Indifference to liberty

The Washington Times ^ | 12/23/2003 | William Goldcamp

[ovrtaxt]

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.

[ovrtaxt]

no branch of the government associated with this law has shown itself worthy of the vision of the Founders and Framers.

When the ENTIRE government fails We The People,and we lose the First Amendment, where do we turn? (The Second Amendment?)

[Molly Pitcher]

Powerfully written piece on the First Amendment/"CFR" debacle.

[stopem]

"Some members of Congress concocted this scheme to protect their incumbency and to mask and excuse their lack of character. Others knew the bill was wrong but voted for it anyway, because they believed the Supreme Court would strike it down. "

What is this about? Now they vote based on hope that the Supreme Court will strike it down?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The fundamental corruption of CFR lies in its establishment of a particular genre of nonfiction (journalism) as "the press".

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 . . .

[BlackbirdSST]

When the ENTIRE government fails We The People,and we lose the First Amendment, where do we turn? (The Second Amendment?)

That's why it's in there (the 2nd Amd.), some reminders need to go out it seems. Blackbird.

[BlackbirdSST]

What is this about? Now they vote based on hope that the Supreme Court will strike it down?

Why not? The President will sign it into Law on the same false premise. Blackbird.

[fporretto]

There will be a rising over this, or we are unfit to call ourselves Americans. See also this and this.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com

[Klickitat]

"There has long been discussion whether the Supreme Court should interpret the Constitution as written or expand it according to whims of the day. "

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..."

[neverdem]

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?