About This Blog
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. - The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The First Amendment couldn't be more straightforward. Congress shall make NO LAW abridging the freedom of speech. or of the press.
Simple, right ?
Not for liberals it isn't. When the Supreme Court struck down a clearly unconstitutional provision of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law with it's Citizens United v. FEC ruling, liberals went wild. Never mind that the McCain-Feingold law in question criminalized free speech in America. Liberals were fine with that. That's what they WANTED. Anti-freedom Democratic Congressmen like John Kerry and John Conyers even considered a constitutional amendment to "fix" the First Amendment, as if free speech is a concept that needs "fixing".
While I'm on the subject of the Citizens United ruling, here's a very interesting opinion on the ruling from Obama Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. I find Kagan's thinking to be so misguided as to call into question her fitness for the bench. Here is the political chameleon Arlen Specter talking about Kagan. From The Hill:
“She was very forthcoming in our discussion,” Specter said. “We talked about the Citizens United case and she said she thought the court was not sufficiently deferential to Congress."
Pardon me ??? The Supreme Court isn't supposed to be deferential to Congress, and I dearly hope it never becomes so. The Supreme Court is supposed to be deferential to the Constitution, period. Congress should also be deferential to the Constitution, but too often is not, as partisan fervor overrules constitutionality. The Supreme Court serves as a check against illegal congressional power grabs. Checks and balances, remember ? The Court doesn't waive the Bill Of Rights out of deference to Congress, or to the Executive branch either. Kagan should have some serious splainin' to do at her upcoming confirmation hearings.
Once the Citizens United ruling was in the books, the outraged Democrats had no choice but to accept the restoration of free speech in America, regardless of how much they dislike the idea. The Kerry-Conyers "fix" to the First Amendment was going nowhere, thankfully.
But still, the Democrats have elections to win come november, and the Dems are afraid corporate campaign ads might not cast the Democratic party in a very favorable light, seeing as how Czar Obama is prepping us for the early stages of the Russian Revolution, Part II..with government takeovers of corporations, the abandonment of due process, huge increases in government power and spending, wage mandates, talk of price controls, etc. Democrats fear America's business sector just might end up helping Republicans win some elections and remove the Dems stranglehold on power. GASP ! Something had to be done, so the Democrats have come up with a devious little plan known as the DISCLOSE Act. The DISCLOSE Act passed the House yesterday, and the White House "strongly" supports it, even though it is as unconstitutional as can be.
Here's why. On it's surface, the DISCLOSE Act appears to be a bill that will increase transparency in campaign spending, which most of us would welcome as a good thing. It requires corporations to disclose the top five donors in their political ads (that's not too bad if applied equally to ALL groups), and it requires the head of the company to appear at the end of the ad (I can't think of a reason for this provision, other than to make it a bit harder to produce a campaign ad).
But that's not why the law is bad. The DISCLOSE Act unconstitutionally exempts some groups from it's requirements and not other groups, which is as clear a violation of the Constitution as you will find. It violates equal protection under the law, and it picks and chooses who may engage in free speech and who may not. It suppresses free speech for some and not for others. As CBS reports:
...the bill exempts the NRA, AARP and the Humane Society from the requirements. It exempts 401C4 organizations with over 500,000 members.
U-N-C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N-A-L, and discriminatory. Here's more:
"The Democratic majority in the House jammed through a piece of legislation that clearly violates the Constitution, as well as basic principles of fairness and equity," U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Thomas J. Donohue said in a statement. Donohue's powerful business lobby would be subject to the disclosure rules under the legislation.
Said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: "This bill exempting the NRA, and only a handful of other wealthy groups, from having to follow the same rules as other advocacy groups involved in political campaigns is fundamentally flawed, likely can't survive judicial scrutiny, and should be rejected by the United States Senate as currently written."
In case you're wondering why the NRA was exempted, the Constitutionally-challenged Democrats in the House needed the votes of some conservative Democrats who have actually read the Second Amendment in order to pass this farce of a bill.
Naturally, President Barack "Che" Obama supports the blatant violation of the Constitution of the United States of America. Here's Che's take on the legislation:
"The DISCLOSE Act would establish the strongest-ever disclosure requirements for election-related spending by special interests, including Wall Street and big oil companies, and it would restrict spending by foreign-controlled corporations. It would give the American public the right to see exactly who is spending money in an attempt to influence campaigns for public office. The House bill is not perfect - I would have preferred that it include no exemptions."
Ah yes, we see. Che Obama would have "preferred" that the legislation not be a blatant violation of several portions of the Bill Of Rights, but the Constitutional Law Professor supports it regardless. I wonder which class at Harvard Law taught him that constitutional principles only apply SOMETIMES. Until this question is answered, I propose a moratorium on all Harvard grads being elected to Congress (note to liberals - that was satire).
The bottom line here is this - The Democrats know the DISCLOSE Act is unconstitutional, but they don't care. If they pass the legislation into law in July, they calculate it will not be overturned by the courts in time for the november elections, and that's their endgame here. The Democrats are knowingly putting forth an unconstitutional law because they think it will help them in this one election cycle.
Thus, in addition to willfully violating the U.S. Constitution, they are committing election fraud...with the full support of the President Of The United States Of America.
- 2013 (55)
- 2012 (125)
- 2011 (167)
- 2010 (185)
- 2009 (228)
- 2008 (195)
- 2007 (72)