The Most Basic Issue

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I agree with MMMMM here. Commercial speech should be protected equally with political speech.

As for campaign contributions, as long as you can cast a vote, you should be able to give any amount of money to any candidate under full disclosure, i.e. *all* contributions will be a matter of public record.

No entity that can't vote (foreign nationals, Corporations, Labor Unions) should be permitted to give one cent.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I prefer the libertarian solution. De-legalize marriage. In other words, take the government out of marriage altogether and make it simply a religious ceremony.

For non-religious people who wish to codify a relationship, create a separate civil union to which inheres all the contractual rights and responsibilities. Since the government cannot dent two individuals the right to contract based upon sex, that solves that problem.

[adios]

I like the libertarian position as well.

[andyfox]

The Constitution is unclear in many areas. What exactly "abridges" freedom of speech? What if one candidate bought up all the available air time in all the media? Would this abridge the speech of his opponents?

Judicial activism (both left and right: the conseravative Rehnquist court has been perhaps the most activist in history) is inevitable given the way our Constitution is written. Thus judges, in a very real sense, do indeed make law.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Judicial activism (both left and right: the conseravative Rehnquist court has been perhaps the most activist in history) is inevitable given the way our Constitution is written.

Just because something seems inevitable does not mean it should be free from restraint.

Thus judges, in a very real sense, do indeed make law.

Which is clearly wrong. Congress makes laws. The courts rule on the constitutionality of those laws. When the Court overrules Congress, there exists an amendment process by which the couts can be overruled.

[MMMMMM]

So you can say what you want to a few friends but you can't put up a sign and shout it in the village square...or you can shout it in the village square but you can't tell the masses--because doing so is unfair to those who don't have the money to buy TV or radio time. You can express your opinion in the village square but you can't reach the masses unless you get invited on a news or talk show--you can't even spend your own money to get your opinion out. Wow we are really moving fast to a totalitarian society. Maybe brad is right.

Since when is 'fairness' more important than freedom of speech--in the USA? I know Europe and Canada are already well down that road leading to tyranny; they've passed laws against 'hate speech.'

[MMMMMM]

"What if one candidate bought up all the available air time in all the media?"

Couldn't happen. That's also an example of why we need free markets.

[sam h]

On one level, Sowell is of course right: courts are supposed to interpret laws and rule on whether they conform to constitutional guidelines, not make new laws. And judicial activism is a real concern.

On another level, he's hopelessly naive. Court rulings, especially on constitutional issues, are very complex. They usually involve balancing competing rights, not just judging whether a law abridges any given right. There is no absolute guarantee to freedom of speech. Different rules apply if you are in public or private forums. Speech rights also depend upon the medium of expression (dropping f-bombs on the radio for instance is a no-no). The definition of "speech" is also highly contested - obviously, the conservatives on the court didn't think burning the flag was a speech act when they tried to make it illegal for instance. So given that the court has always - intelligently, I might add - understood that speech rights have to be understood in context, it is not at all out of the question to say that the speech right of a billionaire to donate millions of dollars to a politician should be understood in context of the general landscape of American democracy and balanced against other valid interests.

The larger point is that there is no agreed upon guideline for the act of constitutional interpretation. Some people say you should deduce the original intent of the founding fathers. Others say this is crap, all you have is the words and you need to just work with the text. Still others point out that the words - say "cruel and unusal punishment" - take on different meanings over time as the world changes and you need to factor that in as well. And a fourth camp says that the constitution itself was supposed to be somewhat flexible, a set of guidelines to be adapted to the contingencies of the present. One can and should argue which approach is best. But you will never be able to conclusively prove that one is better or more proper than another. And the approach you take will give you different results.

[MMMMMM]

The more complicated you make it, the more opportunity there is for BS. The simpler the better. And the text of that Amendment is as clear as clear can be. And of course there should be no laws restricting using the f-word on radio. Whether a private business chooses to restrict its use is a different matter.

[andyfox]

What about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?