Supreme Court Guts First Amendment

Concerned Women for America ^ | 12/10/03 | n/a

[jimkress]

In a tragic decision today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that jeopardizes a cardinal principle of the U.S. Constitution: free speech. Concerned Women for America's Chief Counsel Jan LaRue noted that the decision means less protection for political speech, the very speech the First Amendment aims to shield, than for pornography. The following article comes to us from the James Madison Center for Free Speech of Washington, D.C.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution mandates that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Today the United States Supreme Court has gutted that mandate by upholding nearly all of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). "No law" has been replaced by a 90-page statute implemented by a thousand pages of complex regulations.

BCRA (often referred to as "McCain-Feingold" after its chief Senate sponsors) imposes onerous restrictions on the ability of citizens of ordinary means to pool their resources in citizen groups to amplify their voices on public issues. One of the worst restrictions is the ban on "electioneering communications," defined as mentioning a candidate's name in a broadcast communication within 60 days of a general election (30 days before primaries). By upholding this ban, the Court prohibits public-interest groups from telling the public where candidates stand on such vital issues as abortion, health care, the environment, cloning, euthanasia, taxation and the war on terror. Legislation is often being finalized in the weeks before an election, and the BCRA ban prohibits citizen groups from broadcasting an appeal to call Senator X (who is a candidate) and tell him to oppose a bill called by its sponsors' names (who are candidates).

Madison Center General Counsel James Bopp Jr. said: "The Court's affirmation of BCRA severely damages citizen participation in the American system of government and fundamentally alters American political discourse without any constitutional warrant and in direct contravention of constitutional mandate. The Court and Congress have empowered incumbent politicians, corporations owning media outlets and wealthy individuals, at the expense of people of ordinary means."

When America acquiesced in the Court's assertion of the right of judicial review of statutes for constitutionality, Americans did not authorize the Court to gut plain provisions of the Constitution and fundamentally alter the system of participatory government created by that Constitution. Once again the Court has seized power not granted it in the Constitution. That is commonly known as a coup d'etat.

[jimkress]

Our Republic has been officially terminated. We are now an oligarchy, ruled by the few who have forcibly taken power in Washington DC. The means to secure peaceful change may no longer be in our grasp.

Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. (John F. Kennedy)

[AntiGuv]

It thought GWB said the Supreme Court would fix the Campaign Finance Act that he signed into law?

[Campion]

Could somebody please hurry up and embalm our dead Constitution? The corpse is starting to stink up the place.

[Hanging Chad]

"...ruled by the few who have forcibly taken power ..."
- - -
The sheeple allowed it to happen.
No force was necessary.

[gunnedah]

Who do you think the Democrats are hell bent on controlling who is put on the Supreme Court?

[FirstPrinciple]

Why is GWB passing the buck to the Supreme Court?

[sphinx]

It may be time to find an offshore location and start up Radio Free America.

[FirstPrinciple]

Why are you overlooking the fact that Bush actually signed it into law?

[FirstPrinciple]

What happened to those in FR who were convinced that the SC will overturn this law? What happened to their 8-ball?

[Theodore R.]

Some think he signed this into law because he was afraid that John McCain might mount an "independent" campaign against him in 2004 if he did not do so.

[Theodore R.]

Apparently, GWB is determined to be the first modern president who vetoed NOTHING. That way he can show that he is "accommodating" and "reaches out" to others.

[freeeee]

Some think he signed this into law because he was afraid that John McCain might mount an "independent" campaign against him in 2004 if he did not do so.

W decided his job security is more important than freedom.

He forgets why his job exists to begin with.

[FirstPrinciple]

So he put his political future ahead of the welfare of the nation. And somehow he is an honest politician who never listens to polls, etc? How?

[Aquamarine]

The SC knew they could do this when they saw our leaders stay quiet over the Ten Commandments travesty in Montgomery. It's time for our leaders to stand up for freedom of speech and worship...NOW!

[lasereye]

Did he say that?

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!

[gunnedah]

Seems to me this bill was passed to pacify some in Congress and the public with the thinking it wouldnt stand the scrutiny of the Supreme Court. I could be wrong but it just goes to show those writing and passing laws dont know what they are doing. Same results, lawyers and the courts will control America instead of the public. Our government is being overthrown and the Constitution is being interpeted by whim. Facts still the same obstruct and take over.

[jraven]

Gee, I guess I was wrong but I thought:
1)GWB signed it into law
2)Many of the justices on the court were not appointed by Democrats but also by Republicans.
I don't know how I made that mistake. So I guess Bush didn't sign it, or it was vetoed and the Congress passed it despite his veto, and the court is entirely comprised of Democratic appointees. Thanks for clearing it up for me!

[AntiGuv]

What he said was this:

"These provisions of the bill will go a long way toward fixing some of the most pressing problems in campaign finance today. They will result in an election finance system that encourages greater individual participation, and provides the public more accurate and timely information, than does the present system. All of the American electorate will benefit from these measures to strengthen our democracy."

"However, the bill does have flaws. Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns. In particular, H.R. 2356 goes farther than I originally proposed by preventing all individuals, not just unions and corporations, from making donations to political parties in connection with Federal elections. I believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished; and when individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under the First Amendment. I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law."*

In not so many words, Bush clearly stated that he signed CFR into law despite its dubious constitutionality with the prevarication that the Supreme Court would amend it as necessary.

*emphasis added

[farmfriend]

I am not one to believe that everything the Republicans do is correct. I am against campaign finance laws. I personally believe that it does limit speach.

[gundog]

I once had a Lib dimwit tell me that the 2nd Amendment didn't, or shouldn't, apply to modern firearms; that the founding fathers would never have sanctioned private ownership of "assault weapons." I retorted that the 1st Amendment, then, ought not apply to modern media such as radio and television. And now it doesn't. Damn...

[You Gotta Be Kidding Me]

"I thought GWB said the Supreme Court would fix the Campaign Finance Act that he signed into law?"

The dufus said that the USSC would simply strip out the ad-banning part

[Frank_Discussion]

Probably because he thought his picks would have made it to the bench in time to sh*tcan this travesty. A HUGE political miscalculation. The worst I've ever seen.

[Political Junkie Too]

If they're going to gut an amendment, why not start with the 17th? Then the whole issue goes away because the elections go away.

-PJ

[Blood of Tyrants]

The means to secure peaceful change may no longer be in our grasp.

It never was. Those in power NEVER peacefully give it up. IT appears that the ballot box has been stuffed, the jury box has been rigged, and the soap box has been hushed. There is just one box left and they ae working hard to take that one away.

"If someone is so fearful that, that they’re going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!" -Congressman Henry Waxman May 14, 2001 on .50 cal rifles

[pabianice]

And this is the Court some people wanted to rule on Silviera. Yikes!

[Blood of Tyrants]

It isn't the corpse that stinks. It is what they wiped on it.

[Blood of Tyrants]

But he was just trying to steal another liberal issue. It's the intention that counts, right?

[68 grunt]

What happened to those in FR who were convinced that the SC will overturn this law? What happened to their 8-ball?

You should take heart. Prognosticators at FR are just as accurate as the talking heads, in other words, not accurate at all. Its as if the sounds from their mouths keeps their brain pans busy.

[international american]

A rule passed by a bunch of incumbents...certified by 5 (till death do us part,highly paid dolts).....justice is served:)

[Mr. Mojo]

But he was just trying to steal another liberal issue

The libs have few issues left at this point. The administration has stolen - aka, adopted - virtually their entire platform.

[Imal]

It seems we are losing ever more control over our government, with bans on political speech being only one more step on the ever-shortening path into the darkness.

[DustyMoment]

Good question. The fact that he signed the odious POC Bill raises serious questions about Bush's agenda. This, coupled with other really crappy legislation or spending bills easily leads one to believe that there is a stealth agenda at work.

This ruling cannot be allowed to stand.

[Senormechanico]

" "If someone is so fearful that, that they’re going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!" -Congressman Henry Waxman May 14, 2001 on .50 cal rifles "

I have a clue for you Henry. You should be, although you probably will never understand why.

These bastards just don't get it.

It's a terrible day for our country.
SM

[Alberta's Child]

Concerned Women for America's Chief Counsel Jan LaRue noted that the decision means less protection for political speech, the very speech the First Amendment aims to shield, than for pornography.

Then that solves the whole problem right there. Political candidates can simply skirt the CFR regulations by creating pornographic campaign ads.

[Frank_Discussion]

I feel all guilty... You made me LAUGH!

[banjo joe]

90-page statute implemented by a thousand pages of complex regulations.

Make law complicated enough and everone is in violation.

[NeoCaveman]

Political candidates can simply skirt the CFR regulations by creating pornographic campaign ads.

Well the Democrats already promise to F' us.

Just paying my last respects to the first ammendment.

[Teacher317]

I once had a Lib dimwit tell me that the 2nd Amendment didn't, or shouldn't, apply to modern firearms; that the founding fathers would never have sanctioned private ownership of "assault weapons." I retorted that the 1st Amendment, then, ought not apply to modern media such as radio and television. And now it doesn't. Damn...

So this is all YOUR fault! ;^)

[scory]

This is not a conservative/liberal thing. It is a power thing. The only people who benefit from the destruction of Constitutional law are the ruling class as it is the only thing which constrains their insatiable appetite for power. So they make it into a *living* document that changes with the times. They can then start discovering *rights* never considered by those who wrote the Constitution while relegating inconvenient rights that are clearly stated to an obsolete status. Today they simply negated another clause in the 1st Amendment.

The thing I note is that over the decades there have indeed been members of the ruling class that have decried the trend toward negation of Constitutional law. But they have never been in the majority and never has any meaningful action been taken to halt the trend. Judges may make horrid rulings like the one today and they face no real consequences. Politicians may write and pass these anti-constitutional laws and they face no real threat of losing the next election because of it. And the reason they don't is because in the main most politicians and judges would just as soon have the Constitution go away. It is just too hard to rule properly with all those restrictions in place.

[upchuck]

I have proudly stood by President Bush through all this. And I remember all the talk about, "don't worry, a lawsuit will be filed and SCOTUS will take care of the unconstitutional parts of the law."

So President Bush signed it. And I had my doubts. Now SCOTUS has acted. Maybe .1% (that's 1/10 of 1 percent) of the sheeple will understand what they lost today.

President Bush, I really, really want to vote for you next year. But it seems you don't want my conservative vote.

That whooping and hollering you hear in the background are the RATS and libs celebrating the takeover of the country without firing a single shot.

[NeoCaveman]

Has the Supreme Court decided yet if it is legal to sodomize a candidate 60 days before a general election?

[gundog]

Now, now...I would remind you that no attack ever fed a hungry child. </Clinton drivel>

[tomahawk]

United States Constitution, RIP.

[gunnedah]

Does anyone know where on line you can get this opinion. I would like to read this to make sure what it really says. It could be they have put a cut off day to keep things out of the press that can one does not have time to rebut.There are a lot of newspapers that wont print political ads at a designated time just before an election to prevent lies and not giving the opposition a chance to rebut.
I dont see how they could cut it completly out.

[The Westerner]

Ayn Rand used to say that the fight to save America wasn't over as long as we have free speech.

[The Westerner]

In spite of his warrior posture in Iraq, the fact that he doesn't veto anything means he is spineless. I hate to say that. My favorite modern President was Gerald R. Ford for the simple reason that he vetoed more bills than any other President. Every new law expands the government's grip over the body of its citizens.

[ImpotentRage]

"This, coupled with other really crappy legislation or spending bills easily leads one to believe that there is a stealth agenda at work."

I have been suspicious of this for some time. Call me conspiracy-minded (I plead guilty!), but the direction of this administration is so leftist that I find it hard to believe that it can call itself "Republican." Perhaps I am doubly disappointed and disgusted because I actually expected things to get better. What a fool I was!

[The Westerner]

I doubt it's a conspiracy at all. When politicians act pragmatically, it means they act without guiding principles. We, here on FR, still believe in principles. But we are not politicians.

Bush is a thorough pragmatist. He is without core principles that guide his actions. He said in his campaign speeches, "You will know me by what's in my heart." What he means by heart is his feelings. Feelings should never be the guide to action. Only well-thought out principles should be. Bush is guided by his feelings. Sometimes we really like his feelings as when he is sympathetic to soldiers. Sometimes we can't stand his feelings as when he is sympathetic to seniors who want prescription meds.

I doubt highly whether he is bothered by his internal inconsistencies. If he ever wakes up in the middle of the night with self-doubt, he probably prays...another example of turning to faith and feelings, not thought.