Posted on 12/23/2003 4:10:51 AM PST by ovrtaxt
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:11:14 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The Supreme Court's Dec. 10 decision upholding the May 2002 campaign finance reform law was, in its own way, as great an attack on American liberty as the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.
The wording of the First Amendment, that "Congress shall make no law," etc., is clear. The Founders and Framers understood that opposition to tyranny required the free expression of ideas, consistent with the general welfare.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
When the ENTIRE government fails We The People,and we lose the First Amendment, where do we turn? (The Second Amendment?)
It merely extends the error made before most of us were born, in which licensing of radio transmissions--i.e., censorship of the unlicensed--was instituted to create "broadcasting." And to compound the felony, government-licensed broadcasting was allowed to enter the realm of politics by commiting journalism.
The result threatened is, ironically, not government control of journalism but journalism's control of the government. But what does it mean, if the two be joined? And is unelected journalism superior to election of representatives? We have "elections"--but have choices only within the parameters which journalism will tolerate.
The planted axiom of CFR is that journalists are super-citizens who can exclude we-the-people from membership in their club. It is worth noting that Mussolini was the leading Italian journalist of his day . . .
That's why it's in there (the 2nd Amd.), some reminders need to go out it seems. Blackbird.
Why not? The President will sign it into Law on the same false premise. Blackbird.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com
There has? I thought that was what the amendment process was for.
"He should also advocate an amendment to the Constitution to redress the court's error and the damage done to the system as a whole. "
Huh? We already have an amendment like that. It's called the first amendment. It can't get much clearer than "Congress shall make no law..."
Exactly. Congress can repeal any of the onerous provisions. The question is do they have the character to do the right thing?
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.