In defense of Jumeira_Johnny, while you may have posted your questions with the best of intentions, much of what you said came off as quite sarcastic - at least, I took it as sarcasm. I presume Jumeira_Johnny did as well, which is why he posted in kind. To be specific, you questioned our freedom of speech, then made several comments about things such as claiming to be atheist while in the Bible belt, and then calling the Constitution a "really cute document." It comes off as very patronizing, especially considering the fact that the Constitution itself is actually a pretty powerful document. It's power lies in its flexibility. The freedoms are fundamental and universal, and we are given the right to challenge it and interpret it accordingly. Also, for what its worth, I live in Texas with a devout Catholic family and I openly identify as non religious. I have conservative Christian friends who know and understand my point of view, and they're cool with it. Yes, my first amendment rights allow me to do that. They also allow the Westboro Baptist Church to say all the hateful things it does, and we all get to judge them accordingly. Our freedom of speech is pretty awesome like that. I should point out that part of the beauty of the Constitution is not necessarily in the freedoms that it explicitly guarantees the people. To do that is a fool's errand because you can't possibly enumerate every single freedom a person has. Freedom of speech? Check. Freedom to eat cabbage on Tuesday? Check. Freedom to wear white after Labor Day? Check. Instead, the Constitution, and more so the Bill of Rights, places limits on what the Federal Government can do to the citizens. It's a nuance, but an important one. That's why the 9th Amendment exists and why the others are written the way they are. It's not "The people can do this or that." It's "The Government shall not stop the people from doing this or that." We are assumed to be free until the Government tells us specifically that something is illegal, and the Government doesn't do that unless there is a specific challenge. When a sufficient challenge is mounted, and a law is made, we have 3 branches of Government to mange the process to ensure that one of them doesn't take things to far. But you asked for a concrete example. Off the top of my head, our President is not required to be in good communion with the Church of England.