[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Excuse me for asking this, but what about the Constitutionality of this provision? Amendment #1: Congress shall make no law restricting speech or the exercise thereof. Doesn't leave any room for reporting requirements on your speech. We know it's unconstitutional. Why doesn't anyone say that?

We probably would do better to quote the First Amendment exactly:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The proposal would have outlawed communicating with 500 people on politics without filling out a form. If you went to a rally of 501 people and cheered a political speech, you'd have been in violation if this proposed law if it were ever in force. And posting on FR? Forget it.

That bill proposed tyranny.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

"We probably would do better to quote the First Amendment exactly:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Thanks for posting. I like it so much, I posted it again!

And to think one of the founding fathers thought the Bill of Rights weren't necessary, since they were "obvious" from the rest of the Constitution. I shudder to think of what this nation would be like without them.

What is "obvious" changes over time.