Thursday, August 12, 2004
Sen. Feingold Happy He's Subverting the First Amendment
McCain-Feingold is a complete abomination to the first amendment. Proof-positive that you can't rely on the Supreme Court will protect your rights.
Two points: 1) If you don't like money in politics, get politics out of money. 2) Money gives you the opportunity to have people hear you. Hence, any regulation on money in politics is a regulation on speech.
Feingold's problem is, as Friedman said, that he doesn't like special interests unless its his own.
McCain-Feingold is a complete abomination to the first amendment. Proof-positive that you can't rely on the Supreme Court will protect your rights.
Two points: 1) If you don't like money in politics, get politics out of money. 2) Money gives you the opportunity to have people hear you. Hence, any regulation on money in politics is a regulation on speech.
Feingold's problem is, as Friedman said, that he doesn't like special interests unless its his own.
Comments:
<< Home
Is that the same first amendment you want to subvert by getting rid of that separatation of church and state business?
Hwang
Hwang
# posted by 
: 12:18 PM
: 12:18 PM
Hwang,
Where are you getting this "separation of church and state" that Geoff is supposedly subverting?
Please direct me to the place in the Constitution where this is mandated, and show me how Geoff is "subverting" it.
Where are you getting this "separation of church and state" that Geoff is supposedly subverting?
Please direct me to the place in the Constitution where this is mandated, and show me how Geoff is "subverting" it.
Hwang,
I just got done reading the first amendment. The amendment does not entail a separation of church and state. It prohibits a state religion. It does not mean the state and churches can't interact. Government should be religiously neutral, not anti-religion.
So am I against the mythical separation of church and state? Of course. But that's like being against the tooth fairy, who is also not in the Constitution.
I do agree that the state should be religiously neutral. I think faith-based programs are perfectly legal. But if I wouldn't want my church to get government money. Not because the government needs to be protected from the church. The point of the amendment and my concern would be to protect the church from the state. But I doubt the average liberal is concerned about that. They are concerned about government being influenced by religious people.
Post a Comment
I just got done reading the first amendment. The amendment does not entail a separation of church and state. It prohibits a state religion. It does not mean the state and churches can't interact. Government should be religiously neutral, not anti-religion.
So am I against the mythical separation of church and state? Of course. But that's like being against the tooth fairy, who is also not in the Constitution.
I do agree that the state should be religiously neutral. I think faith-based programs are perfectly legal. But if I wouldn't want my church to get government money. Not because the government needs to be protected from the church. The point of the amendment and my concern would be to protect the church from the state. But I doubt the average liberal is concerned about that. They are concerned about government being influenced by religious people.
<< Home
