April 16, 2006 -- "IF in November Republicans lose control of the House of Representatives, April 5 should be remembered as the day they demonstrated that they earned defeat.
Traducing the Constitution and disgracing conservatism, they used their power for their only remaining purpose - to cling to power. Their vote to restrict freedom of speech came just as the GOP's base is coming to the conclusion that House Republicans are not worth working for in October or venturing out to vote for in November.
The "problem" Republicans addressed is that in 2004 Democrats were more successful than Republicans in using 527 organizations - advocacy groups named after the tax-code provision governing them. In 2002, McCain-Feingold banned large "soft money" contributions for parties - money for issue-advocacy and organizational activities, not for candidates. In 2004, to the surprise of no sensible person and most McCain-Feingold supporters, much of the money - especially huge contributions from rich liberals - was diverted to 527s. So on April 5, House Republicans, easily shedding what little remains of their ballast of belief in freedom and limited government, voted to severely limit the amounts that can be given to 527s.
David Dreier (R-Calif.) explained, sort of. He said he voted against McCain-Feingold because "dictating who could give how much to whom" violated the First Amendment, but now he favors dictating to 527 contributors because McCain-Feingold is not violating the First Amendment enough: It is not "working as it was intended." That is, it is not sufficiently restricting the money financing political advocacy.
Candice Miller (R-Mich.) said that restricting 527s would combat "nauseating ugliness, negativity and hyperpartisanship." Oh, so that is what the First Amendment means: Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech unless speech annoys politicians.
McCain-Feingold restrictions on the amount, timing and content of political speech were ratified by the Supreme Court, which embraces this perverse idea: Because elected officials are experts about politics, they deserve vast deference when they write rules governing speech about, and campaigns against, elected officials. When the court gave its imprimatur to McCain-Feingold's premise - that big government should have big power to regulate speech about itself - it guaranteed that what happened April 5 will happen incessantly: The First Amendment is now permanently in play, its protections to be truncated whenever congressional majorities envision short-term partisan advantages."
___________________________
Virtually ALL of the Amendments have been in play, George, and for quite some time now. Interestingly enough, you have had far less of an adverse reaction to the many violations of the 2nd Amendment, because, I presume, it is not as close to your heart as the 1st.
And therein lies the rub. The Constitution is not defended en toto, but piecemeal, depending upon the effect, or lack thereof, on the person doing the defending of whichever section strikes a fancy. Columnists believe that fiddling with the 1st hits far too close to home for comfort, but usually muster nothing more than faux indignation whenever the 2nd is bastardized, then have the primordial gall to assert that not enough sane-thinking personages stood shoulder to shoulder with them to stave off such violations of democracy.
Without the 2nd, there can be no 1st.
The pen is not mightier than the sword during a fullscale invasion.
Such as the one directed towards us today, the likes of which we have not seen since FDR tried banning "civilians" from owning firearms but settled for various taxes and licensings.
The bastions of Liberalism grow stronger, while "Conservatives" allow the Constitution of these United States to diminish under the withering glare of modernism.
2 comments:
Well put, Fit.
Copy.
Post a Comment