A New Common Sense
Page 4
Mr. Barnes’ attorney might argue that the First Amendment is simple and clear, that no man’s right of free speech may be abridged…period. I believe Mr. West’s attorney would counter that the Framers of the Constitution, while meaning to apply the right of free speech broadly, never intended that one man’s free speech rights (Mr. Barnes’) should ever be allowed to overwhelm the rights of everyone else to free speech.
The twisted interpretation of our modern Supreme Court is that “money equals free speech.” If that is so, then those having more money (individual or corporate) have a greater right to free speech than those of us who have less. George Orwell’s famous quote that “All Animals Are Equal, But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others” in his political fable, Animal Farm could not be more fitting. If ever a legal decision could be described as “Orwellian”, it would be the Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Veleo, followed by the more recent Citizens United and McCutcheon v. FEC decisions.
But in our 1791 example above, I can imagine Associate Justice James Wilson, perhaps writing the final court Opinion, to rule that the Framers (including himself) intended that , while all individual voices should be heard, there should be some equity in the volume of those individual voices. How can justice and fairness exist if one mans’ power and wealth is allowed to “drown out” the voices of those he disagrees with? How can an election truly be considered fair and free if the citizens are only able to hear the voice of the candidate with the most money or power? If you think about this, I believe that any other conclusion about what the Framers of the Constitution intended would be absurd. It’s just natural common sense.
In support of this conclusion, as recently as April 29, 2015, the current Supreme Court, by a 5-4 decision, has upheld limitations on free speech rights for, believe it or not, judges! Why? Because the court majority ruled that judges are not politicians, even when their state law requires judges to campaign for election to their judicial seat. In other words, judges aren’t politicians, even when they are campaigning for public office! In this instance, our Supreme Court has ruled that it is perfectly appropriate and legal for states to limit a judge’s free speech right to directly request campaign donations, because judges need to be held to a higher ethical standard than politicians! Why? Because, according to Chief Justice John Roberts, politicians should be expected to serve their financial supporters’ interests, while judges are expected to remain impartial. He essentially acknowledges that we should expect that the level of care and support a constituent (or special interest) receives will be directly proportional to the amount of money that constituent (or special interest) has spent (directly or indirectly) on that politicians’ election campaign. Judges, who rule on laws, should therefore be held to a higher ethical standard than politicians who actually write and approve those same laws!
As the old saying goes, you can’t make this stuff up!
Thomas Paine, were he alive today, would tell us to wake up, stand up together, and take back our democracy!
James Wilson would remind us that, no matter what the special interests tell us, no matter what the congressional members tell us, no matter what the President tells us, and, no matter what the Supreme Court tells us: this government and this Constitution belong to We the People, and no one else!
To paraphrase President Lincoln, passing and ratifying this amendment to the Constitution will give our country a new birth of freedom, and by that action, our government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall be restored to its rightful owners!
In January of 1787, just months before our Constitution was drafted, Thomas Jefferson wrote from Paris to his good friend James Madison:
“I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. …It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.”
Together, speaking with one clear and distinct voice, we can create one of Jefferson’s peaceful rebellions, and deliver a much needed dose of medicine to our political system.
My goal with this proposed amendment petition is to strike a spark that will hopefully feed the flames of individual liberty in our great nation. A spark can light a flame that will illuminate the darkness and allow us to move forward confidently. This is one of the reasons I have chosen the reverse image of the U.S. dime coin as the amendment’s symbol. The image contains a flaming torch, illuminating the darkness, with the Latin phrase E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one). A simple drawing of the symbol is included on the last page of this pamphlet.
Please join me in this crusade, by going to the website, www.DIMEamendment.org, signing the petition, and notifying all of your elected officials, and candidates for public office that your vote will be conditioned on their taking a public stand in support of the Declaration of Independence from Money in Elections constitutional amendment.