Excellent Editorial on Censorship

[Clarkmeister]

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Apr-21-Wed-2004/opinion/23701839.html

[MMMMMM]

Quite correct, Clarkmeister.

Maybe it's time to overturn every law that is in contradiction with the Constitution and Bill of Rights--and there are plenty of them.

How's this for an idea: how about making it mandatory that before someone may run for public office, they must prove they actually know the Constitution and Bill of Rights, by means of a written test administered by the Educational Testing Service? Their testing could be televised with questions and answers displayed on screen for the general public. Later the matchups with the correct answers would be shown, and perhaps Greta Van Susteren could provide insight and commentary.

It would probably be interesting, and quite educational for the general public (not to mention for lawmakers;-)).

Areas of common debate, such as the 2nd Amendment, would be dealt with for testing purposes by using only fact-based neutral questions and answers (e.g. re. the 2nd Amendment, perhaps candidates would only have to know the complete text--exactly).

Considering that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the basis of LAW in this country, I don't see why LAWMAKERS shouldn't be required to know them. Moreover, if they did actually know the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I'll bet there would be far fewer unconstitutional laws passed, and far fewer bumbling yahoos in office trying to push their own agendas irrespective of the Constitution. If the show became popular enough, probably even little Johnny would know when Mr. Highfalutin Turnipseed Legislator or Judge or Kommissar (a la FCC) is out of line, and is trying, illegally, to take away his guaranteed rights and fredoms--the freedoms our forefathers fought and died for.

[MaxPower]

Republicans have become what they once so despised. They have the attitude that the average person is not capable of making his/her own decisions and needs to be protected by the Federal Government.

Please save us from ourselves, oh great lawmakers /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
"The average consumer doesn't differentiate whether they're getting (programming) over the air or through cable or satellite," reasoned Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, at the NAB's annual congressional breakfast. "Over time, I think there is going to be a convergence of the legislative process setting the standards for what is allowed. ... If I can see it on my TV and my grandson can click and watch the channel, whether it's satellite, over-the-air or cable, the same rules in terms of decency should apply."

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this Congressman is blowing smoke and pandering to someone. If not he's totally ignorant regarding the history of court rulings regarding satellite and cable tv.

[Ray Zee]

how about every person that signs a bill into law has read all parts of the bill and understands them.

[andyfox]

The Governator of our great state of California recently twisted the lawmakers' arm to get through a workers' compensation bill. While the workers' comp system is out of control, and remedial action was necessary, the 77-page bill was sent to the committee in charge at 3:15 AM. At 3:30 PM is was approved and passed by the two houses of the legislature 77-3 and 37-3 (or something close to those numbers) the next day.

A public interest group offered to donate $1,000 to the charity of any legislator's choice if they could correctly answer ten questions about the bill. No takers.

Tax bills in particular are usually neither read, nor, if read, understood by those who vote on them.

[ThaSaltCracka]

MMMMMM,
Here is one problem with what you are saying. People will interpret the bill of rights and the constitution differently. Look at gun control, even though it says in the constitution every American as the right to bear arms, many gun control advocates say that is outdated. That the American people don't need to worry about an imperial power taking us over, so we don't need guns.

So now we are stuck with deciding what the bill of rights actually allows in modern day terms. This is an incredibly difficult job that everyone won't agree on.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
MMMMMM,
Here is one problem with what you are saying. People will interpret the bill of rights and the constitution differently. Look at gun control, even though it says in the constitution every American as the right to bear arms, many gun control advocates say that is outdated....

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why I suggested that in such areas of debate, merely knowing the exact wording should suffice. How many legislators, I wonder, actually know what is in the Bill of Rights--never mind being able to interpret it in a reasonable fashion?

A doctoer must know human anatomy, as it is the basis of mordern medical science. A mathematician must know the rules of arithmetic. Even a personal fitness trainer must pass certain tests to be certified. Why the heck shouldn't legislators, who are going to make laws, be required to know what is in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which form the very basis of our legal system?

Again, in areas where interpretations may vary, merely knowing the text should be enough. But it is a frightening thought that some of our lawmakers probably don't even know that much. How then are they going to make laws that are legal? And why do you suppose there probably exist so many laws which aren't constitutional?