Gingrich on Free Speech and the GWOT

[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

From a speech to the Nackey S. Loeb School of Communications, Gingrich Communications, November 27 2006. By Newt Gingrich

Originally Posted by Newt

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

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]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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]

Originally Posted by incommin

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