Re: [RLC-Action] Digest Number 241
<>I keep going back and forth on the Constitutionality of banning money. The Constitution guarantees us the right of free speech. While the SCOTUS has equated speech and money, I am not certain the Founding Fathers would. The language in the document is "speech" and does not indicate a right to purchase access to speech... I'm not big on the idea of interpreting the Constitution. -- Ray Holtorf</><>
Would you please expand on your reasoning here. What are the issues that cause you to vacillate?
Are you suggesting that the First Amendment only guarantees me the right to speak, but not to be heard? Does that mean anyone who wishes not to hear me can do whatever they want to silence me? Does that mean I have the right to complain about the king in my outhouse, but not on a peach crate? Or that you can go ahead and stand on a peach crate out on an island, separate to yourself, but it would be illegal for me to hire a boat to take me out there to listen to you? Does that mean I can vote if I can run the gantlet to get to the polls?
The McCain-Feingold Act is an abomination that must be overturned. All it will take is for one blogger to refuse to shut down his blog in the weeks preceding an election. When the goons come to pull the plug on his computer, the blogger files a case before the Supreme Court. McCain-Feingold cannot stand! It is an infringement of free speech, pure and simple. How is it that the First Amendment has come to protect pornography but not political speech? Surely, the Founders did not intend this outcome.
The only reason McCain-Feingold has survived this long is because Democrats want to use it to silence Republicans, and Republicans want to use it to silence Democrats. This is obnoxious, stinkin' thinkin'!
--- USFamily.Net - $8.25/mo! -- Highspeed - $19.99/mo! ---