Very well put.
McCain-Feingold is, without a doubt unconstitutional.
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.
If anyone sees some way in which McCain-Feingold is compatible with this inconvenient little clause in the Constitution, please feel free ot let me know.
2 comments:
It's about as constitutional as the infringement upon our right keep and to bear arms. Unfortunately, the supreme court has done a poor job of defending that too, as licensing schemes, taxation, alleged "gun free zones" ripe for crazed gunmen to pick, and so-called "assault weapon bans" have been gotten away with quite easily that have definitely infringed upon our rights to keep and bear arms. Nowhere in the second amendment does it say that it's the right to "have some kind of gun", but that's how they interpret it. Same goes for how they'll interpret the first amendment, sadly..."You can speak freely, just in a metered, taxed, and constrained way." Which makes no sense.
Sorry for the pessimism.
I am as negative about this whole thing as you are. The Constitution means exactly what is says and anyone who has read even a little bit of the Founders writings knows that.
Post a Comment