“It’s not just my opinion,” Mac said. “The Supreme Court has ruled that the words in the Constitution mean what the Founding Fathers said they meant, and we can’t go changing or amending the Constitution by giving new meanings or new shades of meaning to the words. And, if you think about it, it makes sense; otherwise, our rights really mean nothing. Congress or any other governing body can deny you the right to free speech, freedom of religion, a trial by jury, or whatever else it wanted just by claiming the words now have a new meaning. An oppressive government could change the Constitution without ever having to go through the bothersome ritual of submitting it to us, the people, for our approval. And, in the end, the Constitution and, in particular, the Bill of Rights are there for our protection, not for the benefit of the government or those who run it.”
It would appear that Supreme Court has changed its mind, and that Congress can make laws not only respecting, but restricting, free speech and freedom of the press. this in spite of the 1st amendment, which says they can't. Pretty much makes the entire Bill of Rights not worth the parchment they were printed on, doesn't it?
I hope McCain-Feingold will be tested and that it is shown that the SCOTUS were wrong to not deem it unconstitutional.
Of course it would have been nice if Pres. Bush vetoed the bill before it had a chance to become law.
I'd like to know which one of his(Bush's) "political advisors" told him that signing it would be a good move and the SCOTUS would say it was unconstitutional.
I'll tell ya one thing though, all of this is going to get me more involved politically. I live in FL and I will be working hard to get a Rep. Senator in Grahams seat.