Congress Shall Make No Law

I don't know if it's because I'm getting older (my hair color is rapidly matching the color of my fedora) or if I'm just finally waking up to just how enslaved "freedom" is, but I find myself more and more not liking our current government.

In much the same way Fundamentalist Christians believe the bible is the literal word of God, with no room for symbolism, metaphor or interpretation, I believe the framers of our Constitution meant what they said and how they said it. It's not a "living document" open to new interpretations at the whim of every elected official, Supreme Court Justice or special interest lobbyist.

When you read you should comprehend what the writers intended you to get from it. No more and no less. If I write a list of rules and the first rule is "The dogs are allowed to jump over the fence." What do you get from it?

1) There are dogs.
2) There is a fence.
3)The dogs should not be stopped from jumping over the fence.

There is no number 4, 5, 6, 7, etc.

Now what if someone comes along and says but there is a thorn bush on the other side of the fence?

It does not matter, refer to rule number 1.

Can you teach the dog not to jump over the fence? If you wish to, be my guest and you may even train one or more not to, but for those that choose to jump, refer to rule number 1.

This is very simple and exactly what the constitution was meant to be.

The first amendment of the constitution reads;

"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."
Note that it does not begin with "Provided no federal judge disagrees, "

What do we get from this?

1) Congress (meaning the federal government) shall not interfere with any of the following items.
 a) A persons religious beliefs or their ability to follow and express that religion.
 b) A persons right to say anything they want at any time.
 c) A persons right to print or write down anything they want.
 d) A persons right to gather together with others provided that gathering is peaceful.
 e) That groups right to challenge the government when they do not agree with them.

That is it. Nothing more, nothing less. Yet somehow we've allowed the supreme court, a group of idiots we don't even have the choice to elect to break their oaths to protect this document on many occasions. A single example?

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 US 260 (1988)
The Court held that public school student newspapers are subject to less First Amendment protection than commercial newspapers, or even student publications established as forums for student expression. Schools may impose restrictions on student newspaper content. 
This case should have taken 5 minutes and their answer to Hazelwood School district should have been refer to rule number 1.

This will end only when we stand up and say enough is enough.