« Not Quite the Same | Main | Good Choices for the Supreme Court »

June 1, 2005

My Tipping Point

Wizbang has more on the FEC's proposed attempts to comply with McCain-Feingold by regulating the ability of people to publish political commentary supportive of or in opposition to political candidates within 60 days before an election.

Let me be perfectly clear:

  • I will not accede to any government regulation of my political speech.
  • I will say what I want about politicians - or anyone else - when I want and where I want (provided, of course, that it is not someone else's property).
  • I will refuse to comply with any law enforcement or other executive agency that attempts to censor or compel my speech on politicians, issues and affairs in the news, and any other matter that I consider to be protected speech (in other words, I'll accept content-neutral restrictions where they make sense, such as not yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater).
  • I will refuse to comply with any court that attempts to pass judgement on me under this or any similar - that is, blatantly unconstitutional - regulation or law. I will attempt to avoid any sentence, and will ignore any court orders, in furtherance of such attempts.

I am not quite to the point that I am willing to pick up a gun and resist such attempts by force; I think that civil disobedience is more effective in such cases - and it's certainly less likely to leave my wife widowed and my children fatherless. I used to know that there was a point where I would enter into armed rebellion against the government - it's been necessary before, even in the US - but I couldn't imagine what would tip me over that edge, what our government could do that would force that decision. I don't wonder about it anymore: this isn't my tipping point, but I can see it from here.

Let me be more clear: if the ability to speak on political matters is in any way limited, other than in minimal and content-neutral ways, then "shall make no law" is as meaningless as "for a limited time". Once the Constitution's words become utterly meaningless, as they are now perilously close to becoming, then there is no protection of liberty in the Constitution. If there is no protection of liberty in the Constitution, then it fails the meta-test of the purpose of government as laid down in our Declaration of independence. If the government has failed in its purpose, it must be abolished or reformed by any means necessary and convenient, including if necessary the use of armed force. (A Constitutional Convention would be my preferred method, if we can't simply pass an amendment that decrees the Constitution to mean what it says in the plain language of the time in which it was adopted, and compel that amendment to be observed.)

Posted by jeff at June 1, 2005 6:06 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.caerdroia.org/MT/mt-tb.cgi/86

Comments

Wait at least 2 years until I get out of law school so I can take your case (pro bono if necessary.)

Posted by: nemesisenforcer at June 2, 2005 2:14 AM

The time for a constitutional convention was about thirty years ago. The problem with a convention now is that IMO it would be as likely to incite violence as it would to prevent it.

I'm afraid there may be more violence against judges pour encourager les autres.

Posted by: Dave Schuler [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 2, 2005 10:10 AM

Thank you for so clearly expressing my opinions also. My exercise of political expression will not be abridged without the use of force by the government. Congress is our first defense and they must recognize the need to repeal McCain-Feingold. The current Supreme Court has certainly failed in their protection of the Bill of Rights. Maybe impeachment of justices is not such a bad idea after all.

Posted by: Whitehall at June 2, 2005 12:37 PM

Common Sense

Dear FEC,

I write to you today to request your kind advisory as to whether this pamphlet defines me as an ACTIVIST or a JOURNALIST. Whilst I am loathe to corrupt our pristine electoral system with my calls to political action, neither would I wish to cause our sanctioned press any undue hardship due to its perceived affiliation with rabble like myself. I do understand that "citizen journalists" not being PROPERLY CREDENTIALED creates terrible confusion amongst the leaders of government and society. I humbly request, therefore, that you peruse my pamphlet with an eye toward giving me the designation I shall need going forward if I wish to publish and disseminate my words without government interference. I anxiously await your verdict.

Sincerely,

Thomas Paine

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Jim at June 3, 2005 2:02 PM