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 "No law" has been replaced by a 90-page statute implemented by a thousand pages of complex regulations.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.

[farmfriend]

I am not one to believe that everything the Republicans do is correct. I am against campaign finance laws. I personally believe that it does limit speach.

[gundog]

I once had a Lib dimwit tell me that the 2nd Amendment didn't, or shouldn't, apply to modern firearms; that the founding fathers would never have sanctioned private ownership of "assault weapons." I retorted that the 1st Amendment, then, ought not apply to modern media such as radio and television. And now it doesn't. Damn...

[You Gotta Be Kidding Me]

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

The dufus said that the USSC would simply strip out the ad-banning part

[Frank_Discussion]

Probably because he thought his picks would have made it to the bench in time to sh*tcan this travesty. A HUGE political miscalculation. The worst I've ever seen.

[Political Junkie Too]

If they're going to gut an amendment, why not start with the 17th? Then the whole issue goes away because the elections go away.

-PJ

[Blood of Tyrants]

The means to secure peaceful change may no longer be in our grasp.

It never was. Those in power NEVER peacefully give it up. IT appears that the ballot box has been stuffed, the jury box has been rigged, and the soap box has been hushed. There is just one box left and they ae working hard to take that one away.

"If someone is so fearful that, that they’re going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!" -Congressman Henry Waxman May 14, 2001 on .50 cal rifles

[pabianice]

And this is the Court some people wanted to rule on Silviera. Yikes!

[Blood of Tyrants]

It isn't the corpse that stinks. It is what they wiped on it.

[Blood of Tyrants]

But he was just trying to steal another liberal issue. It's the intention that counts, right?

[68 grunt]

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

You should take heart. Prognosticators at FR are just as accurate as the talking heads, in other words, not accurate at all. Its as if the sounds from their mouths keeps their brain pans busy.

[international american]

A rule passed by a bunch of incumbents...certified by 5 (till death do us part,highly paid dolts).....justice is served:)

[Mr. Mojo]

But he was just trying to steal another liberal issue

The libs have few issues left at this point. The administration has stolen - aka, adopted - virtually their entire platform.

[Imal]

It seems we are losing ever more control over our government, with bans on political speech being only one more step on the ever-shortening path into the darkness.

[DustyMoment]

Good question. The fact that he signed the odious POC Bill raises serious questions about Bush's agenda. This, coupled with other really crappy legislation or spending bills easily leads one to believe that there is a stealth agenda at work.

This ruling cannot be allowed to stand.

[Senormechanico]

" "If someone is so fearful that, that they’re going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!" -Congressman Henry Waxman May 14, 2001 on .50 cal rifles "

I have a clue for you Henry. You should be, although you probably will never understand why.

These bastards just don't get it.

It's a terrible day for our country.
SM

[Alberta's Child]

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.

Then that solves the whole problem right there. Political candidates can simply skirt the CFR regulations by creating pornographic campaign ads.

[Frank_Discussion]

I feel all guilty... You made me LAUGH!

[banjo joe]

90-page statute implemented by a thousand pages of complex regulations.

Make law complicated enough and everone is in violation.

[NeoCaveman]

Political candidates can simply skirt the CFR regulations by creating pornographic campaign ads.

Well the Democrats already promise to F' us.

Just paying my last respects to the first ammendment.

[Teacher317]

I once had a Lib dimwit tell me that the 2nd Amendment didn't, or shouldn't, apply to modern firearms; that the founding fathers would never have sanctioned private ownership of "assault weapons." I retorted that the 1st Amendment, then, ought not apply to modern media such as radio and television. And now it doesn't. Damn...

So this is all YOUR fault! ;^)