Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Congress Could Vote Tomorrow On Internet Exemption
Gun Owners of America ^ | Wed, 15 Mar 2006 15:35:31 | GOA

Posted on 03/16/2006 8:32:01 PM PST by gnarledmaw

U.S. House Will Vote Soon on Whether to Ditch John McCain's Internet Regulations

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102,
Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

The U.S. House of Representatives will vote, as early as Thursday, on legislation introduced by Texas Congressmen Jeb Hensarling and Ron Paul. This bill (H.R. 1606) will exempt the Internet from regulation under federal "electioneering" laws.

Unless the Hensarling-Paul bill is successful, many major blogs and web sites could be shut down for 60 days before any general election -- and for 30 days prior to any primary -- making it much more difficult for groups like Gun Owners of America to criticize anti-gun candidates.

How did we arrive at such a dismal state?

You may remember that, a half-decade ago, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) pushed a McCain-Feingold bill which, as enacted, prohibits organizations from engaging in major "broadcast communications" which even mention a candidate in a favorable or unfavorable light within 60 days of a general election (30 days of a primary).

Senate Republicans rolled over -- and George Bush signed the bill -- based on the assumption that the Supreme Court would surely save them from their unconstitutional legislation. But, in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), the Supreme Court, by a five-to-four decision, upheld McCain-Feingold, almost in its entirely.

To its enormous credit, the conservative Federal Election Commission (FEC), in the wake of the McConnell case, moved to narrowly interpret the statute -- exempting the Internet entirely from McCain-Feingold. But in Shays v. Federal Election Commission, 337 F.Supp.2d 28 (D.C., 20004), a federal judge ordered the FEC to regulate the Internet.

The FEC is doing everything in its power to minimize the impact of the Shays ruling.

But, there is certainly a danger that, if Hensarling and Paul are unsuccessful in exempting the Internet from FEC regulation, many major blogs and web sites will be construed to be engaged in "electioneering communications" because they praise or criticize candidates. And, if this happens, they could be shut down for 60 days prior to an election -- or, at least, subject to a "gag rule" on what they are allowed to say.

ACTION: Contact your congressman. Ask him to vote for H.R. 1606, a bill to exempt the Internet from McCain-Feingold. Time is short, so please CALL rather than e-mail your representative. (You can use the sample text below to help direct your comments.) The toll-free number to call your representative is 877-762-8762. If you can't get through, the Capitol Switchboard number is 202-225-3121.

----- Sample phone text -----

The U.S. House of Representatives will soon vote on H.R. 1606, a bill by introduced by Texas Congressmen Jeb Hensarling and Ron Paul to exempt the Internet from regulation under federal "electioneering" laws.

Unless the Hensarling-Paul bill is successful, many major blogs and web sites could be shut down for 60 days before any general election -- and for 30 days prior to any primary.

Please support H.R. 1606.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: 109th; 1stamendment; banglist; billofrights; bloggers; cfr; constitutionlist; fec; feingold; firstamendment; freespeech; govwatch; internet; libertarians; mccain; mccainfeingold; mccainthepain; rinowatch; weblogs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-97 next last

1 posted on 03/16/2006 8:32:03 PM PST by gnarledmaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gnarledmaw
Thanks to Republicans and their successful (for now) assault on the First Amendment, patriots like Ron Paul now have to screw around with more dumb legislation to restore our God-given civil rights.

The Founders would be cleaning their weapons over crap like this.

Thanks a hell of a lot, Republicans, from Bush Jr. on down.

Our government needs a good top-to-bottom enema.

2 posted on 03/16/2006 8:34:22 PM PST by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government "job" attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gnarledmaw
Here's hoping the Hensarling-Paul bill is successful.

No more CFR crapola.

3 posted on 03/16/2006 8:35:32 PM PST by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gnarledmaw
Free Speech Ping!

It wouldn't be getting rid of McCain's lousy law entirely, but it would be a start.

4 posted on 03/16/2006 8:36:26 PM PST by WestVirginiaRebel (A fool and his money are soon parted. Democrats love fools.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: Jim Robinson; caryatid; CDHart; DoughtyOne; Darksheare; FlingWingFlyer; cryptical; TomGuy; WFTR; ...
Blogger battle [Internet exemption from McCain/Feingold]
6 posted on 03/16/2006 8:41:36 PM PST by gnarledmaw (I traded freedom for security and all I got were these damned shackles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

ping


7 posted on 03/16/2006 8:47:34 PM PST by gnarledmaw (I traded freedom for security and all I got were these damned shackles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gnarledmaw

Also see:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1597054/posts


8 posted on 03/16/2006 8:49:27 PM PST by Mobile Vulgus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon
From Hank Rearden's profile, so you'll know who you're dealing with...

"The Republican Party has no principles. There are no nonnegotiable, unyielding, core philosophies on which the party and its candidates will stand or die. Anyone can call himself a Republican, and the party is happy to have them, no matter what they believe, no matter what they do, if it increases the number of "-R"s in Congress. A party of political whores, for whom gaining and holding power is the only value, the only goal.

I'll ask you what I've asked on FR dozens of times. Take your time in replying; I've never gotten an answer, so I'm used to waiting.

What are the core, nonnegotiable principles of the Republican Party? What can we assume from a Republican candidate and/or officeholder? What can we count on?

Smaller government? No. More liberty? No. Balanced budgets? Obviously not. Constitutionally-limited government power? Hell no. Elimination of wasteful spending? Laughable - the Republicans won't even take PBS off the taxpayer teat. How about a reduction in the absurd growth of spending? Of course not. And whatever happened to those promises to kill off the Dept. of Education? It doesn't educate anybody, and was promised to be shut down; instead, Republicans have created more Cabinet departments.

So, Republicans, how's that "limited government" thingie you've been promising us for decades coming along . . . . . . hmmmmmmm?

Go for it. Defend these lying weasels.

The GOP '08 slogan: "We promise we won't piss away another 14 years. Really. Trust us!"


In other words, save your keystrokes...this POS is just that - a POS.

9 posted on 03/16/2006 8:51:36 PM PST by harpu ( "...it's better to be hated for who you are than loved for someone you're not!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon
Hey asshat I believe it was a bi-partisan f-up.

Which party was in the majority in both houses, and could have killed it? Which president signed it, when he could have vetoed it?

Republicans did this to a once-freer citizenry. Never forget that.

10 posted on 03/16/2006 8:52:14 PM PST by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government "job" attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: harpu

Instead of your blathering, answer my questions.


11 posted on 03/16/2006 8:52:39 PM PST by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government "job" attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hank Rearden
Which party was in the majority in both houses, and could have killed it? Which president signed it, when he could have vetoed it?

Republicans did this to a once-freer citizenry. Never forget that.

What party was in the minority and killed Social Security Reform? Quit being an apologist for them.

12 posted on 03/16/2006 8:56:02 PM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: harpu

yea i know, I don't understand why he's here.


13 posted on 03/16/2006 8:57:24 PM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hank Rearden
Which party was in the majority in both houses, and could have killed it? Which president signed it, when he could have vetoed it?

Republicans did this to a once-freer citizenry. Never forget that.

Bump.

One of a my few but undeniable rules:

Never underestimate ANYONE.

FMCDH(BITS)

14 posted on 03/16/2006 9:00:08 PM PST by nothingnew (I fear for my Republic due to marxist influence in our government. Open eyes/see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon
What party was in the minority and killed Social Security Reform? Quit being an apologist for them.

The 'Rats are the last I'd be apologizing for.

Now, which majority party allowed them to kill it off, gave up, ran away and kept us stuck with this Ponzi scheme? From which they continue to steal money for their spending schemes, by the way.

Both Big Stupid Government parties suck, and suck hard. It's getting to the point that independent Americans will be faced with just ignoring, evading and avoiding the entire parasitic pack. Especially since the Republicans turned out to be power-mad, greedy politicians like the rest, no matter the "limited government" lies they told when campaigning.

Harpu won't answer the questions on my FR page - would you care to have a crack at them?

15 posted on 03/16/2006 9:06:52 PM PST by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government "job" attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon
yea i know, I don't understand why he's here.

To keep shining a bright light on the ridiculous excuses made for the greedy, power-mad, Big Stupid Government professional politicians by the unthinking party loyalists.

16 posted on 03/16/2006 9:08:26 PM PST by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government "job" attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Hank Rearden
The 'Rats are the last I'd be apologizing for.

Why is your anger only directed At Republicans on this? McCain/Feingold Seems to be a bipartisan deal to me, it stinks and if they had it to do over again I guarantee they couldn't get it passed. hindsight is 20/20

17 posted on 03/16/2006 9:12:31 PM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: gnarledmaw
Frankly, I'd prefer this legislation fail and the FEC start following the order to shut down web sites like FR.......and watch/help the sh!t hit the fan.
18 posted on 03/16/2006 9:13:22 PM PST by Psycho_Bunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hank Rearden
To keep shining a bright light on the ridiculous excuses made for the greedy, power-mad, Big Stupid Government professional politicians by the unthinking party loyalists.

Maybe coming up with some solutions would be helpful.

19 posted on 03/16/2006 9:13:45 PM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: gnarledmaw
Thanks for the ping. I hope that this one passes. It's sad that it has to be passed. It's sad that our country has fallen to the point that people respect the likes of John McCain and that the rest of the party gave him what he wanted.

Bill

20 posted on 03/16/2006 9:16:02 PM PST by WFTR (Liberty isn't for cowards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon
Why is your anger only directed At Republicans on this?

Because the 'Rats are what they are - big-government, dependency-promoting parasites. They are as advertised.

The Republicans were supposed to be the counter to all that crap, and advertised themselves as such. Instead, once gaining power, they became what they pretended to oppose.

Why D.C. isn't surrounded by burning torches and pitchforks as a result is a mystery to me. We don't need two Big Stupid Government parties, yet that's what we've got.

Now the question is whether anything will change before the whole mess collapses. I'm inclined to doubt it. But I absolutely refuse to let Republican apologists get away with their lame excuses and obfuscations.

21 posted on 03/16/2006 9:18:10 PM PST by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government "job" attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Hank Rearden
remember the "new" tone we were supposed to have in D.C.? bipartisan atmosphere, uniter not a divider, GWB has given them carrots an all he has received is their and your scorn. I believe this legislation is horrible and congress was out to lunch debating it, but what congress-critter is going to vote against "campaign finance reform"? and have that around his neck. especially one drafted in a bipartisan fashion.
22 posted on 03/16/2006 9:23:44 PM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon
Maybe coming up with some solutions would be helpful.

Many, many solutions have been proposed in excruciating detail, from organizations like the Cato Institute, Citizens Against Government Waste, Claremont Institute and numerous others.

What's needed is a party with principles, a will to do the job, and the skill to muster popular support. The GOP fails on the first count, so the other two certainly don't follow.

23 posted on 03/16/2006 9:43:33 PM PST by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government "job" attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: gnarledmaw
" Unless the Hensarling-Paul bill is successful, many major blogs and web sites could be shut down for 60 days before any general election -- and for 30 days prior to any primary -- making it much more difficult for groups like Gun Owners of America to criticize anti-gun candidates. "

OK, what about the websites that Congressional candidates are running themselves?

24 posted on 03/16/2006 9:46:13 PM PST by Buddy B (MSgt Retired-USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hank Rearden

bashing them at every turn is no way to help. I have never heard you say one positive thing here.


25 posted on 03/16/2006 9:47:05 PM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Hank Rearden

If this becomes enforced law, it is time to roll on DC. First in peaceful protest, or will that be disallow 60 days before an election?


26 posted on 03/16/2006 9:51:10 PM PST by jeremiah (How much did we get for that rope?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gnarledmaw

First of all, how are they going to enforce this?

Second, how do they handle it if one day the blog is criticizing the Dimmycraps and the next day it's criticizing the Gang Of Prostitutes?

There should be no Federal involvement in "electioneering" laws anyway. Where in the Constitution is that allowed?


27 posted on 03/16/2006 9:55:28 PM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon

All it was was an incumbent protection measure. The solution is simple. Do not Re-Elect anyone who votes to keep it in place.


28 posted on 03/16/2006 9:56:10 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: harpu
From Hank Rearden's profile, so you'll know who you're dealing with... "The Republican Party has no principles. There are no nonnegotiable, unyielding, core philosophies on which the party and its candidates will stand or die. Anyone can call himself a Republican, and the party is happy to have them, no matter what they believe, no matter what they do, if it increases the number of "-R"s in Congress. A party of political whores, for whom gaining and holding power is the only value, the only goal. I'll ask you what I've asked on FR dozens of times. Take your time in replying; I've never gotten an answer, so I'm used to waiting. What are the core, nonnegotiable principles of the Republican Party? What can we assume from a Republican candidate and/or officeholder? What can we count on? Smaller government? No. More liberty? No. Balanced budgets? Obviously not. Constitutionally-limited government power? Hell no. Elimination of wasteful spending? Laughable - the Republicans won't even take PBS off the taxpayer teat. How about a reduction in the absurd growth of spending? Of course not. And whatever happened to those promises to kill off the Dept. of Education? It doesn't educate anybody, and was promised to be shut down; instead, Republicans have created more Cabinet departments. So, Republicans, how's that "limited government" thingie you've been promising us for decades coming along . . . . . . hmmmmmmm? Go for it. Defend these lying weasels. The GOP '08 slogan: "We promise we won't piss away another 14 years. Really. Trust us!"

And your problem is?

29 posted on 03/16/2006 9:57:46 PM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: gnarledmaw

If I were the FEC chair, I would simply not enforce the ruling.


30 posted on 03/16/2006 9:59:30 PM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon

"Why is your anger only directed At Republicans on this?"

Maybe because Republicans are supposed to be against this kind of fascist policy. If your only reason why someone should be a republican is "well the democrats did it too" have a fun time winning an election ever again.


31 posted on 03/16/2006 10:06:38 PM PST by RHINO369
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369
Maybe because Republicans are supposed to be against this kind of fascist policy. If your only reason why someone should be a republican is "well the democrats did it too" have a fun time winning an election ever again.

I agree the port deal was a bipartisan f-up, along with a brain fart on the part of 70% of the American people.

32 posted on 03/16/2006 10:13:27 PM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon
"I agree the port deal was a bipartisan f-up, along with a brain fart on the part of 70% of the American people."

The port deal is trivial compared to the restriction of free speech, and political speech before an election no less. This is exactly the kind of speech the first amendment was supposed to protect. If there aren't apologists on our side then this kind of illegal legislation wouldn't get passed. If Clinton pulled half the crap Bush has done people here would have called for impeachment, again.
33 posted on 03/16/2006 11:01:30 PM PST by RHINO369
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369

what was the vote in the Senate and House for this bill?


34 posted on 03/16/2006 11:07:06 PM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369
The law was challenged as unconstitutional by groups and individuals including the California State Democratic Party, the National Rifle Association, and Republican Senator Mitch McConnell (Kentucky), the Senate Majority Whip. After moving through lower courts, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a special session in September 2003. On Wednesday, December 10, 2003, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that upheld the key provisions of McCain-Feingold; the vote on the court was 5 to 4. Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion; they were joined by David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, and opposed by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia.

Maybe they should challenge it again, O'Connor is gone.
wikipedia

35 posted on 03/16/2006 11:13:24 PM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: 4bbldowndraft; albertp; Allosaurs_r_us; Abram; AlexandriaDuke; Americanwolf; Annie03; Baby Bear; ...
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
36 posted on 03/16/2006 11:23:49 PM PST by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon
"Maybe they should challenge it again, O'Connor is gone."

As far as I'm concerned any patriot should openly flaunt this law. Its unconstitutional no matter what any court says. The Constitution is clearly worded so should be no debate. I should read the majority opinion to see what kind of trash they used to excuse their edict, but its way to late and I gotta write a paper about genetically modified food for a crazy geography class.
37 posted on 03/17/2006 12:11:03 AM PST by RHINO369
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369

LOL


38 posted on 03/17/2006 12:13:03 AM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: harpu
And your problem with his profile is what?

I'd recommend that you state your points rather than sling personal insults. If you disagree with what he has posted - say so and why!

39 posted on 03/17/2006 12:15:30 AM PST by al_again
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hank Rearden

Agreed. Simply the left's efforts to silence the "alternate media" as a pitiful attempt to regain power.


40 posted on 03/17/2006 12:15:41 AM PST by Lancer_N3502A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican

Good way to keep the lunatic fringe from voting democrat. :)

41 posted on 03/17/2006 12:17:55 AM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: TBP
The Nazi, Fascist, Liberal, Socialist, Communist People's Democratic Party (did I leave anything out?) have been paying very close attention to the on-goings inside China and their attempts to silence descenders using the Internet. The technology is there, it's simply a matter of having the right cronies inside the bureaucracy to go after us.
42 posted on 03/17/2006 12:20:04 AM PST by Lancer_N3502A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon

lol yeah and its a hell of a lot better then staying home on election day.I hope it works this year :-)


43 posted on 03/17/2006 12:20:12 AM PST by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: gnarledmaw

Bump


44 posted on 03/17/2006 5:16:54 AM PST by RJL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gnarledmaw
"a federal judge"

Read: 'totalitarian socialist shill'

45 posted on 03/17/2006 5:56:19 AM PST by CowboyJay (Rough Riders! Tancredo '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: al_again
"And your problem with his profile is what?"

IF you had to ask - my explaining wouldn't matter!

- - - - - - - - -

"I'd recommend that you state your points rather than sling personal insults. If you disagree with what he has posted - say so and why!"

AND, I'd recommend that you go find a 'rolling donut' to have flying sexual experience with!

46 posted on 03/17/2006 7:04:58 AM PST by harpu ( "...it's better to be hated for who you are than loved for someone you're not!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: TBP

See #46...


47 posted on 03/17/2006 7:06:25 AM PST by harpu ( "...it's better to be hated for who you are than loved for someone you're not!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: harpu

I have the impression that this sort of behaviour, rude, boorish, childish and petty as it is, is against the host's rules. I could be mistaken, but I hardly think so. Just because you've been here almost as long as I have does not exempt you from the rules and you know it. It was a polite and civil request but you chose to make one of the most assinine responses I have seen in quite a while.

..."I'd recommend that you state your points rather than sling personal insults. If you disagree with what he has posted - say so and why!"

AND, I'd recommend that you go find a 'rolling donut' to have flying sexual experience with!...


48 posted on 03/17/2006 7:57:31 PM PST by dcwusmc (The government is supposed to fit the Constitution, NOT the Constitution fit the government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
"I have the impression that this sort of behaviour, rude, boorish, childish and petty as it is, is against the host's rules...I could be mistaken, but I hardly think so. Just because you've been here almost as long as I have does not exempt you from the rules and you know it...It was a polite and civil request but you chose to make one of the most assinine responses I have seen in quite a while."

You know, I certainly appreciate your taking the time to express your 'impressions' and 'thoughts' about my response to ANOTHER's response to me BUT - I don't really give a "rat's backside" about what you think or how you feel.

My response THEN is what it is - to that fool from Florida, and it is what is NOW - to your response also.

Now, you just go have yourself a 'lovely day'.

49 posted on 03/18/2006 5:30:34 AM PST by harpu ( "...it's better to be hated for who you are than loved for someone you're not!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: harpu

OK, Doc. So you were a Corpsman...which means I have to cut you some slack... but politeness counts for something when you slap someone down...

Semper fi


50 posted on 03/18/2006 1:42:45 PM PST by dcwusmc (The government is supposed to fit the Constitution, NOT the Constitution fit the government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-97 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson