One of the major reasons I was unable to strongly support John McCain in the last election was his McCain/Feingold bill that limited freedom of speech for some, while allowing it for others. The bill was called the “Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act” because both sides loved the bill’s goal of not naming a federal candidate within 60 days of a federal election. All the bill really did was provide aid and comfort to the incumbent politician…something both sides could easily agree on. When voting to save your own job, bipartisanship becomes a free-love Woodstock-style gathering. The bill also initiated those annoying ad endings of  “I’m Senator Cor Rupt, and I approved this message.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act

Yesterday (Jan 21, 2010), the Supreme Court sided with 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.”

It is a simple concept: The government does not get to decide what I write, read, or say or how I spend my money to consume what others read, write, or say.

What I find profoundly disturbing, is that yet again, the simplicity of the 1^st Amendment, much like the simplicity of the 2^nd Amendment, requires so much debate and consternation.  “Congress shall make NO LAW…NO LAW, none, zero, zip…abridging the freedom of speech.” None Senator McCain. None Senator Feingold. None Justices Ginsburg, Bryer, Stevens, and the independent thinking Sotomayor. Yes…they voted down “party lines” again with the 5-4 decision. The 4 liberal justices have proven, once again, that they HATE the Constitution and the principals for which it stands.

Writing for the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote “When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought.  This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”

He goes on “Quite apart from the purpose or effect of regulating content, moreover, the Government may commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. By taking the right to speak from some and giving it to others, the Government deprives the disadvantaged person or class of the right to use speech to strive to establish worth, standing, and respect for the speaker’s voice. The Government may not by these means deprive the public of the right and privilege to determine for itself what speech and speakers are worthy of consideration. The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each. We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead us to this conclusion.”

Not surprisingly, Team Obama is furious with this decision. They simply do not like freedom, for a host of reasons that all relate back to their simple goal of a massive central governmental authority (socialism). This juxtaposition in the liberal wing has always confounded me…on one hand, you have the big-government all-controlling all-powerful liberals, but then you also have the anything goes, every-perversion-is-normal, Hollywood-filth liberals. One side wants to control all (including our health and the very air we breathe) and one side wants no controls over their drug-infused Hollywood Pop-Culture lifestyles. Maybe we should just get out of their way and let the two sides consume each other…

In the mean time, I think after I enjoy writing this blog with the 1^st Amendment intact, I shall go out and enjoy the 2^nd Amendment. I urge our local politicians to brush up on the 10^th Amendment, and ask Team Obama to thoroughly review the 14^th Amendment.