When it comes to propaganda, you’ve really got to hand it to the NY Times. This article is a perfect example. Here’s what I’m talking about:

The Supreme Court put defenders of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law on the defensive on Wednesday in a spirited argument that suggested the court could soon open a significant loophole in the measure.

Memo to the NY Times: It isn’t that the Roberts Court might open ” a significant loophole” in BCRA. It’s that they’re likely to restore a portion of the First Amendment that five liberal idiots stole from us in December, 2003. They’re taking the First Amendment to mean what it says, namely that Congress can’t write laws that prohibit the exercise of free speech. They’re saying that we can say what’s on our mind, especially when it’s about the political process in general and politicians specifically.

They did get it right when they said that the Supreme Court put BCRA lawyers on the defensive, though. They’ve got a right to be worried because they can’t count on Sandra Day O’Connor to make her policy wishes come true. Instead, they’ve got to worry that Samuel Alito will take the Constitution literally. The BCRA good government types had best worry that their tinkering with the Constitution is about over.

At issue is a major provision of the five-year-old law that bars corporations and labor unions from paying for advertisements that mention the name of a candidate for federal office and that are broadcast 60 days before an election or 30 days before a primary. By a 5-to-4 vote in December 2003, the court held that the provision, on its face, passed First Amendment muster.

But a new majority may view more expansively the Constitution’s protection of political messages as free speech, and invite a flood of advertising paid for by corporations and unions as the 2008 elections move into high gear.

Get this language: “a new majority may view more expansively the Constitution’s protection” of free speech. Or perhaps they’ll just refer back to the First Amendment, which says:

“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.

Congress shall make NO LAW…ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH” literally means that it’s unconstitutional for Congress to write legislation that takes away my right to free speech, especially on political issues. That means that politicians who want to ‘tidy up the system’ because it’s difficult to deal with constituents who have complaints can’t just say “You can’t do that because there’s a complaint-free zone right before an election.”

The fact is that Supreme Court justices have thought for too long that the Constitution means whatever they say it means. For far too long, they’ve sought to put their imprint on the Constitution instead of simply deciding what the Founding Fathers meant.

The Supreme Court justices have acted capriciously and arrogantly for far too long. It’s time that we worked hard to elect another GOP president so we can restore sanity to the judiciary. It’s time that we said that we stand with those who believe that the Constitution, literally interpreted, is the greatest governing document in the history of mankind.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

One Response to “Framing the BCRA Debate”

Leave a Reply