Why is the first amendment int he constitution important?
827679
unfortunately Conservatives such as sway are making it much more difficult for people like you and I to speak freely and openly on whatever subject we see fit. The right to free speech is important, otherwise we would live in a police state. That is why it is important, we need to avoid Martial law, something many people are afraid Bush is capable of.
802888
The separation of church and state was a founding tenet in the Constitution because the founding fathers saw the abuses of the many religions when they held positions of power in the Old World. Many of our earliest immigrants came to this country to escape religious tyranny and oppression. It made perfect sense, in my view, that they would have included this amendment in the Constitution. This is especially significant, IMHO, considering many of the founding fathers were Masons.\nNothing has been miscontrued about the "intent" of the original amendment for 230 years. Now, all of a sudden, when theocratic radicals want to twist the original intent from what it was meant to be to their own narrow view of what it should be to them,  they scream that they alone know what the founding fathers intended and everyone else is wrong.\n I respectfully beg to differ.\n There is no surer way to fall into despotism than allow one religious group's views to be above another one's. All the theocratic radical needs to do is consider whether they would allow Buddhism, Islam, Hindu or any other religious sect have precedence over them. That is something I seriously doubt. Why then, would they expect others to accept their view as the only valid one? Hence, the reason for the second amendment.\n\nJefferson and Madison speak well for themselves:\n\n"The constitutional freedom of religion [is] the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Board of Visitors Minutes, 1819. ME 19:416 \n\n"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that '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,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382 \n\n"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813. \n\nI believe Mr. Jefferson's intent is blaringly obvious in his own words. Transparently clear and to the point. As was James Madison's.\n\nJames Madison, Virginia Ratifying Convention\n\n12 June 1788Papers 11:130--31 \nThe honorable member has introduced the subject of religion. Religion is not guarded--there is no bill of rights declaring that religion should be secure. Is a bill of rights a security for religion? Would the bill of rights, in this state, exempt the people from paying for the support of one particular sect, if such sect were exclusively established by law? If there were a majority of one sect, a bill of rights would be a poor protection for liberty. Happily for the states, they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion. This freedom arises from that multiplicity of sects, which pervades America, and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest. Fortunately for this commonwealth, a majority of the people are decidedly against any exclusive establishment--I believe it to be so in the other states. There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it, would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom. It is better that this security should be depended upon from the general legislature, than from one particular state. A particular state might concur in one religious project. But the United States abound in suc
400702
constitution and Bill of rights
109752
read the constitution and ammendments
473100
Because it's contrary to the 1st amendment of the Constitution.
661083
The separation of church and state was from a Thomas Jefferson speech and not found in the Constitution.\n\nHad the First Amendment been advertised as a path way to remove faith from the public square it would have never been ratified. The First Amendment was installed to insure that Congress would not create a Church that put the Government in the role of theologian. \n\nThe Founders were looking to prevent Congress from establishing a Religion where they were above the law and to be worshipped. They did not want a repeat of King Henry VIII who created a Church where he ostensibly replaced the Pope.
441652
You should read the constitution before you ask constitutional questions
386923
The first amendment says freedom of speech.\nThe Patriot Act allows the government to spy on you and arrest you if you "say" you're planning terrorism.\n\nThat's one link.
658977
Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state. Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a persons practice of their religion. \n\nThe most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message.
56012
Of course not. You should be the first one to obey the constitution because you swore to abide by it
566799
I think it was James Madison's wife (may have been Abigail Adams) who suggested that the Constitution said a lot about the organization of the government, but did nothing to specifically protect people, so then he went on a mad tear to construct some of those "inalienable rights" aforementioned.  But he didn't just make them up.  At least one of the Amendments was based on the constitution of the Virginia colony. \n\nThe importance of the Bill of Rights is to address what the state can and can't do to individuals.  Most of the Constitution divides up powers and provides checks and balances, but the Bill of Rights specifically protects people from the bad habits of government.
935993
The Constitution of the United States
439710
Bill of Rights are 10 Amendments added to the Constitution to satisfy the Anti-Federalists to get the constitution passed. 1st Amendment - Freedom of Speech, etc.
455360
It was among the earliest state constitutions.  Actually, it was written before the Constitution of the United States (1787).
425471
The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion.  A politician has the right to freely talk about the Ten Commandments.\n\nThe Constitution does not ANYWHERE separate church and state.  It just says not to have a state-run church, referring to the Church of England situation.\n\nThe Constitution is one of the most misinterpreted documents........
125455
No... Why? First Amendment rights. Freedom of speech.
368754
this webpage describes it to great detail\nhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/First_amendment