More supreme stupidity

[gunsmith]

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1235431.html
SCOTUS; child porn= good,NRA saying Hillary Clinton favors guncontrol=bad

:banghead:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52935-2003Dec10.html
Dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia:

"This is a sad day for the freedom of speech. Who could have imagined that the same court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restriction upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography, tobacco advertising, dissemination of illegally intercepted communications, and sexually explicit cable programming, would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government..."

"The first instinct of power is the retention of power, and, under a Constitution that requires periodic elections, that is best achieved by the suppression of election-time speech. We have witnessed merely the second scene of Act I of what promises to be a lengthy tragedy."

 

[Dave R]

Sadly, I interpret this the same way you do. I think SCOTUS just struck down the first amendment.

And this ruling also says to me, we (SCOTUS) don't care what the Constitution says. We think its OK to limit some forms of speech during an election cycle. So we (SCOTUS) trump the Constitution.

Judicial Activism at the highest level. No place to appeal this.

Which could be a TERRIBLE precedent for the 2nd Amendment (to keep this firearms related.)

 

[NIGHTWATCH]

The constitution is on life support.

 

[N3rday]

Its almost as if people have forgotten what a RIGHT means, as opposed to a privilege...

god-given right, for that matter

 

[SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI]

It is once again time to start committees of correspondence. Any person who thinks evil of this nature can be stopped any longer by working within the system is a god-damned fool.

 

[ravinraven]

They're asking for IT.

SIC TRANSIT, etc., etc. Right on!

A little while ago, there was a thread which got the terd a-stirring. Something about "Do we have a moral obligation to obey unconstitutional laws?"

Here, folks, is the most tremendous opportunity we have been given in my memory to exercise.......what?........Morality! That's it!

This is a law that has to be disregarded and disobeyed or WE HAVE LOST THE RIGHT TO HAVE A FREE COUNTRY!! This is right up there with electing Hitlary as a test of whether we have a right to be free.

How do we go about giving this law the respect it deserves? I can advertise with all the money I have and no one would notice. If around the world trips were a dollar a dozen, my money wouldn't get me out of sight, but something has to be done.

When I signed up for the USAF lo those many years ago, the oath I took, and everyone who ever signed up for any branch of the military took, stated, in part, that we would "defend the constitution of the United States of America from all enemies foreign and domestic." Guess what? There are no foreign enemies we have ever encountered who give one damn about our constitution. They wanted our tails in a box. To hell with the constitution. The only "enemies" we have who are interested in dumping the constution are "domestic." This abomination proves the truth of that idea. And you and I gave our holy word that we would defend that paper. The US Constitution. Aren't we great as defenders? Let's see what's on TV. I've got a couple six packs and.....

I'm getting damned old. If they take me out tonight, I won't have missed much. Maybe it's us old phartz who, after all, allowed them to screw this country up, who should try to straighten it out.

I think that if some organization blantly refused to obey this law, we could get enough attention to get the various anti-liberty a**h*l*s involved to drop this idea. Then we might instill enough cajones [sp?] in the public to take on the anti 2A crowd.

As I understand it, a private citizen can pay for ads and do anything he/she wants to for a candidate any time he wants to. It's the corporations, such as PACs and the NRA who are the most effective who are being muzzled.

We need to form a public corporation that takes a stand for or against certain candidates for valid reasons and see what happens. The NRA is thinking of buying a TV station to get around the fact that the media can talk while private corps cannot.

I have a name. It just popped into my head. "The Liberty Project, Inc." We incorporate and start supporting some people. Dare the bastards to screw with us. I think we can keep stuff a churning for years or until this idiocy is dropped.

Any lawyers out there who want to get his/her name in the news??

Let's roll!

ravin[rantin]raven

 

[NIGHTWATCH]

It was the "conservative" judges that defended the 1st, not the libs?

Hmm...hope the socialists are paying attention. The day is fast approaching
I hope, that political party affiliation and definition will bleed into one
powerful libertarian party. Hope springs eternal.

 

[Angus MacDuff]

Scalia has to go!

 

[BowStreetRunner]

::::::Scalia has to go!:::::
was that tongue in cheek?
he is one of the staunchest defenders of the constitution on the SCOTUS
and it is ironic that the conservative judges are the ones on liberty's side

telling....
BSR

 

[tyme]

Nightwatch, interestingly, yeah. It wasn't framed as a 1st amendment case by the liberals. The liberals don't consider contributions to federal campaigns to be "free speech." Rather, they're seen to be the influence of big bad corporations.

 

[El Tejon]

This undermines everything I was taught regarding the First Amendment.

Tyranny always comes in the form of "need."

 

[Il Duce]

I think five justices on the SCOTUS forgot why they are there. Why is O'Connor looking to other countries and governments for guidance in her decisions? All the justices need is that one piece of paper that has "Constitution" written at the top. The FF made it nice and easy to understand. Makes you wonder what they learned in law school.

Why do people keep referring to the Constitution as a "living document"? The Constitution is what it is...period. Any thing that is "living" can be "killed", as made wholly apparent in the SCOTUS's latest decision.

 

[bountyhunter]

would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government..."

What the SCOTUS actaully said when you boil out all the BS is that massive infusions of money allowed into the political process corrupt it absolutely. That is a fact both by historical precedent as well as common sense. They said basically:

1) All money counts. You can't simply allow a bazillion dollars be contributed to the "general fund" which is then dispatched to whatever candidates are trailing in the polls and claim campaign contributions are being limited in any way.

2) It's more important to try to keep contributions within the bounds of sanity (thereby creating a microscopic but finite chance an uncorrupted candidate could run for and attain office) than allow the unrestricted freedom of pouring buckets of money all over anybody or pumping it into attack ads.

Is a freedom reduced? YES. So is your freedom when you drive a car because you are forced to wear a seatbelt. Bottom line, the law applies to all parties equally and just reigns in the shameless abuse that massive cash allows. It's a good thing.

 

[bountyhunter]

Here is why:

Why do people keep referring to the Constitution as a "living document"? The Constitution is what it is...period. Any thing that is "living" can be "killed", as made wholly apparent in the SCOTUS's latest decision.

It is a living thing because only a living thing can adapt to the changing times. Our founding fathers were smart enough to know why that was necessary for a country to endure over time. BTW: if you deny it is a living thing, then why are you concerned that it "can be killed" as you stated above? In your perception, it's already dead.

BTW: the SCOTUS has many times and will again make decisions that appear to be wrong (to many) simply because they believe that it is the right thing to do from the standpoint of law, decency, or morality. You can call it Judicial nullification (if you don't like the decision) or you can call it having a conscience if you do like the decision... but it is a fact built into the system by our founding fathers when they set the Supreme Court above the rest of the government by giving them final authority of interpretation, and made sure they were not elected officials and could not be removed from office which makes them less susceptible to intimidation and corruption which plagues the "elected" bodies. Like it or not, the SCOTUS just proved the system is working as designed. You can change it if you can get enough support to pass a constitutional amendment.

 

[femoralis]

Throwing people in prison because they run a political ad before an election. Does that sound like a bill of rights violation to you bountyhunter? If not, I would be fascinated to hear what you think WOULD be.

 

[ojibweindian]

but it is a fact built into the system by our founding fathers when they set the Supreme Court above the rest of the government by giving them final authority of interpretation,

Wrong. The SCOTUS usurped that with, I believe, Marbury vs. Madison. I think the ruling said that the SCOTUS was to be the final arbiter of what was, or was not, consitutional. Neither of the two other branches of government ever challenged them on this.

 

[Il Duce]

It is a living thing because only a living thing can adapt to the changing times. Our founding fathers were smart enough to know why that was necessary for a country to endure over time. BTW: if you deny it is a living thing, then why are you concerned that it "can be killed" as you stated above? In your perception, it's already dead.

The constitution is deemed a "living" document only as an excuse to manipulate it. Our founding fathers created a Constitution to limit government's power. The Bill of Rights is there to ensure that government does not take away our God-given rights. If the Constitution can be altered by government (i.e. judiciary), then our rights, specifically the Bill of Rights, can be changed by the very agency it was meant to defend against.

BTW: the SCOTUS has many times and will again make decisions that appear to be wrong (to many) simply because they believe that it is the right thing to do from the standpoint of law, decency, or morality.

The Supreme Court isn't in place to make decisions based on legislative law, decency or morality. Its power extends to questions of constitutionality only. Its decisions can and should be made based solely on the constitution.

You can call it Judicial nullification (if you don't like the decision) or you can call it having a conscience if you do like the decision... but it is a fact built into the system by our founding fathers when they set the Supreme Court above the rest of the government by giving them final authority of interpretation, and made sure they were not elected officials and could not be removed from office which makes them less susceptible to intimidation and corruption which plagues the "elected" bodies.

The founding fathers did not give the Supreme Court judicial review, the SC gave themselves that power. What we simply have are SC justices that have forgotten their place within our government.