[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Looks like Cal Thomas is pro-RKBA.


Cal Thomas:

The Supreme Court's gag order

The Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling upholding virtually all of the McCain-Feingold law limiting contributions to political campaigns and proscribing television advertisements close to elections is a serious attack on the First Amendment.

The court bought the argument by the law's proponents that money is inherently corrupting and that by limiting the amount of money and the timing of speech, the entire political process will somehow become more virtuous. Like legislation designed to control guns rather than the people who use guns illegally, money cannot corrupt politicians. Politicians corrupt themselves.

Last year at a gathering of journalists in Boston, Nat Hentoff (an authority on the First Amendment) and I heard Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., respond to a question about limits to political ads one to two months before either a primary or general election. Meehan explained the limits were necessary "because that's when people are paying attention." So, when people are most interested in politics is when they should receive less information about the candidates? What kind of twisted reasoning is this?

This "terrible, terrible decision," to quote Hentoff, will further empower television. Under the guise of news reporting, liberal and conservative anchors and hosts can advance their personal political agenda by the guests they select to appear on their shows before an election. No advocacy group - unless it is a registered political action committee (PAC) - will be able to purchase an ad to tell another side of an issue or defend or criticize a political candidate. So, a Dan Rather, Peter Jennings or Tom Brokaw can interview liberals who attack President Bush, providing little or no equal time for those who disagree, and a Sean Hannity can invite on his Fox program people who support Bush and ignore Bush opponents. This may empower TV anchors, but it doesn't empower voters.

Few individuals can afford the cost of television time, which is the best medium for reaching the greatest number of people. In the recent past, individuals have chosen to align themselves with groups that represent their political viewpoints. Whether it is the ACLU on the left or National Right to Life on the right, the freedom of individuals through these organizations will be limited.

Political action committees can still function under the ruling, but PACs must provide lists of contributors to anyone interested. Hentoff reminds me of the 1958 NAACP vs. Alabama case in which the state sued the civil rights organization to stop it from conducting activities in Alabama on grounds that it had failed to comply with the requirement that "foreign corporations" register before doing business in the state. During the proceedings, Alabama requested the NAACP produce a large number of its records. The organization did so but held back its membership lists. The Alabama court found the NAACP in contempt and imposed a large fine.

In its opinion overturning the state court ruling, Supreme Court Justice John Harlan wrote, "Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly. ." Justice Harlan then said something that could serve as a stern rebuke to the five members of the current Court who have effectively diminished the freedom of political speech: "In the domain of these indispensable liberties, whether of speech, press or association, the decisions of this Court recognize the abridgement of such rights, even though unintended, may inevitably follow from varied forms of governmental action. ."

This Supreme Court has made the "indispensable" dispensable. It has also guaranteed that incumbents will have an easier time preserving themselves in office and that challengers will be further limited in having their voices and ideas heard. This is a loss for both parties and all persuasions. It will also diminish the political vitality of the nation.


http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

JWR contributor Cal Thomas is the author of, among others, The Wit and Wisdom of Cal Thomas Comment by clicking here.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I would have to agree that CT is PG :D

May 16, 2002

Ashcroft is right on guns

Gun control advocates are upset over Attorney General John Ashcroft's declaration last week, outlined in a legal brief before the Supreme Court, that the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms irrespective of any ties to a state militia.

Editorials in The New York Times and The Washington Post denounced Ashcroft as flying in the face of history and legal precedent. In fact, Ashcroft has the law and history on his side. Both have recognized not only an individual's right to keep and bear arms as a last defense against government tyranny, but in many cases, states have required citizens to own guns to protect their freedoms and deter criminals.

A reading of The Federalist papers, in which James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay expand on the meaning of the Constitution, shows that the militia the Second Amendment refers to was to be comprised of armed private citizens. Madison wrote in Federalist Paper 46 that an armed citizen "forms a barrier against the enterprise of ambition," which the Founders understood from history and their "British oppressors" to be overreaching government.

In debate over the Constitution, Samuel Adams sought a guarantee in the Bill of Rights that "The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to...prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." At the Virginia Constitutional Convention, George Mason said Britain had plotted "to disarm the people - that was the best and most effective way to enslave them," while Patrick Henry noted, "The great object is that every man be armed...Everyone who is able may have a gun."

Richard Henry Lee, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, proposed that "to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Many believe the National Guard is the same as a state militia -- a reserve force trained at federal expense for immediate service in the event of an emergency. But the militia of which the Founders spoke was something entirely different. They viewed an armed citizenry that could be mustered into a fighting force or used to defend the rights and property of the individual as a last defense against those who would deny such rights.

In 1982, the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution published a carefully documented report on "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms," including a history of events leading to passage of the Second Amendment.

"The right to keep and bear arms as a part of English and American law antedates not only the Constitution, but also the discovery of firearms," the report notes. "Under the laws of Alfred the Great, whose reign began in 872 A.D. all English citizens from the nobility to the peasants were obliged to privately purchase weapons and be available for military duty. This was in sharp contrast to the feudal system as it evolved in Europe, under which armament and military duties were concentrated in the nobility." While many English rights were "abridged" over the centuries, the right to bear arms was mostly retained.

In 1623, Virginia forbade colonists to travel unless they were "well armed." In 1631, Virginians were required to engage in target practice on Sunday and "bring their peeces (sic) to church." By 1658, every Virginian was to have a firearm at home, and in 1673 state law said that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to buy a gun "could have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so."

When Britain began to increase its military presence in the colonies, Massachusetts called on its citizens to arm themselves. One colonial newspaper argued that this was legal, citing Blackstone's commentaries on English law, which listed "having and using arms for self-preservation and defense" among the "absolute rights of individuals."

When New Hampshire cast the ninth vote needed for passage of the Constitution, it called for a Bill of Rights including the provision that "Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion." The focus was on the law-breaker, not the law-abiding gun owner, who was seen as a defender of individual liberty and national freedom.

There is much more documented in the 1982 report (available through the Government Printing Office or at www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm#01). Every citizen should read and study it, including editorial writers and the Supreme Court. Hard-won rights are not easily restored once they've been surrendered.

Read Cal Thomas' biography

©2002 Tribune Media Services

[longeyes]

As Someone once said, "What is to be done?"

[BowStreetRunner]

I like Call Thomas a lot....lots of common sense in his writing

seeing the mention of Political Action Committees being required to make an ad on TV is disgusting....government permission and registration of a 1st Amendment right? come on!

BSR

[carpettbaggerr]

"Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion."

Wish they'd gone with this phrasing, instead of the more flowery language they wound up with. Makes (willful) misinterpretation much more difficult.