Celebrating the 4th of July by speaking freely

Celebrating the 4^th of July by speaking freely

One of the most profound outcomes of the 1776  Declaration of Independence was the eventual protection of freedom of speech institutionalized in the first amendment to the 1789 Constitution.  Speaking out against the King was considered treason punished by prison or  hanging.  In spite of that, our founding fathers  took the risk, even signing their “John Hancock’s”  and later writers of the Constitution made sure Congress shall make no laws …abridging freedom of speech”.

 Sometimes what is protected from whom is misunderstood.  My husband, a refugee from Communism, who often speaks his mind, complained that he was not free to say everything he thought because someone might take offense. I even heard a politician on TV be angry at his ability to do likewise. “Whatever happened to freedom of speech?”, he groused.

 Do not confuse being politically correct with your first amendment rights granted by the Constitution. The operative words are "Congress shall pass no  laws" that will abridge your right to speak".  It protects your rights to be even politically incorrect.  That does not mean that your friends, relatives, co-workers, or potential political supporters have to like what you say, or cannot argue against you, or cannot  vote against  you and for the other guy  if you are a candidate. It just means you will not be thrown into a dungeon or hanged if you  speak out against the government or express your opinions.

That  concept of freedom to speak  has been both  limited and expanded since 1789  and the arbiter is the US Supreme Court.  Campaign contributions are considered free speech even if  made  by a corporation,  and now the Supreme Court has agreed  to rule on whether threats made on Facebook to kill a spouse is protected by the constitution. Usually slander against an individual  or a celebrity by a newspaper or some individual has not been Constitutionally protected (though even situation  may yet be expanded to limit  slanderous speech by  individuals ) , but the wrong can be  addressed  by a law suit in civil court. Even  anti abortion demonstrators  standing on sidewalks no longer are held back by a buffer zone per a Supreme Court ruling this June.

 The Supreme Court has been asked time and time again where    limits should be set  to deny the right in some circumstances..  After all, some speech may hurt others, and the Supreme Court has most famously drawn the line with a 1919 decision written by Oliver Wendell Holmes: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic … … in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger”.

 With Twitter and  Facebook,  new  internet tools are being  used  to  slander, threaten, and cyberbully. This  will keep the Supreme Court for years to draw  lines of whether  such  kinds of speech cross some constitutionally protected  line.

A version of this appeared in the Sky Hi Daily News July 4, 2014 (www.skyhidailynews.com)

Links to more about it, go to

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/16/supreme-court-facebook-threats-free-speech/10326233/

http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/constitution-activities/first-amendment/free-speech.aspx
http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-rules-obamacare-challenge-case-143206534.html ruled by the Court today did not address the first amendment rights, though they were raised.  This case is also known as the "Holly Lobby" case regarding the rights of corporations to deny providing birth control under Obamacare provisions.  The ruling was very specifically and narrowly applied to closely held corporations claiming freedom or religion. However, the downside was laid out in a blistering dissent by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg and deserves reading to understand the impact of the decision. The summary of her comments are at:    http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/best-lines-hobby-lobby-decision

Weekly Address: Focusing on the Economic Priorities for the Middle Class Nationwide | The White House

Weekly Address: Focusing on the Economic Priorities for the Middle Class Nationwide | The White House



The President picks up a similar theme that I blogged about at the first of the week.  I think, too, the Administration is missing a bet of positioning the consumer protections of Obamacare as middle class and womens'  issues, a case I made for that in the blog.  To me, it shows that the Administration is still gun shy of promoting  its own health care program, probably reflecting some poll numbers.  Those numbers will not change until Democrats themselves "screw their courage to the sticking post " (Shakespeare) and start emphasizing the positives, that Obama helped far more than those who felt the negatives.

Could the House sue the President for refusing to carry out laws? Recommended analysis

Recommended analysis of an issue being advanced by GOP members of Congress. My take away: probably not; It would require a huge shift of the Supreme Court's established tradition and constitutional interpretation to get involved in this kind of action

Constitution Check: Could the House sue the President for refusing to carry out the laws?

Lyle Denniston looks at a big constitutional barrier to the courts acting as an arbiter of...

NEWS.YAHOO.COM

GOP’s new message of helping the middle class is hot air.

The GOP’s change in tune has a sour note.  Have you noticed a shift in message?. It has switched from “trickle down is good for you”   to “the GOP cares about the middle class and families”. The GOP must have been reading recent polls that showed they were 10 points behind Democrats when asked if the Republican party” cares about my problems” (CBS News Poll, May 16-19) and 20 points behind in “helping the middle class” (ABC/Washington Post poll April 24-27). The GOP’s  newly touted support of the middle class is  an empty glass  filled with hot air and the Democrats need to call them out on it.

Democrats  have either been silent or stuck in the wonky weeds of defense on middle class issue, recently. The best defense in the 2014 midterms is a good offense by  answering the question themselves:” Who can best help the middle class?”  For example:

Here is how the GOP, including Cory Gardner running for Senate in Colorado,   plan to help the middle class.

 The GOP in Congress  recently blocked legislation allowing those with older student loans to refinance  at a lower rate . How does that help the middle class?

Killing Obamacare  is still their main refrain.   They want to leave families once more  deeply in debt with medical bills and policies that deny coverage of pre-existing conditions or preventative care. The past system left the middle class one medical event away from  foreclosure and bankruptcy whenever an uncovered major medical event occurs.  The GOP has provided no alternatives that would provide  those protections. Instead,  they have proposed “ solutions” of malpractice reform and cross state insurance competition that even  the Congressional Budget Office estimated would have little effect in making insurance affordable for the pre Obamacare uninsured.. How does that help the middle class?

The GOP  makes it difficult for women who need to work to keep their families afloat financially by  putting barriers to family planning, whether making choice of when and how many children to have. Some, including Gardner,   have advocated making some forms of birth control illegal or  favored  preventing women from getting low cost pills from their employer’s insurance.  Most oppose equal pay for equal work .Many in the  GOP oppose raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, which would bring those working a 40 hours week above the poverty level. How does that revitalize the middle class?

Creating jobs? The GOP has opposed funding rebuilding highways and bridges and infrastructure improvements that would have long lasting higher paying jobs for millions over the years. (Keystone pipeline they tout  as a jobs program creates only  two years of  temporary jobs). Their jobs plan mostly consists of  giving  more tax breaks to big business.   If we learned anything over the years,  trickle down theories have failed in practice. How has that helped the middle class?

Visit http://www.pollingreport.com/dvsr.htm for both the ABC and CBS polls .
A version of the above appeared in the www.skyhidailynews.com, all editions, 6/27/2014

Some additional thoughts that fill in some blanks:  Can we afford to do these things to help the middle class?
There are deficit hawks who put cutting the deficit  above everything regardless of the impact on the economy and the tool in their toolbox of government shutdown.  (The GDP took a serious dip when that was last tried and political approval ended in the toilet).  Their one and only pathway is to reducing  the deficit is to cut government expenditures without raising revenues. However, the only government expenditures they want to cut are social programs and education; defense gets fed well.
The problem is two fold:  every serious look at the deficit, i.e. Simpson Bowles,  said we must raise more revenues.  My fear:slashing and burning middle class perks  and poverty safety nets will only increase the disparity between the rich and poor....a destabilizing element in any democracy,  politically unsustainable and therefore unattainable.

Update: Polls are showing a great decline in middle class income and hope. Below is one released in July 2014.  Buried in this is the middle class decline and loss of hope.  Who gets the blame will determine much of the 2016 presidential race and it could impact the 2014 midterms. If the Democrats can pin the blame on Republicans and sell it, they may have a chance. When all is said and done, that is why the 47% issue that scuttled the Romney momentum.  http://finance.yahoo.com/news/americans-are-down-on-america-190304928.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory