Should honor killings be legal in the US because of the First Amendment?

[Gabu]

Where the hell did you come up with the conclusion that murder is protected under the First Amendment?

Because it is an integral part of religion and thus the freedom to practice religion is given by the first amendment.

The fifth amendment says, "No person shall ... be deprived of life ... without due process of law."

In plain language, it says, "killing someone is not okay unless the person is sentenced to death in a court of law."

Both the first and the fifth amendment exist in the Constitution; therefore, one is obligated to develop an interpretation of the Constitution in which these two can coexist.  The only interpretation that satisfies this is that which says that the First Amendment's allowance of the "free exercise of religion" does not include passages that require killing someone else.

So no, honor killings should not be legal.

[Gabu]

That is an interesting argument, but I would respectfully disagree with it. The Constitution only restricts the government, not private persons. In fact, it only restricts the federal government, unless the states are explicitly mentioned. (The Supreme Court adopted this view a long time back, in 1833; this interpretation has never since been overturned.)

Why is this, out of curiosity?  The First Amendment explicitly mentions Congress, while the Fifth Amendment simply states what it does without mentioning to whom it applies at all.