The Bill of Rights was established not only to protect the vulnerable against abusive uses of public authority. It was established to ensure governing authorities understood, and would be bound by, their obligation to treat the rights, wellbeing, and interests of the people—not those close to government—as their paramount concern.

As we often note, this means rights have primacy over power, always. The powers assigned to any particular office must be written, in specific, clear terms, in the Constitution itself or in the wider body of written law. Rights need not be written, named, or described in order to enjoy full protection.

The First Amendment specifically names five rights:

• freedom of religion;
• freedom of speech;
• freedom of the press;
• the right of the people peaceably to assemble
• the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

These rights are not as narrow as they may sound, however. First, rights have primacy over power. Second, the Ninth Amendment clearly states:

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

So, freedom of religion means freedom from government intrusion into one’s religious views and practices; it also means freedom from others’ attempts to impose their religious views and practices. Each of us is free, because all of us are free.

Freedom of speech works in a similar way, but goes further. All people are free to criticize the government, to raise any question they wish, to demand power be accountable. Freedom of speech includes freedom of thought. This is reinforced by freedom of religion and by freedom of the press.

Freedom of the press protects not only journalists, editors, and publishers. It protects not only those who physically print their reporting on paper (the presses). It also protects anyone who is gathering information, sharing information, or seeking to know whatever they wish, to extend their freedom of thought and expression and that of others.

Each of these freedoms reinforces the others and supports others not named. The religious conservative is more free to be who they are when there is a free press that is also free to criticize them and to discover wrongdoing by politicians that support their cause. The same holds for scientists who demonstrate with evidence that, while a point of religious doctrine may be spiritually communicative, it is not factual.

Everyone, including those whose dogma might feel different after such news, is enriched and empowered by such discoveries. Faith traditions can grow and become richer by freely assimilating such information, to better be of service to those who join their congregation.

Freedom expands freedom, even when the free people in question find themselves at odds over specific questions of controversy.

Peaceable assembly includes the right to gather with friends, to picnic in parks, to gather in large numbers to protest disfavored or abusive policies, to form churches, community groups, charitable associations and affinity groups, and also to establish local governments.

The right to redress is also broader than the specific question of whether it is possible to send a letter, dial a phone number, press criminal charges, or file a lawsuit. The right to redress is a right to question, challenge, oppose, and discover. It is a right to know about unlawful actions and to counter them, either as individuals or collectives.

That a state government can challenge a federal action in court is not sufficient to eliminate the right of all people to challenge unlawful actions or to seek justice in the courts. Everyone has a right to be protected from abusive government action, and to live in a society in which those who violate the law are held accountable to the law, even if they hold the most powerful positions.

The First Amendment makes these rights, and those connected to them, irreducible, and this standard is reinforced by the Ninth Amendment, because the Bill of Rights is not just about preventing abuse. It is about empowering non-governmental actors.

The right of the people to know scientific and historical facts supersedes any whim of an officeholder to impose his or her views on others. The right of the people to know whether they are facing real threats to their health and security supersedes the desire of any officeholder to help friends in industry conceal the dangers associated with their practices.

The American democratic republic rests on a bedrock recognition that self-government requires human freedom, open flow of information, and authority over everyday affairs to remain in the hands of people outside the halls of power. Power is divided not only among the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary, but is also held, in part, by the States, the Press, other private associations, and—through and beyond all of these—by the People.

We must remember: However unbalanced the power dynamic may appear, the President is a servant of even the most marginal and underprivileged person in the United States, not a ruler.

The President of the United States has no legal authority to control the discussion of history. He has no legal authority to dictate “proper ideology” or acceptable vocabulary to the press or to private universities, museums, research institutions, or other charities or associations, formal or informal.

The absence of that authority in any law is a Constitutional prohibition on such actions. The First Amendment, the Ninth Amendment, and other elements of Constitutional law, reinforce this prohibition and make clear: the people’s right to know, to research, to discuss, and yes, to criticize wrongdoing and injustice, historical or ongoing, shall not be infringed.