Constitution

Originally Posted by Day Brown

Democracy needs tolerance and compromise to exist. You do not have any
for your perceived opposition and your zealous support of sound bytes
like "freedom of speech". Corporate speech, not free speech, is what is
running the system. What we, who exhibit free speech in venues like this
have, is no significant effect on the process driven by zealots of both
the right and left like yourself.

Neurotics can't tolerate ambiguity. But the democratic process is.

To most of us, "freedom of speech" isn't a sound bite. Its a basic human right that helps protect us from Tyranny. Its only an intolerant person who would want to quash the freedom of speech of others. That's why on the Right Wing you will find people say things like: "I totally disagree with (fill in the blank), but I would fight for his right to say it."

Its a Left Wing trait to control the speech of others (i.e. 1984, the ...

As history shows us: Left Wingers favor stifling free speech (except their own), Right Wingers support free speech for everyone. That's why democracy only exists where you have a substantial Right Wing. When you have a dominant Left Wing, those Right Wing concepts such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press are diminished until they, and democracy itself, are gone.

Borrowing the money to spend on the level of President Obama's 2011 budget proposals may be the straw (in this case, a whole load of hay) that breaks our government's back.

Democrats simply will not do what anyone who has run a business knows: In tough times, you've got to cut spending. And, as already noted previously, one should start with those departments not covered under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

As an independent, I also blame George Bush and his Democrat Congress of Pelosi/Reid for expanding the deficits/debt. However, Obama's deficit/debt spending on steroids make's Bush's spending look miniscule in comparison.

I saw the following message posted by a 75-year (By Bettijo @ Sunday, January 31, 2010) on Newt.org. Since it covers so much that is important to those of us concerned with our Constitution and Liberty, I'm showing it in its entirety below:

I know it is not practical to put all of this in the "Contract." But these are the things that concern me. Please consider them.

I am totally behind this contract and have read many excellent ideas posted here. Many of my ideas have already been advanced, but I am repeating them here because they are important to me and to lots of my friends. I am a Tea Party Patriot who, at age 75, attended the 9/12 DC March.

1. Pass the FAIR TAX. I live in John Linder’s district and am a big supporter of the Fair Tax. It would solve so many of our problems. You know what they are and others have enumerated them, but one of the most important is that it would give our economy a boost and promote job growth immediately.

...

In regards to CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION - Supreme Court Decision on January 21, 2010

The First Amendment of the Constitution reads in part: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ...." Its very clear that the 1907 law was "abridging the freedom of speech" and therefore is unconstitutional.

As already mentioned, it is surprising that the decision was not 9-0. Unfortunately, there are activist judges on the court who wish to achieve specific political outcomes with their rulings rather than rule impartially on the matters before the court. In contrast, the strict constructionists wish to rule on whether the law is constitutional or not -- regardless of which party/side it benefits. Those judges believe their judgments must be impartial.

Its just like a baseball umpire who must decide whether each pitch is a ball or strike based on the rules of baseball. To the impartial umpire, ...