Why Can’t Our Congressmen Read?
Is the English language really that hard?
What doesn’t Congress understand about this?
Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…
Is this whole “no law” thing a tough concept for our Congressmen to understand? The phrase “no law” doesn’t mean “just one or two laws” or “a well-intentioned law” or “a law Congress passed to do something they think is good”.
It means NO FREAKING LAW!!
Good, God, people! Are we electing functional illiterates to represent us? Will the President have to propose a “No Congressman Left Behind” program to get these guys some basic reading comprehension skills? Maybe we should require that anyone who runs for Congress enter a Government Head Start program where we teach them the definitions of simple, one-syllable words.
Don’t even get me started on the whole “freedom of the press” issue. I mean, just because I’m not chunking out pamphlets like Thomas Paine doesn’t mean I don’t have “the press”.
Why is it that every few years we have to fight, tooth and nail, to hold onto a right that’s written in black and freaking white (okay, faded parchment)?
I distinctly remember that our Congressmen have to take an Oath of Office and that contained in that oath is a promise to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States…”.
I’ve seen support, and, folks, this ain’t it. I”m also reasonably sure that “defend” doesn’t include running the First Amendment through a wheat thresher.
I thought the ridiculous hacking away at our freedom of speech reached its apex during the last election. Looks like I missed that call by a few light years. This is worse. This is the kind of thing that could choke off the internet in ways we can’t even imagine right now.
We can’t have that.
Here are the contact points for Senator McCain and Senator Feingold. Let them know how much we appreciate our freedom of speech and how poorly we’d take their attempt to remove any part of that freedom.
Be polite, though. You can rant and rave here but when you write to the Senators be nice.
And use small words.
(via Michelle Malkin who has many, many very good links)
No related posts.
Category: The Good Old US of A
[...] x, and the big boys are decidedly unhappy about it. I’ve already told you that the FEC seems set to go after bloggers (and, by extension, every single American who dares to voice a publi [...]
I can forgive individual legislators like the two sponsors their obvious delusional obsessions. What I can't forgive is their colleagues going along with it, the President signing it, or (worst of all) the Supreme Court saying it's all OK. As far as it means anything with respect to its core purpose of protecting political speech, the First Amendment died with the publication of the campaign-finance "reform" decision last year.
Oh, and a word on lobbying: never lobbby one legislative chamber without the other. Congresmen Shays and Meehan, the sponsors of McCain-Feingold's House companion bill, can undoubtedly be found easily enough through http://www.house.gov.
Another word on lobbying – if they're not your Congressman, they seriously just throw it out. Lobby your own Congressmen & Senators, and you're more likely to get listened to.
Very fortunate then, isn't it, that McCain actually IS one of your Senators, Nicole? While by and large true, the problem with that line of advice is that most legislators are not actively involved one way or the other on most pieces of legislation. Going to the bill's actual sponsors as well is the best you can do if your own didn't play much of a part with it.
Actually pay attention to each thing? No. Constituents (and professional organized lobbies) get responses. But I spent whole days as a Senate intern just counting pieces of mail on particular issues. Making it add up does make an impression.
Well, technically McCain isn't my senator anymore. He was only my senator (sort of) for 4 years when I was in college at Arizona State. Now that I'm registered to vote and paying taxes in Virginia, I don't think I can really claim to be his constituent.
But as for the mail issue, I stand by my original statement. Unfortunately I can't go into detail on why I say that, because it relates to some things I'm doing at work about which I'm bound by confidentiality (that is seriously the first time in my life that I've ever had to say that – I know it sounds really pretentious, but it actually is the case). To Dave, I'll just say: a) not all offices do that and b) the mail situation on Capitol Hill has changed dramatically over the past few years. To all else I say, send mail to the bill sponsors if you want, but I would definitely not do it to the exclusion of writing your own Senators & Reps. Whether they are actively involved in the bill or not, they still get to vote on it in the end, and the less involved they are in the bill, the more likely they are to be swayed by what their constituents think.
Valid points, Nicole, and as I spent the past three years working for state representatives (granted, in a populous state like Florida), I do sometimes forget the orders of magnitude more correspondence of every sort that everyone on the Hill gets: it's impossible to really pay any sort of attention to most of it.
As for the mail situation changing dramatically, I was in DC on 9/11 and through the anthrax scare, so yeah, that hardly surprises me.