Mr. President,what does it mean to you ‘to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?’
Please explain, as President, why and how you do that?
Thank you in advance for your thoughtful reply.
————
Not holding my breath for a reply, but the above is what I just entered on The White House’s contact form.
Forget about the fact that McCain-Feingold was plainly and clearly contrary to the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. Especially the ”Congress shall make no law’ part. Here’s what the First Amendment of the Constitution is . . .
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. {emphasis added}
Forgive me, but what part of NO is unclear here?
And forget about the negligence of President Bush for signing that gawd-awful piece of legislation. Can’t stop there though. Both Bush and Obama deserve a refresher course regarding the oath they took when they placed their left hand on the bible and raised their right hand to (ostensibly) God.
Just what does it mean ‘to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?’ To both those Presidents, apparently it means don’t protect it at all. Shirk that responsibility and schluff it off to the Judicial branch.
But the far Left, including President Obama, is outraged that people and groups of people of any kind have the same right to free speech as you or I. Their straw man villain is ‘corporations.’ They’re foaming at the mouth that big corporations will start buying elections. Uh, does anyone believe that McCain-Feingold took big money out of political campaigns? Can you say ‘George Soros’ and the myriad of 527’s?
What’s ironic to me is the fact that, well gee, Big Labor has the same rights as General Motors now. Oh, bad example, that’s owned by The White House. But you get the point here don’t you? No one is disadvantaged, everyone has not only the right, but the opportunity to group resources together to make political statements of support either for or against any candidate. Whether a club, a union, a town, a corporation, or a wacko forum on the Huffington Post.
I think that’s what ‘freedom of speech’ embodies.
But to think that no one is disadvantaged would not quite be true with the current state of the mainstream media and here’s why. That part of McCain-Feingold what was stricken today prevented political speech either for or against a particular candidate within 30 days prior to an election. The only exception to that is the media. That’s making the large and foolish assumption that the media today is as it was a hundred years ago. But unfortunately, it is no longer the same media watchdog that was afforded specific protection in the Constitution. If you listen to the Left nowadays, they’re claiming that the media is controlled by the Right. Ridiculous of course, but it doesn’t matter to make my point.They help make my point.
That the folks cannot exercise free political speech 30 days before an election, tilts the power of persuasion away from the people and gives it all to the media. And we all know that in the last election, the McCain-Palin ticket was not only running against Obama-Biden, but against the media as well. The sum of which could not be overcome. (aside from the fact that McCain ran with one arm tied behind his back, but that’s another matter) That’s a power that neither the Left or the Right should accept.
But, what is Obama and the wacko Left wanting to do about this freedom of political speech? They want either a Constitutional amendment taking it away, or for Congress to make a law, (echo. . .shall make no law) taking it away. Forfeiting the people’s power back to the media. President Obama’s statement:
With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington–while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That’s why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.
As we just learned with Obamacare, when the Left and Obama over-reach, they do it on steroids.
related links: