Nice letter! My only suggestion would have been to add something a little more defiant - such as:
Mr. Commissioner,
This is to inform you that we denounce, in the strongest possible terms, your subversive attempt to again stifle free speech and concoct some typically nonsensical law that will undoubtedly fail (as everything else you've passed has) and that was written up by the various lecherous political hacks that inhabit Washington for the purpose of helping the various political parties and garnering superficial media commendation. Mr. Commissioner, we have had enough and we will not go quietly into the night. No, Mr. Commissioner, this time you will find a revolting and angry populace that will vent their anger across the infinite space that is the Internet. You cannot stop us and we will not permit you to stop us. We are sick and tired of big Government Republicans and big Government Democrats trying to regulate the 'masses' in the name of 'public safety' or whatever other semantic rot you folks come up with that enables you to trample on our Constitution. Arrest us if you will and if you dare. We are prepared to take our revolution out of the blogosphere.
Sincerely,
Free Republic
Dear Mr. Commissioner:
Despite the attempt in McConnell v. FEC to redefine "no law" as "well, sometimes", "no law" is still "no law", and Marbury v. Madison has not been overturned:
So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void; is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.
. . .
Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
George Smiley
Hoorah. Well said. Alot of us feel this way. We are like a pot ready to boil over and our leaders either don't know...or don't care.