Daily Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 5

[Valin]

Who Speaks for the People? By Christopher G. Adamo December 15, 2003

We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America. --The United States Constitution--

Upon reading the text of the Preamble to the Constitution, as well as the remainder of that document, certain foundational principles of the American experiment become altogether undeniable. The founders clearly understood that those things which would, to the greatest degree, advance the cause of the individual, also would redound to the utmost long-term benefit of the nation.

Such a concept was a dramatic departure from the typical mindset of governing bodies throughout times past. Even to this day, most nation states operate under an opposing ideology, in which the presumption is that those things working to the best advantage of the state somehow will reverberate to the greatest profit of the individual. This latter concept prevails solely because those in power prefer it for their own sakes. Yet history lacks any evidence to support it.

As Americans have, in recent years, become continually less knowledgeable regarding the reasons for the success and greatness of their country, the underlying principle of the Constitution has been increasingly subordinated to its antithetical counterpart. Under the dubious auspices of "the compelling interest of the state," a plethora of detestable decisions have been codified into law in recent years. Clearly the Founders, being of a noble caliber unknown among political circles in the present day, instead recognized as paramount the "compelling interest" of the individual, who by himself could not otherwise prevail against the enormous power of the state.

Wednesday's "campaign finance" decision by the Supreme Court stands as the latest abomination to the rights and liberties of the American people. And as with all such decisions handed down by America's nine-member board of royalty, it bears no association whatsoever to the principles on which this nation was founded, and within which its government is supposed to operate.

It is noteworthy to briefly consider just what manner of state this court perceives America to be, wherein its "compelling interests" are somehow served by "rights" of child-pornographers and the "right" to engage in sodomy (both having been supported by recent Supreme Court decisions), but which is threatened by free political speech. Is it not more likely that the Court's own hegemony on power is threatened by such speech, and therefore must be protected by the systematic suppression of those unworthy masses?

As one horrendous outrage after another against the Constitution (and ultimately therefore against the people) proceeds from this nation's high courts, it becomes ever more obvious that the "unalienable rights," so long taken for granted by Americans, are no longer guaranteed to any degree. Americans retain only those freedoms the courts decide, on a case-by-case basis, that they have. And to an ever increasing degree, the particular "rights" being promoted are only those advocated by the lowest elements of this country's "counterculture," which has labored diligently during the past four decades to irreversibly alter the fabric of society.

Sounding eerily similar to the standard diatribe accompanying each ensuing gun law, the Court's majority asserted that campaign finance "reform" law, while plainly abridging the rights of citizens to engage in political speech, would not be sufficient to "clean up the political process," as it ostensibly was enacted to do.

According to the five justices upholding the law: "We are under no illusion that [this campaign finance law] will be the last congressional statement on the matter. Money, like water, will always find an outlet. What problems arise, and how Congress will respond, are concerns for another day." Thus, the court gives its blessing to the notion that, in order to purge itself of corruption, a corrupt Congress must possess the authority to restrict the political activity of the people.

Of particular significance is the fact that, in the aftermath of the decision, "movers and shakers" across the political spectrum are weighing its effects almost entirely as to its expected positive or negative impact on their own political fortunes, with scant concern for the devastating blow it dealt to the rights of common citizens. And this appalling situation will only worsen until the people commit to doing whatever is required to regain their lost power in the American political system.

http://gopusa.com/chrisadamo/ca_1215.shtml

[Valin]

Yesterdays Thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1040115/posts

[Valin]

If you would like to be on or off this ping list please let me no.

[Valin]

Ping

[Smile-n-Win]

I would like to be on it please.

[Valin]

No!

We just took a vote and it was decided that we don't want you. :-)

[Vision]

I'm really proud you are doing this thread. I hope it continues until our rights are restored.

I had a mild reaction to the news of Saddam. I think highly of the military and expected his capture back in April. But I never, in my worst dreams expected the SC to rule against free speach. I am scared.

After a day of brainstorming, the only route I see is to sell conservative values so we can restore a fair judiciary. Appartently this country is not a collection of laws and a constitution. It is a collection of people who uphold laws. And if good people aren't in-charge, anything can happen.

[Smile-n-Win]

Aha, now I see why it's spelled "let me no" ! :-)

[Smile-n-Win]

And if good people aren't in-charge, anything can happen.

Correct.

And, I might add, it can also happen when a combination of bad people and good but "compassionate" people are in charge. I think President Bush is fundamentally a very good man, but he is tragically mistaken about the morality of "compassion." See my tagline.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

...It is noteworthy to briefly consider just what manner of state this court perceives America to be,...

They percieve correctly that we are in Post-Republic America.

As that becomes ever more obvious,even to the sheeple, they will have to go after the second amendment with a vengeance.

The revised version of the AWB will be blatantly anti-Constitutional and comprehensive. Bush will sign it saying he has "some reservations" and the bots will claim he's "out strategerizing the left again and it will be overturned at the SCOTUS so shut up, you one-issue malcontents and where you going to go anyway?"

[4CJ]

If you would like to be on or off this ping list please let me no.

Please put me down as a 'no' as well ;o)

[Valin]

What with an election season coming up we are provided with a golden opportunity to hold our rep./senators feet to the fire.
The candidates are going to be coming around to hold "townhall meetings" to speak to us and (more important) listen to what we have to say. What we need to do is demand they repeal this law, or at a minimum amend it(if possible, which I doubt). Also I'd recommend letters, not e-mails but actual hand written letters. For what I understand every letter is considered to be worth 10,000 votes. It really doesn't matter if you (like me) have a leftist as your rep. many groups on the left don't like this law either.

[King Black Robe]

BTTT

[international american]

ON!

[Valin]

From yesterday
Gingrey (R-GA, 11) interested in FR, and in law restoring free speech
Meeting | 12-14-2003 | Robert A Cook
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1040281/posts

[proud American in Canada]

"But I never, in my worst dreams expected the SC to rule against free speach. I am scared."

I never expected it either. What a shock!

But I think we can make a repeal of that portion happen.

[proud American in Canada]

Hi, Valin,
Thank you so much for this daily thread, the most important I've ever posted on, because I believe that together, we can make a difference.

I don't know why, but all weekend, I couldn't log on to FR. Every time I tried the computer crashed. I can't believe I missed the official FR reaction to the capture of Saddam! :(

Anyway, on Saturday I sent the following letter to the Denver Post; I sent it today to the Washington Times. I encourage anyone who is interested to cut, paste, modify and send it to your local paper.

And in some ways, the smaller the paper, the better. First, it would increase the chances it would be published, and people need to understand how important this right is, that it affects people regardless of party affiliation, and second, in a smaller paper, you can put in the phone # of the local congressional rep. Perhaps people will call.

here it is:

Dear Editor:

Contrary to the expectations of just about everyone in the country, perhaps even of the President who signed the bill, the Supreme Court has upheld Campaign Finance Reform.

Although the name of the bill is deceptively attractive-who doesn't want "reform"?--the law it embodies is a direct attack on the most fundamental right all Americans hold--the right to political free speech. No longer can groups of citizens purchase, in the 60 days prior to a general election, radio or t.v. time that criticizes a politician.

The freedom to express political opinions is at the heart of all other freedoms. That is why the Founders put it in the First Amendment. We cannot have the right to privacy, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to be free of unlawful searches and seizures, without the right to challenge the politicians who govern us.

Indeed, many have described this law as the "Incumbent Protection Act," for it makes it very difficult for incumbents to be held accountable for their voting record. In today's sound-bite world, 60 days is a lifetime.

That is why I have sent a letter to Rep. Tom Tancredo, asking him to present a bill, on the very first day that Congress meets in January, to repeal this odious law. I hope that other congressional representatives join in this endeavor, for this issue rises above party.

Every American--Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, whatever--who cares about the right to speak freely on a political issue should demand that this law be repealed--and repealed immediately.

__________________

p.s., now that we're talking about just repealing a certain portion (more effective, imo), then modify the letter as needed.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Thank you.

But, to be effective, your letters (emails/phonecalls) havce to happen.

[Valin]

WHAT! You mean you can't just think about writing a letter.
WOW What a radical concept! ACTUALLY writing the letter.


That's why ever letter is considered to be 10,000 vote. It's assumed that for every letter recieved there are 10,000 others out there who feel the same way.

[Vision]

But I think we can make a repeal of that portion happen.

Let's get it going.