 When we talk about the First Amendment as a prohibition on the establishment of religion, it is very hard for them to accept the fact that there were established churches on the state level, and that they would continue in existence until 1833. Why is it that there should be an established religion on the state level, but not a national established church? The Church of England was something that they wanted to avoid, whereas they accepted the fact that the citizens of Massachusetts could have a state established church if they wanted. What does it mean to have the free exercise of religion? The free exercise of religion, as defined in the 18th century by Americans, by the founders, was the free exercise of Christian religion. It could be a Protestant religion, it could be evangelical, it could be Catholic. Agnostics were frowned upon, atheists were not accepted, and non-Christian faiths were not accepted. So when you look at the establishment of religion and the free exercise clause, it is far more limited in the 18th century than it would be in the 21st century. Freedom of speech is another good example where people take it literally, which is to say, I should be allowed to do whatever I want. I think there are several things going on here. One is, in the 18th century, freedom of speech was often identified with the rights of a Republican society. It was a political right that would encourage the free expression of ideas having to do with your political responsibility. It has been transformed in the 20th century into flag burning, naked dancing, as an expression of freedom of speech, which an 18th century person would never recognize. As for yelling fire in a crowded theater, there are restrictions, and the Supreme Court has recognized those restrictions, that as you have certain social responsibilities, and you do not have an absolute right. So all of these rights are conditional. The hardest thing, I think, to get people sensitive to is the flip side of rights, because the flip side of rights, in my view, is obligations. And so I think the assumption of the Bill of Rights is that you will live up to your obligations as a citizen, that you will behave in accordance with the general prohibitions and the general limitations on one's liberty, and that one will, in fact, perform one's duties as a citizen, and to be responsible in doing that. Doesn't the state have the right to limit your liberty in certain ways for the public good? Why shouldn't you be forced to incriminate yourself? What does it mean to preserve those rights not enumerated? Does it mean that they're fixed in time, as Justice White thought in 1791, or does it mean that the Supreme Court has the power to define this as every generation goes on? I talk about this in a history class, and I talk about it often in terms of why was the 14th Amendment necessary? Why is it that Congress in 1864 decided it had to protect the rights of its citizens, in this case former slaves, against the actions of states? And so you can talk about how the state tried to re-impose limitations on the ability of blacks to testify in court against whites, the legal rights, et cetera, et cetera, so you can get to the whole idea of what are the rights of citizenship, and then why were those rights being ignored in this period, and then how the federal government took a position to guarantee those, and then how it failed. Or I'll talk about various individual court decisions that will highlight the operation of one of these rights, like the Miranda decision. It's not until the 1950s, for instance, that your Miranda rights have been assured. And the reason for that is that police departments were very lax in respecting these rights, and ultimately during the 1950s the courts found it necessary to insist that there are certain standards that have to be adopted.