|
Lemme know what you think. Both subjects are front burner ones on FreeRepublic.
|
Have a borrowed toon here:
That barrier was breached a long time ago, by the Alien and Sedition Acts. Of course, those were probably unconstitutional as well.
Excellent piece Congressman, I wish you well in your efforts. And expect the Internet to become VERY wild this election season. I think the American people will give the bigots on the court/congress an upbraiding they richly deserve.
I once upon a time had some confidence in this Court, at least for a 6-3 or 5-4 on Constitutional principles when the chips were down. No more. They have completely gone off their reservation and are wandering around in the wilderness, carelessly flinging burning brands.
One can only hope the Court takes it easy the coming year with a light caseload. We can also hope George Bush comes up with a way to get Justices approved - past the succcessful, wretched antics of the Schumers, Leahys and clintons of our Most Dishonorable Senate. So far, signing budget-busting Education Bills and naming buildings for Bobby Kennedy hasn't done the trick.
A pox on all their miserable, elitist heads!
But there are precipices on that path that can make the descent that is long in distance, very short in time. Very short indeed.
This part was especially illustrative... That barrier has now been breached. What will Congress seek to silence next, now that the Court has opened the door? ... in that I was suddenly envisioned with the scene from Starship Troopers where the bugs began swarming over the walls of the firebase atop their dead and poared across the breach. Now that it has started, what will stop it? Even the proponents of CFR here on the right, must acknowledge that this breach is both septic and lethal.
The thing we must remember in all our discussions and especially our defense of Constitutional freedom, is the requisite of Capitalism. It is clear that the ability of O'Connor and her four compatriates to render such a flawed conclusion against the First Amendment is born of a lack of understanding of money and in fact, an absolute distrust of same. The phrase, 'Money is the root of evil' rings throughout this decision and its advocacy. This begs a response from American literature that can never be stated enough (IMHO)...
"So you think that money is the root of all evil?... Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor – your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil?
To fear money is, in fact, to fear freedom. Even before we as a people get to the establishment of rights as a principle, we must consider the interactions of individuals in their daily quest for sustenance and existance. The Delaration of Independence established the moral foundations of human existance prior to the Constitution. We own ourselves, therefore we own the product of our effort.
We exist, therefore we trade. "To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except by the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss – the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery – that you must offer them values, not wounds – that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best your money can find. And when men live by trade – with reason, not force, as their final arbiter – it is the best product that wins, the best performance, then man of best judgment and highest ability – and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil? "...Mrs. O'Connor?
(quote reference, Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand, 1954)
I am not suggesting that America has become a dictatorship of any type, as a result of this bad decision by Congress, the President, and finally the Supreme Court on the First Amendment.
No problem, Mason will do it for you:
James Madison, His Legacy: Virginia Declaration of Rights
Virginia's Declaration of Rights, adopted by the Virginia Constitutional Convention on June 12, 1776, was drawn upon by Thomas Jefferson for the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. It was copied by other colonies and provided much of the inspiration for the Bill of Rights.
The Declaration of Rights was drafted by George Mason with a small but significant modification by the young James Madison.
Section 12. That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.
Dissent by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist:
"The court attempts to sidestep the unprecedented breadth of this regulation by stating that the `close relationship between federal officeholders and the national parties' makes all donations to the national parties `suspect.' But a close association with others, especially in the realm of political speech, is not a surrogate for corruption; it is one of our most treasured First Amendment rights. The court's willingness to impute corruption on the basis of a relationship greatly infringes associational rights and expands Congress' ability to regulate political speech..."
"No doubt Congress was convinced by the many abuses of the current system that something in this area must be done. Its response, however, was too blunt." Dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia
"This is a sad day for the freedom of speech. Who could have imagined that the same court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restriction upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography, tobacco advertising, dissemination of illegally intercepted communications, and sexually explicit cable programming, would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government..."
"The first instinct of power is the retention of power, and, under a Constitution that requires periodic elections, that is best achieved by the suppression of election-time speech. We have witnessed merely the second scene of Act I of what promises to be a lengthy tragedy." Dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas
"The chilling endpoint of the Court's reasoning is not difficult to foresee: outright regulation of the press... Media corporations are influential. There is little doubt that the editorials and commentary they run can affect elections. Nor is there any doubt that media companies often wish to influence elections. One would think that the New York Times fervently hopes that its endorsement of presidential candidates will actually influence people. What is to stop a future Congress from determining that the press is `too influential,' and that the `appearance of corruption' is significant when the media organizations endorse candidates or run `slanted' or `biased' news stories in favor of candidates or parties?" Dissent by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
"The First Amendment underwrites the freedom to experiment and to create in the realm of thought and speech. Citizens must be free to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression of ideas. The civic discourse belongs to the people and Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it. The First Amendment commands that Congress `shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.' The command cannot be read to allow Congress to provide for the imprisonment of those who attempt to establish new political parties and alter the civic discourse. ... The Court, upholding multiple laws that suppress both spontaneous and concerted speech, leaves us less free than before. Today's decision breaks faith with our tradition of robust and unfettered debate."
Congress, Amendments to the Constitution, June--Sept. 1789
[House Debate, 15 Aug.; Annals 1:731, 738]
[Mr. Madison] The right of freedom of speech is secured; the liberty of the press is expressly declared to be beyond the reach of this Government; the people may therefore publicly address their representatives, may privately advise them, or declare their sentiment by petition to the whole body; in all these ways they may communicate their will. If gentlemen mean to go further, and to say that the people have a right to instruct their representatives in such a sense as that the delegates are obliged to conform to those instructions, the declaration is not true.