Constitutional Add Ons And Exception  

When the 13 original state governments decided to create a new national government, these 13 states created a document called the Constitution. The Constitution defined and supposedly limited the power of this newly created government. As James Madison described the powers given to this newly created government as few and well defined. In the Constitution each branch, Congress, the President, and the Judaical all have certain power and these powers are well defined. Yet through the history of this country the national government has created as I like to call add on powers. Everything from the public education system to trying to create mandatory health insurance are powers that would be described as add on powers.
When the state where asked to give up some of their own power to create this national government they demanded protection for them and their citizens. We call these protections the Bill of Rights, but really the correct terminology is the Bill of Prohibitions. These protections where absolute with wording like Congress shall not, shall not be infringed, and shall not be violated. Like the power defined by the Constitution, the national government has decided to created what I would like to call exception. Abridging the freedom of speech except if you are a political dissenter, freedom of press except if you are Howard Stren, the right of the people peaceably to assemble except at a national party convention, to petition the Government for a redress of grievances except when government does not want hear it, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, unless if it is a so called assualt gun, The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated unless you are a possible terrorist, and so on.
Now the interesting is these add ons and exceptions can have double standards. If asked how does the National government have the power to regulate a farm they will state the interstate commerce clause but does nothing to prevent state government form barring out of state health insurance companies from offering coverage with in that state, which is exactly why the interstate commerce clause was wrote into the Constitution. If Exxon want to run a commercial talking about their work on alternative fuels take is okay, free speech but if Exxon wants to run an ad endorsing a candidate oh heck no. Yet when the New York Times, a corporation, endorsed Barack Obama that endorsement is protected by the freedom of the press.