Skip to comments.
Supreme Court Guts First Amendment
Concerned Women for America ^
| 12/10/03
| n/a
Posted on 12/10/2003 11:51:14 AM PST by 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 "No law" has been replaced by a 90-page statute implemented by a thousand pages of complex regulations.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.
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; 1stammendment; activistcourt; activistcourts; bcra; bigmedia; blackrobetyrants; campaignfinance; censorship; cfr; cwa; electioncommittee; electionlaws; elections; fec; freespeech; fundraising; judicialbranch; judicialtyranny; mccainfeingold; mediabias; nolawsabridging; oligarchy; politicalspeech; scotus; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-82 next last
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)
1
posted on
12/10/2003 11:51:14 AM PST
by
jimkress
To: jimkress
It thought GWB said the Supreme Court would fix the Campaign Finance Act that he signed into law?
2
posted on
12/10/2003 11:53:28 AM PST
by
AntiGuv
(When the countdown hits zero, something's gonna happen..)
To: jimkress
Could somebody please hurry up and embalm our dead Constitution? The corpse is starting to stink up the place.
3
posted on
12/10/2003 11:57:44 AM PST
by
Campion
To: jimkress
"...ruled by the few who have forcibly taken power ..."
- - -
The sheeple allowed it to happen.
No force was necessary.
To: jimkress
Who do you think the Democrats are hell bent on controlling who is put on the Supreme Court?
5
posted on
12/10/2003 12:02:06 PM PST
by
gunnedah
To: AntiGuv
Why is GWB passing the buck to the Supreme Court?
To: jimkress
It may be time to find an offshore location and start up Radio Free America.
7
posted on
12/10/2003 12:04:45 PM PST
by
sphinx
To: gunnedah
Why are you overlooking the fact that Bush actually signed it into law?
To: AntiGuv
What happened to those in FR who were convinced that the SC will overturn this law? What happened to their 8-ball?
To: FirstPrinciple
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.
To: FirstPrinciple
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.
To: 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. W decided his job security is more important than freedom.
He forgets why his job exists to begin with.
12
posted on
12/10/2003 12:11:43 PM PST
by
freeeee
(I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it)
To: Theodore R.
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?
To: jimkress
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!
To: AntiGuv
Did he say that?
15
posted on
12/10/2003 12:15:13 PM PST
by
lasereye
To: jimkress; AAABEST; Ace2U; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; amom; AndreaZingg; Anonymous2; ...
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.
16
posted on
12/10/2003 12:16:57 PM PST
by
farmfriend
( Isaiah 55:10,11)
To: farmfriend
BTTT!!!!!
17
posted on
12/10/2003 12:23:42 PM PST
by
E.G.C.
To: FirstPrinciple
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.
18
posted on
12/10/2003 12:24:06 PM PST
by
gunnedah
To: farmfriend
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!
19
posted on
12/10/2003 12:25:09 PM PST
by
jraven
To: lasereye
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
20
posted on
12/10/2003 12:28:23 PM PST
by
AntiGuv
(When the countdown hits zero, something's gonna happen..)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-82 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson