On both sides without bias there is push for what can be interpreted as unconstitutional policies. From the left we have a want for “banning guns” (over generalization for regulating gun control better than we do alcohol). From the right we have a want for “banning religion”. Most recently Newt went on about specifically banning muslims who are sharia. The remarkable fact is a large amount of people actually agree with this despite it being unconstitutional even with nazi-carters legalization of banning undesirables from the country. There is literally no way you can interpret the first amendment to allow you to ban anybody on the basis of their beliefs.
With that being said, why are Americans so unamerican now? Many people don’t specifically prefer either of our candidates. Seeing the mass amount of misguided interpretations of our country is disgusting. How can people actually be satisfied with face valued policies without any clear cut understanding of the implications about it?
There are so many flawed assumptions in this one OP.
Part of the problem here is the classification of certain opinions as “American” and “un-American” in the first place. Why do you think that there was some past paradise in which Americans in general agreed with your list of “American” opinions?
The real Barack Obama would never have such a poor understanding of American history, society, or culture.
If you’re wondering why so many Americans don’t align with your view of what an American is, perhaps you should examine your view - it may be miscalibrated.
Well **you **did it, OP, obviously. Thanks, Obama !
Seriously though, I never quite grokked the whole “unAmerican” thing. Y’all are people, same as every other people, and have always been just…well, people. Which does imply that you’ve always been stupid hypocritical dicks after some fashion or another (among other things). Because, well, you have. Same as everybody.
This is a manifestly silly thing to say. We don’t impose criminal punishment for speech but if an idea is repugnant then there is no “American” value that requires you to refrain from denouncing repugnant speech.
I think I see where the OP is coming from although I would have phrased the question differently. I think the real question is why do so many Americans want to disregard the Constitution or display willful ignorance that it is the supreme law of the land that defines America itself? I see that type of attitude on lots of different political sides and I think that type of thinking is un-American by definition.
You can’t ban Muslims from the U.S. or even single them out without specific, individual cause just like you can’t just ban all guns no matter how badly you want to without going through a deliberately difficult Constitutional amendment process. The Constitution isn’t just a suggestion, it is the most powerful legal document there is with a long history of Supreme Court decisions to back it up yet some people act like it is just an old piece of paper that can be sidestepped if you want to badly enough. Fortunately, that isn’t the case as anyone that has taken even the most basic high school civics class should know but sadly, many never understood those foundational principles or, at least, pretend not to when it gets in the way of whatever message they are currently trying to push to the masses.
The Constitution could potentially make a rock so big it couldn’t lift it, but that’s not the way it is now. It can be modified through the democratic process, so the term ‘unconstitutional’ only means a law is not allowed by the Constitution without amendment, and that’s only if the SCOTUS says it’s unconstitutional in the first place. Hopefully future generations will never amend the document to prevent to further amendment.
Suppose we take “banning guns” from the OP and change it to “advocating for repealing the 2nd amendment”? That would be constitutional. Would the OP consider it un-American?
As for the Newt example, I have no doubt he knows perfectly well his inane suggestion would not be constitutional. He is also no doubt aware that what he said would be embraced by a lot of hotheads nonetheless. I personally would rate it as stupid, and never going to happen. But calling it un-American? Maybe, but I think that’s not terribly useful as a position from which to judge or argue.
Now, it’s interesting to consider that anyone going beyond saying Newt is a twit and advocating that he shouldn’t be able to say such nonsense WOULD be pretty close to un-American, IMHO.
This is nonsense. If someone says something that is stupid and wrong, I have the right and the responsibility to oppose it on the grounds that it is stupid and wrong. I may not, however, use the law to prevent someone from speaking merely because I disagree.
But to return to OP, he just seems to be grumbling that people don’t have the same priorities that he does. Welcome to life.
Interestingly, the term “Un-American” acquired notoriety from the House Un-American Activities Committee, which accused several Americans of … exercising free speech.
Advocating repeal of the 2nd Amendment is, of course, not “un-American”. And there’s lots of gun control actions that could be advocated within the 2nd Amendment. For instance, we could ban repeating weapons, as I believe they have in Australia. When the 2nd Amendment was approved, repeating weapons didn’t exist, so banning them could be construed as a position of a strict constructionist.
Before you consider what is ‘un-American’ you first need to define what is ‘American’.
Be sure to think about the Puritans and other religious extremists and nutcases among the original settlers, the extermination of native Americans, slavery, founding fathers who wrote about ‘life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness’ while owning slaves, the Civil War, prejudice against Catholics, especially Irish, prejudice against Italians and Jews, inequality in the Gilded Age, the Prohibition, indentured workers, overthrowing of democratic governments and propping up dictators around the word, the invasion of Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11, Abu Ghraib, torture, extraordinary renditions, Guantanamo, the military-industrial complex, etc, etc. This is far from a comprehensive list.
The Sedition Act of 1918 (passed under Pres. Woodrow Wilson) “forbade the use of “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the United States government, its flag, or its armed forces or that caused others to view the American government or its institutions with contempt. Those convicted under the act generally received sentences of imprisonment for five to 20 years.”
There has always been tension in this country between freedom advocates and those who want to curtail various freedoms using a variety of justifications. Polls consistently find (usually) minorities who oppose sections of the Bill of Rights.
What is alarmingly “un-American” most recently is contentment or apathy among a large number of people over the idea that Presidents can/should ram through far-reaching policy changes or commitments to military action without needing Congressional approval.
Americans have been ignoring the constitution since the beginning; the Alien and Sedition acts, for example, and extensive gun control laws that explicitly or implicitly only applied to blacks are not exactly modern inventions. IMO if you’re going to use ‘Americanness’ as a basis for critique of proposed laws, you have to fit it to actual American laws in the past instead of whether it fits some ideal that’s in your head and not used by actual people.
Semi and fully automatic weapons did exist then, though they were not in widespread use. And aside from your historical ignorance, the concept of ‘these protections only apply to things that existed at the time and any improvements render the protection moot’ has nothing to do with any reasonable reading of law or the constitution. It’s like saying that freedom of the press doesn’t apply to anything using modern publishing techniques, that clearly the only publications protected have to use sort of printing press they could manage in the 1700s and any advancements remove the protection. Or that freedom of religion only applies to religions in the form they were in the 1700s, and that any new or reformed sects are perfectly fine to discriminate against.
