Before you complain, try understanding Constitution - letter by William Steadman

Found here. Our comments in bold.

------------------

Whenever a leftist tries to explain the Constitution, you can be sure he will not get it right.

-----------------

It seems that many people complaining about losing rights do not understand the rights granted by the Constitution. (First error, and we are just one sentence in. The Constitution does not grant rights, it enumerates them. The Constitution restricts government power. The preamble to the Bill of Rights:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

These are additional restrictive clauses, clauses that restrict government. In addition, the 9th Amendment should clear up any remaining confusion about this:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

These rights are enumerated, not granted.)

“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.”

In Reynolds v. United States (1878) the Supreme Court stated (The author now will appeal to a court decision, not the Bill of Rights.)

that “Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order.” Laws cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions, however laws can regulate religious practices. (Congress shall make no law.)

The right to have religious beliefs is absolute, but the freedom to act on such beliefs is not. (...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...)

One is free to believe in human sacrifice, but one cannot practice it. (The author offers a ridiculous example, as if that is representative of a religious restriction. However, there is no right to murder. Preventing murder is not an infringement on religious liberty.)

In Employment Division v. Smith (1990) (Another appeal to the courts.)

the court stated that no compelling interest was required regarding a neutral law that affects a religious practice. “Stay-at-home” orders are neutral. (They are not neutral. There are many examples of government decrees unevenly applying to religious expression.)

One is free to believe one should go to church every week, but the states can tell everyone to stay at home with those beliefs. (No, the states cannot do this. The decrees made by governments are executed without the process of law. Absent a compelling reason, like an imminent and substantial threat, governments cannot legally issue unilateral decrees.)

In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), (Another appeal to a court decision.)

the court held that, “the right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances…” is guaranteed, but the court ruled that, “The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to…, and in consonance with peace and good order…” (The author quoted the 1st Amendment, but forgets its contents: ...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble... There is no right to un-peaceably assemble. Further, a church, simply by gathering, is not violating any requirement to peaceably assemble.)

Hague v. CIO (1930) Threatening others and infecting them with disease is not good order. (The author makes an undocumented assertion. 

There is only a possibility of disease, not a threat being made. If a church can be shut down because of a possibility of peril, it can be shut down because someone might trip on the carpet or be run over in the church parking lot. 

The existence of a potential peril is not sufficient reason for government intervention into the right to peaceably assemble.

The author ought to take his own advice and try understanding the Constitution himself.)