution in accordance with the same.
- Ignore the parts of the Constitution which just don’t really pertain anymore (in the leader’s thinking). Hope that people don’t catch on until it is too late and momentum is on the side of the progressives.
- Get the UN to pass stuff which is then bundled into some type of treaty which the US signs onto.
Any guesses as to which approach seems to be growing increasingly attractive to a beleaguered administration?