Posted on 12/14/2003 11:36:43 AM PST by billorites
JAMES MADISON, “Father of the Constitution” and author of the 1st Amendment, was slapped in the face last week by five Supreme Court justices who were sworn to protect the document he penned. Instead they rendered one small portion of it — possibly the most important 10 words it contains — meaningless. “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” Madison wrote. He chose these words carefully. Had he written, “Congress shall make no law eliminating the freedom of speech,” the government would have been given free rein to severely restrict the people’s rights. He chose “abridge” because it gave the broadest proscription of federal power. At least, it did until the Supreme Court began ignoring it.
Over the centuries Congress has tried desperately to secure its own interests against the interests of the people by coming up with all kinds of clever ploys to get around Madison’s ingenious phrase. Throughout the 20th century Congress had a series of small victories in this battle. The Supreme Court, which was originally hostile to these power plays, has by degrees been won over. But today, reading through the nearly 300-page decision in the McCain-Feingold case, it is immediately obvious that Justices Breyer, Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, and O’Connor naively believed Congress’ stated motives for passing a law that clearly abridges the freedom of speech. The justices even admit that the law restricts the speech rights of American citizens. Yet they upheld it anyway, in blatant violation of the First Amendment, because, they argued, such restrictions are justified by Congress’ desire to limit corruption or “the appearance of” corruption within the political process.
That last phrase is important because there is absolutely zero evidence that the provisions of McCain-Feingold prevent political corruption. The provision banning citizens from purchasing political advertisements within the 60 days prior to an election has nothing at all to do with corruption. McCain had that provision inserted into the bill because the nonpartisan Club for Growth had run ads attacking his positions, and he didn’t like it. So he wrote a law that would forever prohibit this group and all others like it from expressing opinions in the two months preceding an election.
Banning so-called “soft money” contributions to national political parties also was a way Congress could limit the ability of citizens to speak out against particular candidates. With districts so gerrymandered that the outcomes of most congressional elections are all but guaranteed, and with contributions to individual candidates and state political parties strictly limited, the two most effective ways for citizens to speak out against politicians were to run “issue ads” prior to elections and to contribute to national political parties, which in turn would direct money to the closest races.
Now those avenues of speech are not simply abridged, they are outlawed. The Supreme Court has become an accomplice to the gradual political disenfranchisement of the American citizen, one “campaign finance” law at a time.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another...
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com
Huh, I never heard of the guy before you brought him to my attention.
I wonder if he was related to the Ames family of shovel-work fame in North Easton, MA. Oliver Ames and that crowd.
Always fun to find another founding father.
So... are we free?
I didn't know that. I guess I'm in good company.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.