Posted on 12/14/2003 1:34:28 PM PST by Robert A Cook PE
Spoke briefly with Congressman Phil Gingrey (R, GA-11th) after church today.
http://www.house.gov/gingrey/
Gingrey is a OB-Gyn physician, a first-time conservative Congressman from a democratic gerry-mandered district spreading through democratic regions in west GA and metro Atlanta.
(1) I asked him to sponsor legistlation REMOVING the free-speech restrictions imposed under McCain-Feingold. He thought it was a good idea, but didn't know how much other Congressional support there would be.
Therefore: CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND CREATE SOME SUPPORT for removal of this section of the law.
Constitutionally, even though the vast majority of the bill has been upheld by the Court (thanks to liberal judges demanded by the Senate!), there is no reason the single section restricting free speech can't be also removed by a second law. The Constitution doesn't have a clause IMPOSING restrictions (yet!), so a law removing ("illegally-declared-but-liberally-declared-constitutional") restrictions should be "legal."
Further, this would FORCE the liberals (in Congress, in the press, and on the courts!) to visibly oppose free speech by publically opposing a law that explicitly restores free speech!
Removing the "money" talking points, and the other dnc-focus points of McCain Feingold from the discussion may get this bill through since it would be targetted ONLY at the 60-day advertising limits - if not in this session, maybe in the next.
Best? Sure; completely remove McCain-Feingold. But it won't happen in today's media climate, given the power this yields to the "national press corpse". So we shouldn't weight down a "possibly-successful" bill with dreams of revoking the whole thing.
It is at least a step to remove this clause. After all, even the whole Amendment invoking Prohibition was removed!
(2) Write, call, or email Gingrey's office(s) local and naitonal to support this bill.
Since it's not proposed yet, we need to show Phil that free speech is supported at the grass roots level. His office, frakly, will listen mostly to GA constituents, but evry call will help!
(3) He is interested in what we discuss here, in how widely-read the Free Republic site is, and how much more thorough we are than "the natioinal press corpse" who slavishly repeated only what they read from the dnc's faux fax sheet. When he expressed an interest in Free republic, I invited him to register and contribute (or at a minmum read along silently) to protect his public persona.
But, he needs a login-id.
So, I'm asking you respond to his web-site above and do three things: Thank him for supporting Bush in his war on terror;
Ask to submit his bill lifting restrictions on politcal speech imposed by the liberal press and the democrats,
Warmly welcome him to Free Republic, and recommend a screen name for FreeRepublic.com
Raise a stink over this issue and pressure will be made to bear.
My (only) bumper sticker reads:
"Abortion?
The Supreme Court also said Slavery was legal!"
Guess now I've got to "amend it" to include CFR!
Understand that I am not knocking the effort to regain some of our constitutional rights; I would just like to see even more being done (Big Media still holds their power position so they are keeping quiet).
"A friend of mine in Washington who is a former nun and a chief staff member for Eugene McCarthy, said we should repeal the entire Constitution, starting with the words 'We the People' through to the signatures." [I paused, and there was a sharp intake of breath by every person in the room. Then I continued....]
"Then, she said we should pass it again, exactly as it is, but add one line: 'This time we MEAN it.' " [There was an explosion of both laughter and applause.]
The point is that the necesary reform is not just to straighten out this particular blunder by the Supreme Court. It is to stgraighten out a lot of bad decisions by the Court, and furthermore, its approach to all future cases. The Court needs to be told, by the express words of the Constitution, that it MUST obey the Constitution until and unless the Constitution is amended by the people as provided in Article V.
THAT is the proper remedy. Anything less is merely wheel-spinning, and I doubt that necessary reform would pass through this Congress as an Amendment, to go out to the states for ratification.
Congressman Billybob
Click here for discussion thread on latest column, "In Praise of Bigotry."
My previous post on this thread concerns the large issue of correcting the constitutional problem. This Congressman is not attempting to do that, now, so belay my previous post.
John / Billybob
As you know; "Until changed by the authentic act of the whole people, the Constitution is sacredly obligatory upon all." -- George Washington
Your reminds me of a John Travolta song.
No kidding. I would change it, but I don't want to look like a newbie for heavens sake....
I know -- taking on a new screen name means at least five or six people calling you a troll.
That's why buffyt likes me.
Cuz I remind her of John Travolta.
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.