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 "No law" has been replaced by a 90-page statute implemented by a thousand pages of complex regulations.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

[scory]

This is not a conservative/liberal thing. It is a power thing. The only people who benefit from the destruction of Constitutional law are the ruling class as it is the only thing which constrains their insatiable appetite for power. So they make it into a *living* document that changes with the times. They can then start discovering *rights* never considered by those who wrote the Constitution while relegating inconvenient rights that are clearly stated to an obsolete status. Today they simply negated another clause in the 1st Amendment.

The thing I note is that over the decades there have indeed been members of the ruling class that have decried the trend toward negation of Constitutional law. But they have never been in the majority and never has any meaningful action been taken to halt the trend. Judges may make horrid rulings like the one today and they face no real consequences. Politicians may write and pass these anti-constitutional laws and they face no real threat of losing the next election because of it. And the reason they don't is because in the main most politicians and judges would just as soon have the Constitution go away. It is just too hard to rule properly with all those restrictions in place.

[upchuck]

I have proudly stood by President Bush through all this. And I remember all the talk about, "don't worry, a lawsuit will be filed and SCOTUS will take care of the unconstitutional parts of the law."

So President Bush signed it. And I had my doubts. Now SCOTUS has acted. Maybe .1% (that's 1/10 of 1 percent) of the sheeple will understand what they lost today.

President Bush, I really, really want to vote for you next year. But it seems you don't want my conservative vote.

That whooping and hollering you hear in the background are the RATS and libs celebrating the takeover of the country without firing a single shot.

[NeoCaveman]

Has the Supreme Court decided yet if it is legal to sodomize a candidate 60 days before a general election?

[gundog]

Now, now...I would remind you that no attack ever fed a hungry child. </Clinton drivel>

[tomahawk]

United States Constitution, RIP.

[gunnedah]

Does anyone know where on line you can get this opinion. I would like to read this to make sure what it really says. It could be they have put a cut off day to keep things out of the press that can one does not have time to rebut.There are a lot of newspapers that wont print political ads at a designated time just before an election to prevent lies and not giving the opposition a chance to rebut.
I dont see how they could cut it completly out.

[The Westerner]

Ayn Rand used to say that the fight to save America wasn't over as long as we have free speech.

[The Westerner]

In spite of his warrior posture in Iraq, the fact that he doesn't veto anything means he is spineless. I hate to say that. My favorite modern President was Gerald R. Ford for the simple reason that he vetoed more bills than any other President. Every new law expands the government's grip over the body of its citizens.

[ImpotentRage]

"This, coupled with other really crappy legislation or spending bills easily leads one to believe that there is a stealth agenda at work."

I have been suspicious of this for some time. Call me conspiracy-minded (I plead guilty!), but the direction of this administration is so leftist that I find it hard to believe that it can call itself "Republican." Perhaps I am doubly disappointed and disgusted because I actually expected things to get better. What a fool I was!

[The Westerner]

I doubt it's a conspiracy at all. When politicians act pragmatically, it means they act without guiding principles. We, here on FR, still believe in principles. But we are not politicians.

Bush is a thorough pragmatist. He is without core principles that guide his actions. He said in his campaign speeches, "You will know me by what's in my heart." What he means by heart is his feelings. Feelings should never be the guide to action. Only well-thought out principles should be. Bush is guided by his feelings. Sometimes we really like his feelings as when he is sympathetic to soldiers. Sometimes we can't stand his feelings as when he is sympathetic to seniors who want prescription meds.

I doubt highly whether he is bothered by his internal inconsistencies. If he ever wakes up in the middle of the night with self-doubt, he probably prays...another example of turning to faith and feelings, not thought.

[91B]

Make law complicated enough and everone is in violation.

Truer words have rarely been spoken.

[RinaseaofDs]

Sorry buddy. I'd love to agree that the D's did this to us, but they didn't.

This was, really and truly, bipartisan. 7 of 9 justices on the SCOTUS are Republican appointed. McCain is an R. Both the House and Senate are controlled by Rs. GWB is an R.

GWB signed this thing, and it should have been vetoed, and that is the entire ball game.

I was getting ready myself to write all kinds of letters on this, and suddenly realized that there is no one to write to.

The original poster was not joking: this thing was bipartisan, and as such representative government in the US is all done.

Let's say we all want to make it a campaign issue. Who gets hurt the most by this law? Soft money people on the left - no question. D's have trouble raising hard money.

Fine, so you, as an R, mind you, decide you will donate money to MoveOn.org, so long as they only spend the money on this issue. Let's say the agree with this.

The last campaign ad you will see on TV or the Radio will be on August 4, 2004. No money from the RNC or DNC will ever be spent on this issue, and no newspaper editor will ever make it an issue either.

Big media may squawk, but big media is licensed by incumbents. The are going to lose some tasty revenue, but enough to stick their neck out?

Nope, the only thing that is going to turn this around is GWB coming out and admitting he made a mistake in not vetoing the bill in the first place.

He may or may not do that.

[MississippiMan]

The truth, which a lot of freepers refuse to believe, is that there is virtually no REAL difference between the two parties. They talk a different game, but at the core, they all simply want to stay in power and that is #1 on their list. Bush included.

The notion that we control this country by voting is, and has been for quite some time, purest delusion. We do not. We are at the government's whim, and the time and opportunity for a political reversal in this country has come and gone.

The two major groups in this country are not Republicans and Democrats. They are the Ruling Class and The Rest of Us.

MM

[RinaseaofDs]

I think they know EXACTLY what they are doing.

[Lazamataz]

Ayn Rand used to say that the fight to save America wasn't over as long as we have free speech.

Whoopsy.

[BureaucratusMaximus]

The sheeple allowed it to happen.

No force was necessary.

The more and more I think about it...its true. There's not enough Americans that give-a-$hit about America.

[sergeantdave]

I believe that when the first revolution was under consideration, whiskey occupied a prominent place on the table. Think I'll go pour a bit of scotch.

Cheers

[RinaseaofDs]

I now agree with you. No question.

I do have another that I'm not sure of: Is there not a provision in the 17th amendment that says that if enough votes stay home, such that the percentage of votes cast is lower than X% of all voters, that the government can be suspended?

I'm at work and up to my keester now, but I remember HEARING, not reading, about this.

Am I completely off the reservation on this?

[BureaucratusMaximus]

Politicians may write and pass these anti-constitutional laws and they face no real threat of losing the next election because of it.

You are quite correct here. Is this story headlining any of the major media outlets? I suspect its not. Most American's are more concerned with Trista and Ryans wedding/Scott Peterson/jacko/(insert stupid stuff here) than with this.

[waRNmother.armyboots]

It is a sad day.