Replies

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)

I am an optimistic kinda guy, but this one really knocked me for a loop.

At best, these justices should be impeached, at worst they should be run out of town on a rail, complete with tar and feathers. I sickened, but I ain't dead yet. I plan to fight this decision with all my power. The writing campaign has just begun.

After this decision it just may take armed revolution by The People to get back our Constitutional rights from these bastards, these traitors, these power hungery slugs that suck the freedom out of us by the day.

Note to GW: You should have vetoed this piece of crap.

Note to Republicans: You had better get busy and fix this thing or you are going to see the beginning of the second American Revolution, and I don't mean at the ballot box.

I'll die on my feet before I'll live on my knees and I mean that with all my heart and soul. The Supremes just gave me a chance to prove my convictions, they have taken away my 1st liberty. Our founding fathers are spinning in their graves right now.

We'd better start this thing soon, before they get to the second amendment. My faith in our legislators, president, and judicial system is GONE. The only faith I have left is in my fellow Americans and the Constitution of these here United States.

I'm going to get good and knee crawlin', fallin' down, commode huggin' drunk and write very nasty letters to all my representatives and maybe a few SC Justices. No threats, just a big can of ugly (as we say in Texas).

(With glass of bourbon held high) Here's to the Constitution of these here United States of America, and to THE PEOPLE for which is stands, and to the tree of liberty that my blood will soon feed! (GULP) There's the first "shot" of this revolution, and I'm pouring the second. Keep your powder dry and your liquor stocked, you're going to need both!

God will take my life before a man takes my liberty!

INTREP - IMPEACH THE BLACK-ROBED TYRANTS

President Bush is a good and decent man, an effective and excellent president. He made a serious mistake signing this legislation. He didn't write the legislation.

The remedy is to pressure lawmakers to repeal the law, or work to elect lawmakers who will. No one else can do that for us. We must do it ourselves.

I have a bad feeling that we are going to lose the Pledge of Allegiance next.

SCOTUS has no lawful authority to overturn our ratified Constitution: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

Our RATIFIED Constitution is the Law of OUR Land, not what 5 rogue, agenda driven federal employees order.

Impeachment and removal from office mus be our goal to recapture our Republic nearly lost to transnational socialst utopians, corrupted into fascism.

Just wait for Emergency Powers Declarations suspending our ratified constitution, citing extant Executive Orders, which only have lawful authority over employees of the government, but still subject to limits of our ratified Constitution, the only Law of our Land.

Marshal law is not a power granted to our federal government.

Vote to remove from office these domestic enemies of our Constitution.

Posted in another thread:

I think Cal Thomas (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20031211.shtml) has a good op on Townhall.com about this and brought up the same point that I tried to make in yesterday's long thread about the SC decision.

"Political action committees can still function under the ruling, but PACs must provide lists of contributors to anyone interested. Nat Hentoff(an authority on the First Amendment) reminds me of the 1958 NAACP vs. Alabama case in which the state sued the civil rights organization to stop it from conducting activities in Alabama on grounds that it had failed to comply with the requirement that "foreign corporations" register before doing business in the state. During the proceedings, Alabama requested the NAACP produce a large number of its records. The organization did so but held back its membership lists. The Alabama court found the NAACP in contempt and imposed a large fine.

"In its opinion overturning the state court ruling, Supreme Court Justice John Harlan wrote, "Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly. ." Justice Harlan then said something that could serve as a stern rebuke to the five members of the current Court who have effectively diminished the freedom of political speech: "In the domain of these indispensable liberties, whether of speech, press or association, the decisions of this Court recognize the ABRIDGEMENT of such rights, even though unintended, may inevitably follow from varied forms of governmental action. ."

I tried to tell those who who didn't think it was such a big deal or those who thought the constitution gave Congress the right to "regulate" elections that this was an "abridgement" to freedom of speech. Many talked about the "corruption" in politics or the money involved and that seemed to be the main concern. But is money the same thing as a gun being held to a politicians head? I believe not.

Political candidates make moral choices, or, at the very least, I wish they would. But the blame seems to be squarely on money and not on the candidate and his character. Sort of like blaming the gun for killing someone rather than the perpetrator of the crime.

But the MAIN concern here is "special interest groups and others" being banned from running political ads during the final two months of an election. An individual who goes to a TV or radio station to pay for an ad critical of a candidate could come under investigation. He could be asked what group he belongs to and where he got the money from to pay for the ad.

I would suggest to those who believe that they have no problem with this ruling to carefully look at the constitution, the First Amendment, and then look up the dictionary meaning of "abridge", and then tell us all why you believe that this ruling was in fact the right one.