Supreme Court Guts First Amendment

Concerned Women for America ^ | 12/10/03 | n/a

[jimkress]

In a tragic decision today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that jeopardizes a cardinal principle of the U.S. Constitution: free speech. Concerned Women for America's Chief Counsel Jan LaRue noted that the decision means less protection for political speech, the very speech the First Amendment aims to shield, than for pornography. The following article comes to us from the James Madison Center for Free Speech of Washington, D.C.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution mandates that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Today the United States Supreme Court has gutted that mandate by upholding nearly all of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). "No law" has been replaced by a 90-page statute implemented by a thousand pages of complex regulations.

BCRA (often referred to as "McCain-Feingold" after its chief Senate sponsors) imposes onerous restrictions on the ability of citizens of ordinary means to pool their resources in citizen groups to amplify their voices on public issues. One of the worst restrictions is the ban on "electioneering communications," defined as mentioning a candidate's name in a broadcast communication within 60 days of a general election (30 days before primaries). By upholding this ban, the Court prohibits public-interest groups from telling the public where candidates stand on such vital issues as abortion, health care, the environment, cloning, euthanasia, taxation and the war on terror. Legislation is often being finalized in the weeks before an election, and the BCRA ban prohibits citizen groups from broadcasting an appeal to call Senator X (who is a candidate) and tell him to oppose a bill called by its sponsors' names (who are candidates).

Madison Center General Counsel James Bopp Jr. said: "The Court's affirmation of BCRA severely damages citizen participation in the American system of government and fundamentally alters American political discourse without any constitutional warrant and in direct contravention of constitutional mandate. The Court and Congress have empowered incumbent politicians, corporations owning media outlets and wealthy individuals, at the expense of people of ordinary means."

When America acquiesced in the Court's assertion of the right of judicial review of statutes for constitutionality, Americans did not authorize the Court to gut plain provisions of the Constitution and fundamentally alter the system of participatory government created by that Constitution. Once again the Court has seized power not granted it in the Constitution. That is commonly known as a coup d'etat.

[jimkress]

Our Republic has been officially terminated. We are now an oligarchy, ruled by the few who have forcibly taken power in Washington DC. The means to secure peaceful change may no longer be in our grasp.

Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. (John F. Kennedy)

[AntiGuv]

It thought GWB said the Supreme Court would fix the Campaign Finance Act that he signed into law?

[Campion]

Could somebody please hurry up and embalm our dead Constitution? The corpse is starting to stink up the place.

[Hanging Chad]

"...ruled by the few who have forcibly taken power ..."
- - -
The sheeple allowed it to happen.
No force was necessary.

[gunnedah]

Who do you think the Democrats are hell bent on controlling who is put on the Supreme Court?

[FirstPrinciple]

Why is GWB passing the buck to the Supreme Court?

[sphinx]

It may be time to find an offshore location and start up Radio Free America.

[FirstPrinciple]

Why are you overlooking the fact that Bush actually signed it into law?

[FirstPrinciple]

What happened to those in FR who were convinced that the SC will overturn this law? What happened to their 8-ball?

[Theodore R.]

Some think he signed this into law because he was afraid that John McCain might mount an "independent" campaign against him in 2004 if he did not do so.

[Theodore R.]

Apparently, GWB is determined to be the first modern president who vetoed NOTHING. That way he can show that he is "accommodating" and "reaches out" to others.

[freeeee]

Some think he signed this into law because he was afraid that John McCain might mount an "independent" campaign against him in 2004 if he did not do so.

W decided his job security is more important than freedom.

He forgets why his job exists to begin with.

[FirstPrinciple]

So he put his political future ahead of the welfare of the nation. And somehow he is an honest politician who never listens to polls, etc? How?

[Aquamarine]

The SC knew they could do this when they saw our leaders stay quiet over the Ten Commandments travesty in Montgomery. It's time for our leaders to stand up for freedom of speech and worship...NOW!

[lasereye]

Did he say that?

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!

[gunnedah]

Seems to me this bill was passed to pacify some in Congress and the public with the thinking it wouldnt stand the scrutiny of the Supreme Court. I could be wrong but it just goes to show those writing and passing laws dont know what they are doing. Same results, lawyers and the courts will control America instead of the public. Our government is being overthrown and the Constitution is being interpeted by whim. Facts still the same obstruct and take over.

[jraven]

Gee, I guess I was wrong but I thought:
1)GWB signed it into law
2)Many of the justices on the court were not appointed by Democrats but also by Republicans.
I don't know how I made that mistake. So I guess Bush didn't sign it, or it was vetoed and the Congress passed it despite his veto, and the court is entirely comprised of Democratic appointees. Thanks for clearing it up for me!

[AntiGuv]

What he said was this:

"These provisions of the bill will go a long way toward fixing some of the most pressing problems in campaign finance today. They will result in an election finance system that encourages greater individual participation, and provides the public more accurate and timely information, than does the present system. All of the American electorate will benefit from these measures to strengthen our democracy."

"However, the bill does have flaws. Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns. In particular, H.R. 2356 goes farther than I originally proposed by preventing all individuals, not just unions and corporations, from making donations to political parties in connection with Federal elections. I believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished; and when individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under the First Amendment. I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law."*

In not so many words, Bush clearly stated that he signed CFR into law despite its dubious constitutionality with the prevarication that the Supreme Court would amend it as necessary.

*emphasis added