Articles Comments

SENTRY JOURNAL » Constitution, Corporations, Democrats, Freedom of Speech, Liberty, Obama, Progressives, Supreme Court » That Pesky Constitution and its Negative Liberties

That Pesky Constitution and its Negative Liberties

A few days ago the Supreme Court reminded Congress that their authority to impose restrictions on free speech is limited by our pesky little Constitution.  Especially speech that is political in nature.  In a 5-to-4 ruling, they lifted the ban on using corporate and union funds for electioneering communications and advocacy ads.  Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority said, “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”  Wow how refreshing is that. 
Well as you know the decision angered the left.  They claimed big corporations would have an unfair advantage during election cycles and that they would drown out the voice of the people with their corporate dollars.  They also argued that corporate entities should not be afforded the same Constitutional rights as individuals.  So I guess all the media outlets like MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, and FOX News, which are owned by big corporations fall under the same category as the rest of corporate America.  Therefore they should not be entitled to the same protections under the Constitution that we enjoy each day.  I mean if we are going to use the same twisted logic that the progressives are using, doesn’t the like apply to the giant media outlets.  Then we will be able to control all kinds of political speech.  No more Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity.  We’ll be able to decide which corporations are legitimate news agencies and which are not.  Oh the countless possibilities.  I already know what their response would be towards my sarcasm.  They would say, Oh no Mr. Carey, you’re taking our words out of context, we’re not talking about news outlets, we’re talking about those big greedy Wall Street type companies that stick it to the American people all the time.  Am I taking your words out of context?  What they are really saying is they’ll decide the when and where limitations to free speech should be applied.  These people are absolutely amazing.
Utilizing emotionally charged words and class warfare tactics, they promised to champion the people and immediately start work on legislation that would place limitations on free speech again.  Predictably, President Obama aligned himself with his party members calling the decision a, “major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”  More class warfare crap, more hate big business, power to the people, yaddy, yaddy, yah…blah, blah, blah.  They even said that the very foundation of our entire democracy is in jeopardy because of this decision.  Well good, because we’re not a democracy, we’re a Republic!  The sooner we bury this whole democracy mob rule thing, the better off for our Republic.

This is another example of the progressives and far left Democrats wanting to control our lives.  The only thing that stands in their way is that pesky Constitution and its negative liberties.  You know those same negative liberties President Obama spoke of; the ones that limit the role of government in our lives and promote individual liberties and the free market system.  You see for progressives the Constitution is an obstacle that stands in the way of achieving their socialistic goals.  These goals are wrapped up in trigger words like social, environmental, and economic justice.  When the Constitution is actually enforced, progressives become powerless and weak while the individual becomes empowered and stronger.  I praise the Supreme Court’s decision.  What troubles me more than the left’s response is that 4 justices actually voted to keep the ban in place.  That should send a chill up every American’s spine.

This Republic is a fragile thing.  We must always be willing to go the extra mile to make sure that it remains a place where the only limitations placed on success are the ones individuals place on themselves.  Government’s role is not to impose more restrictions on our liberties.  Their role is to make sure that our liberties and rights are protected now and for future generations.  This is where the battle lines have been drawn.  Those who believe government grants the rights and those who believe the rights have already been granted by God.  It is the one polarizing ideology that divides so many of us today.  It is not a new debate, but an ongoing debate that has been passed on to our generation.  And make no mistake; the stakes have never been higher.

We must decide what path we want our nation to follow.  We must be willing to have an open and honest discussion about the role of government.  You see the Supreme Court’s decision opens the door for that very discussion.  The progressives use of class warfare tactics and emotional rhetoric attempts to change the subject and close the door on debate.  Global warming alarmists have been using this technique for years.  We all remember Al Gore saying, “The science is settled on the global warming debate.”  Well now we are starting to see the science is not settled.  There are as many different opinions that do not support global warming that is as equally science based as those that support the global warming notion.  Now the only reason I can come up with as to why progressives or those from the left would not want to debate the role of government is because they know that it’s a debate that will expose their agenda and one that they won’t be able to win.  But we still need to have this debate.   Debates are an essential component of our republic and they promote the free and open exchange of ideas.

We should never allow a door to be slammed shut on debates.  It’s what makes the fabric of this nation stronger and the people better informed.  It is what makes the United States of America…well, the United States of America.

Liberty forever, freedom for all.


Digg!

Share
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Filed under: Constitution, Corporations, Democrats, Freedom of Speech, Liberty, Obama, Progressives, Supreme Court

opinions powered by SendLove.to
Comments
  • Matt January 24, 2010 at 8:06 PM

    Well said John! The very idea of individual freedom is an obstacle to the progressives, which is why they spend so much time minimizing it or ridiculing it.

    This is why SCOTUS appointments are so very important.

  • John Carey January 24, 2010 at 9:29 PM

    Individual freedoms and liberties have always been the enemy of tyrant. Thanks for the comment. My Vikings just lost. Turned the ball over 5 times…

  • Ron Russell January 25, 2010 at 6:52 PM

    John, progressives would love to burn this document as they think it was written by a bunch of old white men for white men. They would put it under glass not to perserve it, but to point to it in years to come as the great folly of early American leaders. Just the way it is buddy!

  • John Carey January 25, 2010 at 8:18 PM

    Thanks for the comment Ron. I do know that progressives would like nothing better than to shred the Constitution. They're doing it a piece at a time. They have entrenched themselves like tics in key positions in our government while most Americans slept. I once asked a friend what he thought of the progressive movement. He said it was a good thing because he was all about progress. Most Americans are ignorant when it comes to the progressive agenda. If most knew what they really stood for, I feel that Americans would turn on them hard. This is why we must not give them a free pass any more. We've slept long enough.

  • Anonymous January 27, 2010 at 12:27 AM

    This did overrule 100 years of legislation restricting campaign contributions from corporations.

  • John Carey January 27, 2010 at 5:53 AM

    Anonymous,

    Thanks for the comments. Ben Franklin once said, "Those who will trade freedom for security deserves neither." I believe this follows the same logic path. If we are willing to follow the same path of this thinking we can say the same about free speech, especially political speech. It's really not about corporate campaign contributions, because most corporations have found ways around the law for years. It's about "We the People" and not willing to sacrifice basic liberties for what some government officials believe is the collective good. In the end we lose much more than we gain. Once again thank you for your comments. And come back.