Posted on 04/20/2002 12:13:29 PM PDT by forest
There was some rather interesting news last week that did not receive enough media play. Some of these things could even be important to the rights of the American people. Others are just interesting because very few people heard about them.
One interesting tidbit is that Rep. David Bonior -- who Rush calls the "Pet Yorkie" for good reason -- is running for Governor of Michigan. Because of that, House Socialist-Democrat leader Dick Gephardt stopped by for a while to promote him. The good part is, hardly anyone paid any attention.
Bonior will be a big loser in Michigan. Too many people there still respect honesty and Bonior doesn't have any. What he has is a very long record that exemplifies everything that is wrong on Capitol Hill. From taking money for votes right on the floor of the House to shepherding through bills that are little more than thinly disguised copies of planks of the Communist Manifesto, Bonior has much to answer for. If he runs for governor, we'll start compiling his record for all to see.
In the Senate, Republican leader Trent (Chester the rights molester) Lott learned that there are, in fact, some rules on the Internet. At least, there are rules on the Senate Internet server, anyway.
Lott wanted to create the web page disappointed.senate.gov to harangue the Socialist-Democratic Senate leader's lack of (and obstructionist) action. Problem is, the Senate has a rule that states that the use of the Senate's web server for partisan activity is strictly verboten. In fact, it even says so right on the web site: "The use of Senate Internet Services for personal, promotional, commercial, or partisan political/campaign purposes is prohibited."
One would think that a Senate leader would know that -- but, never mind. . . . .
Later, we learned that Congress wants to cut a tax in half that few of us even knew we were paying: The Beer tax.
According to reports, Rep. Phil English (R-PA) introduced the bill (H.R. 1305) last year. English's spokeswoman, Jennifer Hall, told reporters, "It's an unfair tax that targets lower - to middle-class Americans." She said that two-thirds of the beer consumed in the country is bought by people earning less than $45,000 per year.
Then, like the loud midnight shrill of a burning cat high on methamphetamines, up popped the Lizzie Borden types.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving -- who's leadership have racked up more drunk driving tickets than anyone I know who is not a professional barfly -- complained that the reduction in the tax by $18 per barrel, as proposed, would decrease the price of a six-pack by a whopping 33 cents, causing more people to drink.
Also last week: President Bush called for an Amendment to the Constitution and few even heard about that. Bush said that victims of violent crime are too often an afterthought in the courts and deserve a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing their rights.
"The protection of victims' rights is one of those rare instances when amending the Constitution is the right thing to do," President Bush said. Therefore, he endorses a bill introduced last Monday in the Senate by Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ). If approved by a two-thirds majority of the House and Senate, and then ratified by at least 38 of the 50 states, the amendment would declare: "The rights of victims of violent crime, being capable of protection without denying the constitutional rights of those accused of victimizing them, are hereby established and shall not be denied by any state or the United States."
Will that be enforced as well as the Second Amendment is? Or, perhaps it will protect us against unwarranted searches like the Fourth Amendment does? We just saw simple campaign finance legislation override the First Amendment's protection of our political speech. What's the point in writing even more Constitutional Amendments when no one in Washington honors the ones we already have?
Thinking of free speech, the U.S. Supreme Court gave us a good indication of what they may do to that new Campaign Finance Act when it gets to them.
In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the Court ruled that the government went too far when it tried to ban computer simulations and other depictions of youngsters having sex.
"The statute proscribes the visual depiction of an idea -- that of teen-agers engaging in sexual activity -- that is a fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature throughout the ages," Justice Kennedy wrote in the majority decision. He was joined by four other justices. Clarence Thomas wrote a separate opinion agreeing with the majority.
Speech is speech, not action, in other words. Art is speech and is protected -- even when we don't like it.
"Teen-age sexual activity and the sexual abuse of children have inspired countless literary works. William Shakespeare created the most famous pair of teen-age lovers, one of whom is just 13," Kennedy wrote, describing "Romeo and Juliet."
"In the drama, Shakespeare portrays the relationship as something splendid and innocent," yet modern staging of the play could run afoul of the anti-child pornography law, Kennedy admonished. Academy Award- winning dramas "Traffic," and "American Beauty" would also be suspect, the Court said.
According to many Supreme Court decisions, political speech holds the highest protection. Which means, look for most of the Campaign Finance Act and parts of the Patriot Act to be scrapped as soon as they are presented to the Court.
Senate Republican leader Trent (Chester the rights molester) Lott learned that there are, in fact, some rules on the Internet.
Congress wants to cut a tax in half that few of us even knew we were paying: The Beer tax.
Bush and Feinstein called for an Amendment to the Constitution for victim's rights, but few even heard about that. Will that be enforced as well as the Second Amendment is? Or, perhaps it will protect us against unwarranted searches like the Fourth Amendment does? We just saw simple campaign finance legislation override the First Amendment's protection of our political speech. What's the point in writing even more Constitutional Amendments when no one in Washington honors the ones we already have?
According to many Supreme Court decisions, political speech holds the highest protection. Which means, look for most of the Campaign Finance Act and parts of the Patriot Act to be scrapped as soon as they are presented to the Court.
I hadn't heard this before. Anybody know anything about it?
America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
Download 8 Mb zip file here (60 minute video)
Actually, Rush calls Bonior the "pit yorkie" a play on "pitbull".
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.