Controversies can be wonderfully clarified when people follow the logic of illogical premises to perverse conclusions. <\/p>\n
For example, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), joined by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, 26 other Democrats and one Republican, proposes a constitutional amendment to radically contract First Amendment protections. <\/p>\n
His purpose is to vastly expand governments power i.e., the power of incumbent legislators to write laws regulating, rationing or even proscribing speech in elections for the Legislature and the rest of the government. McGoverns proposal vindicates those who say most campaign-finance reforms are incompatible with the First Amendment. <\/p>\n
Ron Sachs - CNP <\/p>\n
Jim McGovern <\/p>\n
His Peoples Rights Amendment declares that the Constitution protects only the rights of natural persons, not such persons organized in corporations, and that Congress can impose on corporations whatever restrictions Congress deems reasonable. His amendment says it shall not be construed to limit the peoples rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, freedom of association and all such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable. But the amendment is designed to deny such rights to natural persons who, exercising their First Amendment right to freedom of association, come together in corporate entities to speak in concert. <\/p>\n
McGovern stresses that his amendment decrees that all corporate entities for-profit and nonprofit alike have no constitutional rights. So Congress and state legislatures and local governments could regulate to the point of proscription political speech, or any other speech, by the Sierra Club, the National Rifle Association, NARAL Pro-Choice America, or any of the other tens of thousands of nonprofit advocacy groups, including political parties and campaign committees. <\/p>\n
Newspapers, magazines, broadcasters, online journalism and most religious institutions are corporate entities. McGoverns amendment would strip them of all constitutional rights. By doing so, the amendment would empower the government to do much more than proscribe speech. <\/p>\n
Ilya Somin, of George Mason University Law School, writing for the Volokh Conspiracy blog, notes that government, unleashed by McGoverns amendment, could regulate religious practices at most houses of worship, conduct whatever searches it wants, reasonable or not, of corporate entities, and seize corporate property for whatever it deems public uses without paying compensation. Yes, McGoverns scythe would mow down the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, as well as the First. <\/p>\n
The proposed amendment is intended to reverse the Supreme Courts Citizens United decision, which affirmed the right of persons to associate in corporate entities for the purpose of unrestricted collective speech independent of candidates campaigns. The decision was foreshadowed when, in oral argument, the governments lawyer insisted the government could ban a 500-page book that contained one sentence that said vote for a particular candidate. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Originally posted here: Controversies can be wonderfully clarified when people follow the logic of illogical premises to perverse conclusions. For example, Rep. Continue reading
\nAn absurd attack on free speech<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"