It is once again my sad duty to add yet another installment of KAR's Remedial Constitutional Law for Retards (First Amendment Unit):
Last week's U.S. Senate condemnation of a political advertisement in a newspaper is a blatant effort to use the power of the federal government to stifle dissent. Whatever you think of the MoveOn.org ad, this vote should frighten you.
It should frighten you if you're a semi-literate knee-jerking imbecile who routinely spouts off about things of which you haven't a clue...
Last I checked, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids Congress from passing laws like this.
Check again dingleberry. No wait - I'll spell it out for you later in this post. (Such added value is what keeps several discerning ThunnderJournal consumers coming back to KAR!)
Do we really want to become a country where the citizens are afraid to challenge the military?
[Professor Frink]You should be afraid to challenge the military, what with their guns and tanks and airplanes dropping nukes on you *flaven!* [/Frink]
Where citizens are afraid to speak out at all?
Afraid of what? A Senate resolution?
Sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself.
I am especially ashamed of my Sen. Amy Klobuchar for supporting this bill.
BOB A. TREUBONER, ST. PAUL
There are 2 forms of First Amendment citation abuse: The Non Sequitur, and the misapplication. While the former is harmless, yet also invariably annoying (i.e invoking the First Amendment to defend an especially moronic statement), the later tends to reflect poorly on the civic knowledge of those to whom the sacred franchise has been entrusted. And - as is the case here - a chill besets my soul when I think of Mr. Treuboner casting his intellectually misfired vote that by law carries the same weight as mine.
To wit: the First Amendment reads in relevant part thus:
Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the People to stand in line overnight to obtain Halo 3 before all their friends do, or to want to bone Scarlett Johannsen or other such comely lasses.
Oops! ha ha! Sorry. I should know better than to pull my Constitution text from the New York Times' website (though it did seem a bit more plausible than the wikipedia entry). Here's the actual text:
Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...
Now, in order to avoid looking like an idiot when citing other sources, it helps to remember that Every. Word. Counts. This is especially critical when applying primary law.
So armed with the knowledge the every word counts, which one word in the above quoted provision completely evaporates Mr. Treuboner's panic-stricken turd of an argument?
Because you see, Mr. Treuboner, there is no constitutional infirmity, no nefarious government overreach and, I dare say, no "stifling" of "dissent" when the amendment passed by the Senate basically says, in much less colorful language than mine: "MoveOn can stick its petty little slanders right up its collective anus." That's all it really was. No penalty. No injunction. No restrictions. No (to use a Constitutional jurisprudence term) "state action".
And since the Senate is comprised of representatives of the people, who are in turn citizens of the United States protected by that same constitution themselves, one might also argue (much more successfully than Treuboner does) that the Senate itself is exercising its collective First Amendment rights by slamming MoveOn for it's damn-near libelous ad in a "Sense of the Senate" nonbinding resolution. Given all this, just one question remains before we can forever banish Mr. Treuboner's little hissy fit to the Dustbin of Intellectual Vacancy:
Why does Bob A. Treuboner hate free speech?