What part of “Congress shall make no law…” does he not understand?
Sentator Ted Stevens (R-AK) has launched the opening salvo in the war to control the flow of information and entertainment.
The most worrisome part: “If that’s the issue they want to take on, we’ll take it on and let the Supreme Court decide”. If you have been paying attention lately, the Supreme Court has been falling back on foreign jurisprudence to justify their activist rulings. In a recent decision setting aside the death-row status of anyone condemed to die while under the age of 18, Justice Kennedy used European law as a justification for his decision. If past is prologue, they will use the laws on the books in France, Germany, and Canada — just to name a few — as justification for having a federally-mandated speech code for all non-print mass-communication media.
We also have the precedent of the Supreme Court deciding that the First Amendment shredding Campaign Finance Reform law was perfectly acceptable. Politicians are already crying about how it wasn’t enough, and they want to go further. The passage and acceptance of a law granting policing authority to the FCC for decency on satellite and cable will only embolden them further in their quest to ensure they never have to endure competition or a harsh opinion.
At this point, Stevens is the only one on his committee spouting off on this issue, but it resounds with all the power-seekers in Washington. He’ll find support. At the very least, my esteemed Senator Lieberman (who keeps winning no matter how many times I vote against him) will follow along in lock step.
I intend to write him a letter asking for clarification. I also plan to recommend to him that if what I have read is true that he should consider resigning his office as he will have engaged in a willful violation of the oath of office in which he swore to uphold the Constitution.