Gingrich on Free Speech and the GWOT

[aricbcool]

He's not very specific, but I thought it might make for some good discussion. What do y'all think?


http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Gingrich+raises+alarm+at+eve nt+honoring+those+who+stand+up+for+freedom+of+spee ch&articleId=d3f4ee4e-1e90-475a-b1b0-bbcd5baedd78

Gingrich raises alarm at event honoring those who stand up for freedom of speech
By RILEY YATES
Union Leader Staff
19 hours ago

MANCHESTER – Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich yesterday said the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism.

Gingrich, speaking at a Manchester awards banquet, said a "different set of rules" may be needed to reduce terrorists' ability to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message.

"We need to get ahead of the curve before we actually lose a city, which I think could happen in the next decade," said Gingrich, a Republican who helped engineer the GOP's takeover of Congress in 1994.

Gingrich spoke to about 400 state and local power brokers last night at the annual Nackey S. Loeb First Amendment award dinner, which fetes people and organizations that stand up for freedom of speech.

(The rest of the article is unrelated and available at the link posted above. --Aric)

[incommin]

I know I am old and have brain farts from time to time. But will someone please explain how limiting free speech will help fight terrorists!

Jim

[tk27]

I would like to see the transcript of his speech. I had hoped Newt would run in the primary, I don't like the sound of this.
What do y'all think?
Without specifics and likely with specifics I would be opposed to this.
While I never cared for the thinking, doesn't POTUS say "They hate us because of our freedom"? Isn't this caving to "them"?

[aricbcool]

Without specifics and likely with specifics I would be opposed to this.
While I never cared for the thinking, doesn't POTUS say "They hate us because of our freedom"? Isn't this caving to "them"?
I was thinking less about specifics and more about what would you/could you change in our free speech laws that would actually curb terrorism? Furthermore, what line do we draw in the sand in regards to taking away liberty? I agree with what you're saying about letting them win by taking away freedom.
It always reminds me of the word "terrorist", i.e. to instill fear. For every law we change, and freedom we take away due to fear of attack, they win a victory.

--Aric

[JMI]

Rule I always live by:

Any rights you give up to the governmenrt you can kiss goodbye, because you are not getting them back.

[brownapple]

Just remember that "Freedom of Speech" as it is interpreted by the Courts and Media today isn't exactly the same "Freedom of Speech" as envisioned in the US Constitution. Treason and sedition mean anything?

[CoLawman]

Just remember that "Freedom of Speech" as it is interpreted by the Courts and Media today isn't exactly the same "Freedom of Speech" as envisioned in the US Constitution. Treason and sedition mean anything?

I agree, and this posting on the Drudge report is yet one more "leak" that Newt should have cited as an example of how the First Amendment is hurting our GWOT. The PRESS using classified information should not be protected by the First Amendment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/29/world/middleeast/29military.html?ei=5065&en=5168f35ca97c716c&ex=1165467600&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Fault lies within the National Security Council for being unable to determine the staff member who leaked this information. The number of people handling that document is finite.

His comment regarding "...losing a city" I take as hyperbole. He is certainly bold in his statements, which increases his risk of being marginalized in his pursuit of the Presidency.

[x SF med]

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Some opinions that are filed on this:

“But, although the rights of free speech and assembly are fundamental, they are not in their nature absolute. Their exercise is subject to restriction, if the particular restriction proposed is required in order to protect the State from destruction or from serious injury, political, economic or moral.”74 The fixing of a standard is necessary, by which it can be determined what degree of evil is sufficiently substantial to justify resort to abridgment of speech and press and assembly as a means of protection and how clear and imminent and likely the danger is.75 That standard has fluctuated over a period of some fifty years now and it cannot be asserted with a great degree of confidence that the Court has yet settled on any firm standard or any set of standards for differing forms of expression.76 The cases are instructive of the difficulty.

Clear and Present Danger.—Certain expression, oral or written, may incite, urge, counsel, advocate, or importune the commission of criminal conduct; other expression, such as picketing, demonstrating, and engaging in certain forms of “symbolic” action may either counsel the commission of criminal conduct or itself constitute criminal conduct. Leaving aside for the moment the problem of “speech–plus” communication, it becomes necessary to determine when expression that may be a nexus to criminal conduct is subject to punishment and restraint. At first, the Court seemed disposed in the few cases reaching it to rule that if the conduct could be made criminal, the advocacy of or promotion of the conduct could be made criminal.77 Then, in Schenck v. United States,78 in which defendants had been convicted of seeking to disrupt recruitment of military personnel by dissemination of certain leaflets, Justice Holmes formulated the “clear and present danger” test which has ever since been the starting point of argument. “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.”79 The convictions were unanimously affirmed. One week[p.1037]later, the Court again unanimously affirmed convictions under the same Act with Justice Holmes speaking. “[W]e think it necessary to add to what has been said in Schenck v. United States . . . only that the First Amendment while prohibiting legislation against free speech as such cannot have been, and obviously was not, intended to give immunity for every possible use of language. We venture to believe that neither Hamilton nor Madison, nor any other competent person then or later, ever supposed that to make criminal the counseling of a murder within the jurisdiction of Congress would be an unconstitutional interference with free speech.”80 And in Debs v. United States,81 Justice Holmes was found referring to “the natural and intended effect” and “probable effect” of the condemned speech in common–law tones.

But in Abrams v. United States,82 Justices Holmes and Brandeis dissented upon affirmance of the convictions of several alien anarchists who had printed leaflets seeking to encourage discontent with United States participation in the War. The majority simply referred to Schenck and Frohwerk to rebut the First Amendment argument, but the dissenters urged that the Government had made no showing of a clear and present danger. Another affirmance by the Court of a conviction, the majority simply saying that “[t]he tendency of the articles and their efficacy were enough for the offense,” drew a similar dissent.83 Moreover, in Gitlow v. New York,84 a conviction for distributing a manifesto in violation of a law making it criminal to advocate, advise, or teach the duty, necessity, or propriety of overthrowing organized government by force or violence, the Court affirmed in the absence of any evidence regarding the effect of the distribution and in the absence of any contention that it created any immediate threat to the security of the State. In so doing, the Court discarded Holmes’ test. “It is clear that the question in such cases [as this] is entirely different from that involved in those cases where the statute merely prohibits certain acts involving the danger of substantive evil, without any reference to language itself, and it is sought to apply its provisions to language used by the defendant for the purpose of bringing about the prohibited results. . . . In such cases it has been held that the general provisions of the statute may be constitutionally applied to the specific utterance of the defendant if its natural tendency and probable effect was to bring about the substantive evil which the[p.1038]legislative body might prevent. . . . [T]he general statement in the Schenck Case . . . was manifestly intended . . . to apply only in cases of this class, and has no application to those like the present, where the legislative body itself has previously determined the danger of substantive evil arising from utterances of a specified character.”85 Thus, a state legislative determination “that utterances advocating the overthrow of organized government by force, violence, and unlawful means, are so inimical to the general welfare, and involve such danger of substantive evil that they may be penalized in the exercise of its police power” was almost conclusive on the Court.86 It is not clear what test, if any, the majority would have utilized, although the “bad tendency” test has usually been associated with the case. In Whitney v. California,87 the Court affirmed a conviction under a criminal syndicalism statute based on defendant’s association with and membership in an organization which advocated the commission of illegal acts, finding again that the determination of a legislature that such advocacy involves “such danger to the public peace and the security of the State” was entitled to almost conclusive weight. In a technical concurrence which was in fact a dissent from the opinion of the Court, Justice Brandeis restated the “clear and present danger” test. “[E]ven advocacy of violation [of the law] . . . is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on . . . . In order to support a finding of clear and present danger it must be shown either that immediate serious violence was to be expected or was advocated, or that the past conduct furnished reason to believe that such advocacy was then contemplated.”88

[x SF med]

Seditious Speech and Seditious Libel.—Opposition to government through speech alone has been subject to punishment throughout much of history under laws proscribing “seditious” utterances. In this country, the Sedition Act of 1798 made criminal, inter alia, malicious writings which defamed, brought into contempt or disrepute, or excited the hatred of the people against the Government, the President, or the Congress, or which stirred peo[p.1132]ple to sedition.90 In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,91 the Court surveyed the controversy surrounding the enactment and enforcement of the Sedition Act and concluded that debate “first crystallized a national awareness of the central meaning of the First Amendment. . . . Although the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history . . . . [That history] reflect[s] a broad consensus that the Act, because of the restraint it imposed upon criticism of government and public officials, was inconsistent with the First Amendment.” The “central meaning” discerned by the Court, quoting Madison’s comment that in a republican government “the censorial power is in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people,” is that “[t]he right of free public discussion of the stewardship of public officials was thus, in Madison’s view, a fundamental principle of the American form of government.”

Little opportunity to apply this concept of the “central meaning” of the First Amendment in the context of sedition and criminal syndicalism laws has been presented to the Court. In Dombrowski v. Pfister92 the Court, after expanding on First Amendment grounds the discretion of federal courts to enjoin state court proceedings, struck down as vague and as lacking procedural due process protections certain features of a state “Subversive Activities and Communist Control Law.” In Brandenburg v. Ohio,93 a state criminal syndicalism statute was held unconstitutional because its condemnation of advocacy of crime, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism swept within its terms both mere advocacy as well as incitement to imminent lawless action. A seizure of books, pamphlets, and other documents under a search warrant pursuant to[p.1133]a state subversives suppression law was struck down under the Fourth Amendment in an opinion heavy with First Amendment overtones.94

Fighting Words and Other Threats to the Peace.—In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,95 the Court unanimously sustained a conviction under a statute proscribing “any offensive, derisive, or annoying word” addressed to any person in a public place under the state court’s interpretation of the statute as being limited to “fighting words”— i.e., to “words . . . [which] have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom, individually, the remark is addressed.” The statute was sustained as “narrowly drawn and limited to define and punish specific conduct lying within the domain of state power, the use in a public place of words likely to cause a breach of the peace.”96 The case is best known for Justice Murphy’s famous dictum. “[I]t is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well–defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words—those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.”97

Chaplinsky still remains viable for the principle that “the States are free to ban the simple use, without a demonstration of additional justifying circumstances, of so–called ‘fighting words,’ those personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction.”98 But, in actuality, the Court has closely scrutinized statutes on vagueness and overbreadth[p.1134]grounds and set aside convictions as not being within the doctrine. Chaplinsky thus remains formally alive but of little vitality.99

On the obverse side, the “hostile audience” situation, the Court once sustained a conviction for disorderly conduct of one who refused police demands to cease speaking after his speech seemingly stirred numbers of his listeners to mutterings and threatened disorders.100 But this case has been significantly limited by cases which hold protected the peaceful expression of views which stirs people to anger because of the content of the expression, or perhaps because of the manner in which it is conveyed, and that breach of the peace and disorderly conduct statutes may not be used to curb such expression.

The cases are not clear to what extent the police must go in protecting the speaker against hostile audience reaction or whether only actual disorder or a clear and present danger of disorder will entitle the authorities to terminate the speech or other expressive conduct.101 Neither, in the absence of incitement to illegal action, may government punish mere expression or proscribe ideas,102 regardless of the trifling or annoying caliber of the expression.103

[x SF med]

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.


The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Opinions:

The Kawakita Case.—Kawakita v. United States1302 was decided on June 2, 1952. The facts are sufficiently stated in the following headnote: “At petitioner’s trial for treason, it appeared that originally he was a native–born citizen of the United States and also a national of Japan by reason of Japanese parentage and law. While a minor, he took the oath of allegiance to the United States; went to Japan for a visit on an American passport; and was prevented by the outbreak of war from returning to this country. During the war, he reached his majority in Japan; changed his registration from American to Japanese, showed sympathy with Japan and hostility to the United States; served as a civilian employee of a private corporation producing war materials for Japan; and brutally abused American prisoners of war who were forced to work there. After Japan’s surrender, he registered as an American citizen; swore that he was an American citizen and had not done various acts amounting to expatriation; and returned to this country on an American passport.” The question whether, on this record Kawakita had intended to renounce American citizenship, said the Court, in sustaining conviction, was peculiarly one for the jury and their verdict that he had not so intended was based on sufficient evidence. An American citizen, it continued, owes allegiance to the United States wherever he may reside, and dual nationality does not alter the situation.1303

[p.827]
Doubtful State of the Law of Treason Today

The vacillation of Chief Justice Marshall between the Bollman1304 and Burr1305 cases and the vacillation of the Court in the Cramer1306 and Haupt1307 cases leave the law of treason in a somewhat doubtful condition. The difficulties created by the Burr case have been obviated to a considerable extent through the punishment of acts ordinarily treasonable in nature under a different label,1308 within a formula provided by Chief Justice Marshall himself in the Bollman case. The passage reads: “Crimes so atrocious as those which have for their object the subversion by violence of those laws and those institutions which have been ordained in order to secure the peace and happiness of society, are not to escape punishment, because they have not ripened into treason. The wisdom of the legislature is competent to provide for the case; and the framers of our Constitution . . . must have conceived it more safe that punishment in such cases should be ordained by general laws, formed upon deliberation, under the influence of no resentments, and without knowing on whom they were to operate, than that it should be inflicted under the influence of those passions which the occasion seldom fails to excite, and which a flexible definition of the crime, or a construction which would render it flexible, might bring into operation.”1309

Clause 2. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

CORRUPTION OF THE BLOOD AND FORFEITURE
The Confiscation Act of 1862 “to suppress Insurrection, to punish Treason and Rebellion, to seize and confiscate the Property of[p.828]Rebels”1310 raised issues under Article III, Sec. 3, cl.2. Because of the constitutional doubts of the President, the act was accompanied by an explanatory joint resolution which stipulated that only a life estate terminating with the death of the offender could be sold and that at his death his children could take the fee simple by descent as his heirs without deriving any title from the United States. In applying this act, passed in pursuance of the war power and not the power to punish treason,1311 the Court in one case1312 quoted with approval the English distinction between a disability absolute and perpetual and one personal or temporary. Corruption of blood as a result of attainder of treason was cited as an example of the former and was defined as the disability of any of the posterity of the attained person “to claim any inheritance in fee simple, either as heir to him, or to any ancestor above him.”1313

[Team Sergeant]

I agree, and this posting on the Drudge report is yet one more "leak" that Newt should have cited as an example of how the First Amendment is hurting our GWOT. The PRESS using classified information should not be protected by the First Amendment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/29/world/middleeast/29military.html?ei=5065&en=5168f35ca97c716c&ex=1165467600&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Fault lies within the National Security Council for being unable to determine the staff member who leaked this information. The number of people handling that document is finite.

His comment regarding "...losing a city" I take as hyperbole. He is certainly bold in his statements, which increases his risk of being marginalized in his pursuit of the Presidency.

I've thought about that and I've come to the conclusion that whatever the press can get their hands on they should be allowed to print. The ones that leaked this "classified" information should be the ones held accountable, not the press.

If not for any other reason they are showing us a weakness in our system and thats where we should be drawing the line.

And having read volumes and volumes of "classified" information I have little doubt we "over" classify way too much. Hell, go and download Google Earth, the satellite images they have now made "free" to the world were classified "top secret" just a few years ago.

Let's place the blame on those that leak the secrets, lets start throwing senators and congressmen in jail for treason when they reveal classified info to the press.

My .02

Team Sergeant

[Team Sergeant]

Rule I always live by:

Any rights you give up to the governmenrt you can kiss goodbye, because you are not getting them back.

And I thought you were in college......:rolleyes:

I could cite issue after issue, right after right that the mean old government took away and that we now have back............

Careful who you listen to and learn to think for yourself. What you have written sounds as if its coming from a bunch of beer drinking rednecks, and stupid ones at that.

TS

[incommin]

"Let's place the blame on those that leak the secrets, lets start throwing senators and congressmen in jail for treason when they reveal classified info to the press."

I would like to see that happen. But I do not think it will.......they, meaning all the branches of our government, leak info when it suites their political need. Aids leak at the nod of their bosses. No one wants to start looking too deeply and start punishing becasue that could come back to haunt them. It is like the earmarks/pork. They talk but will not act. They like it the way it is.

It will not stop until enough Americans get angry and demand a house cleaning.

My 2 cents.

Jim

[brownapple]

I've thought about that and I've come to the conclusion that whatever the press can get their hands on they should be allowed to print. The ones that leaked this "classified" information should be the ones held accountable, not the press.

If not for any other reason they are showing us a weakness in our system and thats where we should be drawing the line.

And having read volumes and volumes of "classified" information I have little doubt we "over" classify way too much. Hell, go and download Google Earth, the satellite images they have now made "free" to the world were classified "top secret" just a few years ago.

Let's place the blame on those that leak the secrets, lets start throwing senators and congressmen in jail for treason when they reveal classified info to the press.

My .02

Team Sergeant


I agree entirely. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone has had a charge of treason brought against them in a very, very long time.

[tk27]

I was thinking less about specifics and more about what would you/could you change in our free speech laws that would actually curb terrorism? Furthermore, what line do we draw in the sand in regards to taking away liberty?
I think most efforts would directed at the internet. Deny their publicity and propaganda efforts, the net levels the playing field in disseminating information. Curb recruitment, networking, and mobilization efforts on the net, target web forums and mass mailings. Curb the proliferation of "dangerous information". I'm not really sure how we would do this, but would predict that we would be perpetually behind the curve given the history of other internet regulatory efforts.


Greenhat, CoLawman, Team Sergeant -
Isn't leaking a tool? The article CoLaw posted seems like a subtle way of sending a message to Mr. Maliki. Not saying I like it, but isn't that the way the game is played? Wouldn't we already have serious measures to curb it if it wasnt a tool?

[brownapple]

We had serious measures. The Supreme Court and ACLU (and the media) have eliminated most of those serious measures over the years (read x_sf_med's info).

Just consider this:

In the Civil War, a member of Congress who leaked sensitive information would have ended up in jail and might very well have ended up at the end of a rope.

In WWII, a member of Congress who leaked sensitive information would never have had access to sensitive information again and would definitely have ended up in a cell if caught (we did have spies within the US Gov't during WWII... unfortunately, we didn't know about most of them until they were well out of the gov't).

It may be a political tool, but some political tools need to be put away during wartime. Btw, this problem dates as far back in history as you care to look. I am currently reading a history of the battle of Blenheim and it is unbelievable to see how much the Whigs and Tories then resemble our Republicans and Democrats, willing to damage the war effort if it gave them a political advantage over their rivals.

[Team Sergeant]

Lest we forget;

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Ben Franklin


I also like this very much.
Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.-Thomas Jefferson

[x SF med]

Dante and Machiavelli wrote of these same issues in "The Divine Comedy" and "The Prince" respectively - both are highly charged works about politics, politicians, treason, and intrigue - imagine if they had had the internet in their day.

[incommin]

I wish our congressional leaders were as intelligent as most of you out there.

Or maybe it is Honor and ethics that get blown away in DC!?!


Jim

[stone]

I agree that those responsible for the actual leaks should be dealt with severely but I also think it would be nice if the press showed some discretion and restraint instead of pouncing on any and everything they believe will get them to the top of the ratings. Maybe it's overly naive to think that these days though.

[x SF med]

I wish our congressional leaders were as intelligent as most of you out there.

Or maybe it is Honor and ethics that get blown away in DC!?!


Jim

Jim-
The real question is, are politicians born lacking honor, integrity and ethics, and are these shortcomings what drive them into politics? Intelligence untempered by those values create... Dr. Eeee-vil.

[incommin]

Individuals are not born without Honor or Ethics. These are learned and reinforced through mentoring, training, and experiences.

If you search arrest statistics you will find that about 8 % of any given community commit about 70 % of the crimes. About 40 % of people who are arrested one time go on to be arrested again. For those arrested a second time about 60% go on to be arrested a third time.

Crooks will be found in any field of endeavor.....doctors, car mechanics, lawyers, soldiers, ........

Most go to DC with bright ideas of changing things and making it a better place. Once there they encounter the old hands......some keep their honor and ethics but find out they can't do much, others give up or start feeding at the pig trough too. That small percentage who lacked the honor and ethics before they arrived find heaven......

Needless to say I do not think too highly of our politicians....

I wish there were term limits for all seats in government.

Jim

[Monsoon65]

Needless to say I do not think too highly of our politicians....

I wish there were term limits for all seats in government.

I agree!!!! Term limits are a great idea. Allows fresh blood into the system with new ideas. Seems like some of these guys practically don't even have to run for office. They've been there for years and people just keep voting them back in every time. They feed at the hog trough and have no idea what to do if they ever left it. (And for some reason, I keep picturing Teddy Kennedy when I write this!)

I remember a line I heard in a movie some years ago. Rip Torn was a Texas sheriff and was talking about politicians and said, "Nothing worse than a politician. "Cept maybe a child molester." I tend to agree.

[Gypsy]

I wish there were term limits for all seats in government.

Jim

Couldn't agree more. Get voted in, do all you can for your constituents and that's that. It would certainly be nice to get rid of the folks like Kennedy, Kerry and their ilk who seem, IMHO, to be in office for their own personal gain and greed.

[CoLawman]

Careful who you listen to and learn to think for yourself. What you have written sounds as if its coming from a bunch of beer drinking rednecks, and stupid ones at that.

TS

I don't care who you are that there is funny!!!!!!!!!:D

[Team Sergeant]

I agree that those responsible for the actual leaks should be dealt with severely but I also think it would be nice if the press showed some discretion and restraint instead of pouncing on any and everything they believe will get them to the top of the ratings. Maybe it's overly naive to think that these days though.

What part of Capitalism don't you understand? Besides the obvious profit motives there's also the political and self-serving motives.

When you understand some of the hidden agendas you'll get a much clearer understanding of the big picture.

If a people were fed trash 24/7 not only would they learn to eat the trash, some would come to love the taste. Sort of like the trash the NY Times and North Korea feed their followers.

TS

[JMI]

And I thought you were in college......:rolleyes:

I could cite issue after issue, right after right that the mean old government took away and that we now have back............

Careful who you listen to and learn to think for yourself. What you have written sounds as if its coming from a bunch of beer drinking rednecks, and stupid ones at that.

TS
I was always told by a very conservative and street smart father that we should be very careful and guarded of the rights and liberties we give up to the Federal Government because they are not very inclined to give back those liberties, powers, rights, etc... Now he may have been speaking about State's rights, but I think it applies to indivudual rights as well. For the purposes of this discussion I am in favor of sacrificing some rights for security, but it is not a blank check.

Well, TS, I used to be in college, but that was a 13 years and several beer drinking sessions ago with my - admittedly - stupid and idealistic classmates. :D

The point I was trying to make is no branch of the federal governement gets a blank check regrading taking away the rights of individuals or states. By nature I dislike big government intervention in my life.

I'd be interested in the many issues and rights that the government took away that we now have back. How did we get those back? Always willing to learn.

[Team Sergeant]

I'd be interested in the many issues and rights that the government took away that we now have back. How did we get those back? Always willing to learn.

I understood your point; I just it find objectionable to scream the sky is falling when in fact it is not.

The day we do not rule ourselves is that day we end democracy. The government does not take away anything we don’t wish it to; we do that through voting and our free speech.

You want a high profile case in point of big government taking something away that we took back, fine, how about the nationwide sale of assault rifles. Slick willie took away our ability to purchase them and also stopped the sale of high capacity magazines. We now have both rights back. Well, for the most part anyway, the state of California sees that differently. The nation wide ban ended because the people wanted it to, not even the democrats could continue the ban.

I've yet to see any rights taken by the government that we did not eventually agree to or change. Another case in point, FEMA ordered the confiscation of weapons from individuals during the hurricane. The NRA and the people have placed a bill on the table making it unlawful for FEMA to ever do that again, last I heard it was going to pass.

I believe the new eminent domain law will also change soon, again, by the will of the people. When you start believing you cannot effect change or the way the government is running the country then its time for Freedom loving patriots to once again shed some blood.

I believe in the freedom of the press, the freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms.

I believe Mr. Gingrich or anyone that wishes to limit our freedom of speech is making a mistake of epic proportions.

Again I believe and understand what Ben Franklin meant when he said;

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Ben Franklin

I’m not willing to give up any of the freedoms I swore to defend for any superficial or temporary safety. I believe in taking the fight to those that would attack our people and threaten our freedoms. But that’s just me and the way I think.

TS

[brownapple]

I'd be interested in the many issues and rights that the government took away that we now have back. How did we get those back? Always willing to learn.

A little history lesson.

Between 1860 and 1865, the right to assemble, the right to a speedy trial, the right to face your accusers, the right to trial by jury, Habeus Corpus, freedom of speech and certainly freedom of the press... were all suspended to some extent. Some more than others.

Depending on where in the country, they were all returned by the government without any coercion by the people between 1865 and the end of reconstruction.

Between 1942 and 1945, similar suspension of rights as had occurred in the Civil War went into place in the United States (the exception being the suspension of Habeus Corpus). All of those rights were returned to all Americans between 1945 and the end of 1948.

[kachingchingpow]

Hell, go and download Google Earth, the satellite images they have now made "free" to the world were classified "top secret" just a few years ago.


Team Sergeant

Agreed. I grew up in an area of MD that was constructed the same year a certain DOD facility was built out on Ft. Meade. It was illegal to even stop on the road that bordered the fence, much less posess a photo. I was absolutely floored when I saw some of the facilities in the nether regions of Bragg on there.

[tk27]

The 1st Amendment Is Not a Suicide Pact: Blocking the Speech That Calls for Our Death, by Newt Gingrich. Posted Dec 04, 2006. Human Events Online (http://www.humanevents.com/winningthefuture.php?id=18314)

From a speech to the Nackey S. Loeb School of Communications, Gingrich Communications, November 27 2006. By Newt Gingrich (http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=3819)

We need a serious dialogue -- not knee-jerk hysteria -- about the 1st Amendment, what it protects and what it should not protect. Here are a few baseline principles to consider:

* We should be allowed to close down websites that recruit suicide bombers and provide instructions to indiscriminately kill civilians by suicide or other means, or advocate killing people from the West or the destruction of Western civilization;

* We should propose a Geneva-like convention for fighting terrorism that makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction and those who would target civilians are in fact subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous. A subset of this convention should define the international rules of engagement on what activities will not be protected by free speech claims; and

* We need an expeditious review of current domestic law to see what changes can be made within the protections of the 1st Amendment to ensure that free speech protection claims are not used to protect the advocacy of terrorism, violent conduct or the killing of innocents.

[incommin]

I think there is much to do about nothing here..... Anyone want to learn how to pick a lock, make an explosive device, or make weapons; just go to a major library. The only thing the Internet does is save someone the cost of going and doing a little research.

If nuts are using the net for recruiting and learning..... my vote is to let it be....at least you have a chance of finding the nuts who are viewing and you know what is being pushed......

Don't take my rights away without some very good reasons and some deep thought about the law of unintended consequences.

Jim

[soldierdoc_2005]

TS,

One need look no further than Prohibition to realize the power of the citizenry.

The Constitution was Ammended and then Re-Ammended in a short period of time because government decided what was best for the people instead of the other way around.

Representative democracy at its finest. Oh, and the mid-term elections were a pretty compelling display of the power to vote.

Though term limits for members of the Congress are a great idea, we the voter have the ability to fire these people every few years.

~Eric

[Team Sergeant]

TS,

One need look no further than Prohibition to realize the power of the citizenry.

The Constitution was Ammended and then Re-Ammended in a short period of time because government decided what was best for the people instead of the other way around.

Representative democracy at its finest. Oh, and the mid-term elections were a pretty compelling display of the power to vote.

Though term limits for members of the Congress are a great idea, we the voter have the ability to fire these people every few years.

~Eric

A fine example indeed!
(How could I have forgotten that one!)

TS

[incommin]

Having the ability to vote someone out is not the same as having term limits. Having term limits changes the mindsets of those elected and would greatly decrease the special interest groups hold on our government........

Jim

[Team Sergeant]

Having the ability to vote someone out is not the same as having term limits. Having term limits changes the mindsets of those elected and would greatly decrease the special interest groups hold on our government........

Jim

Let's start a movement or set up a special interest group to look into changing it.;)

I agree, I'd like to see term limits across the board.

TS

[soldierdoc_2005]

Let's start a movement or set up a special interest group to look into changing it.;)

I agree, I'd like to see term limits across the board.

TS

Don't get me wrong, guys. I'm a HUGE proponent of Congressional term limits. For God's sake...Sen. Byrd has been there waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy too long. And that's just one example.

The longer these people are in DC, the farther they migrate from their real job...representing their constituents.

My only point is that in the absence of term limits we still have recourse...vote.

Does anyone else see the dichotomy of those who have the most interest in NOT having term limits would be the same people who must initiate the legislation to limit their terms??

These guys are like a self-licking ice cream cone.....

Respectfully,

~Eric

[soldierdoc_2005]

Let's start a movement or set up a special interest group to look into changing it.;)
I agree, I'd like to see term limits across the board.

TS

I thought of a name for our proposed special interest group:

s-pecial
i-nterest
g-roups

s-houldn't
a-llow
u-nlimted
e-gregious
r-epresentation

:lifter

[incommin]

If enough voters demanded term limits, term limits would be enacted. The rub comes in getting a sufficient number of voters who care about cleaning up the cesspool ( graft and special interest driven) that our government has become.

Special interest and personal gain has always been part of our government. The only problem is it has gotten out of hand.

Jim

[The Reaper]

I thought that term limits had been ruled unconstitutional?

It could still be done with an amendment, though I am sure that the constituencies of Byrd, Kennedy, and the like would oppose them.

TR

[tk27]

If enough voters demanded term limits, term limits would be enacted. The rub comes in getting a sufficient number of voters who care about cleaning up the cesspool ( graft and special interest driven) that our government has become.
Sir, You are clear headed, principled, reasoned, and systemically thinking voter. I think this makes you an exception.

The campaign strategies used today involve polarizing the electorate, then further narrowing down the electorate to a small demographic to fight over that decides the election. Ultimately this makes it so most voters have an issue they are going to the mattresses over, and think the sky is falling over. This of course keeps the self-licking icecream cone going.

As a supporter of term limits, my question is how do we get more people to think like you / this?

[incommin]

TR,

I think a federal judge has ruled that term limits are unconstitutional. And term limits have been ruled that way by some state's supreme courts.......but for other issues like it having to be put on a ballet amendment and the population voting on it.

The federal requirements are age, citizenship, and residency. However, I think states could pass their own laws or the federal requirements could be changed as you advised.

The Supreme Court could rule term limits constitutional; it hasn't gone there yet.

I think when a lower jurisdiction (state) passes a law it can be more stringent than the federal law but it can't be less.

Jim

[CoLawman]

Longest serving of active Senators from the US Senate website.


Senator
Dates of Service
Length of Service


1. Robert C. Byrd (D-WV)
January 3, 1959 to present
47 years, 5.3 months


2. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)
November 7, 1962 to present
43 years, 7.2 months

3. Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI)
January 3, 1963-present
43 years, 5.3 months


4. Theodore F. Stevens (R-AK)
December 24, 1968 to present
37 years, 5.6 months

[brownapple]

Without Constitutional amendment, if the Supreme Court hears an argument on term limits, they will rule them unconstitutional. They restrict the choices of the people. I'm not a big proponent of them. People get the government they deserve. If the people of Massachusetts didn't want a drunk representing them in the US Senate, they would stop re-electing Ted Kennedy.

[aricbcool]

If enough voters demanded term limits, term limits would be enacted.

Not where I live...

http://www.ustl.org/Current_Info/current_info.html

Idaho voters passed term limits on their legislature, statewide officeholders and local officeholders in 1994 by 59% of the vote. In 1998, the legislature placed an "advisory" question on the ballot, asking voters to reaffirm their support of term limits. Voters did so. In 2001, state and local office holders sued Idaho voters in a case that made its way to the Idaho Supreme Court, where the court ruled term limits constitutional. In February 2002, the Idaho Legislature ignored the vote of the people and became the first state in the nation to repeal their term limits law.

Furthermore...

http://www.ustl.org/Current_Info/current_info.html

The legislature inserted an emergency clause in the act that repealed Idaho term limits.... ...If the legislature had not inserted the emergency clause in the act, the repeal would not have taken effect until July 2002. Term Limits would have been in effect for the upcoming Primary election. The only legitimate reason to invoke an emergency clause is for the immediate health and welfare of the state, such as attack from a foreign country on Idaho soil, or natural disaster. Under our present circumstances the emergency was not for the welfare of the people, it was for the welfare of those legislators who did not want to lose their power, or their jobs in the legislature.


--Aric

[Peregrino]

A friend sent me this today appended to something else. Given the tone of this thread this seemed a good place to put it.

In the words of C.S. Lewis. "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Term limits are a great idea, provided any movement to enact them can get around the incumbent protection societies. Anyone remember the McCain/Feingold Incumbent Protection Act abridging political speech - the only kind of speech that is actually protected by the 1st Ammendment?

Food for thought: previously this thread mentioned treason, sedition, etc.. Has anyone stopped to consider that the actions/rhetoric the "Founding Fathers" used to create this country are criminalized by the quoted statutes? (Anyone think it's not to discourage people from challenging the status quo?) What did George Orwell really know?

:munchin Peregrino

[Joe Johnstone]

"what are you rebelling against young man?"

"Whadda ya got?"

Marlon Brando...The Wild Ones

Sedition is what made this country a country...

If my Dad did not stand up with Dr. King who knows what opportunities would have been denied me today.

I really enjoyed reading the opinons here

Joe