Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (7887)	12/20/2003 12:22:19 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 10965

Saddam, Libya Announcements Boost Blair By BETH GARDINER Associated Press Writer LONDON (AP) -- In less than a week, Prime Minister Tony Blair has had two big moments in the international spotlight, going public first with important good news for him and close ally President Bush. On Sunday, Blair appeared before cameras ahead of Bush and America's top official in Iraq to announce the capture of Saddam Hussein. On Friday, he was first to disclose Libya's decision to cease its development of weapons of mass destruction. For Blair, who has been severely criticized at home for his close ties to Bush, breaking such positive stories has provided a long-awaited chance to show Britons his foreign policy is getting results. It must have been a welcome break from months of answering critics' questions about the U.S.-led coalition's failure to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, an issue that has dogged the prime minister since Saddam's regime fell. Blair publicly confirmed the former Iraqi leader's capture more than 45 minutes before L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, held a news conference in Baghdad and hours before Bush spoke to the American people. Latest News Saddam, Libya Announcements Boost Blair Royal Coroner to Hold Princess Di Inquest U.K. Outraged Over School Job for Murderer London Police Question 2 Over Stabbing British'Black Widow' Draws Life Sentence On Friday, he stepped before cameras in Durham, northern England, to reveal Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's surprise decision some 15 minutes before Bush spoke publicly in Washington. The leaders said Gadhafi admitted Libya had worked on weapons of mass destruction but now promised to stop doing so. "This decision by Col. Gadhafi is an historic one and a courageous one and I applaud it," Blair said. "It will make the region and the world more secure." Television audiences likely were small when the news came late Friday night. But allowing Blair to briefly take center stage may nonetheless have been an effort by Washington to boost the prime minister, whom the Bush administration knows has suffered politically for his unstinting support of the president. It also may have been a recognition of Britain's support in recent years for greater engagement with Libya, long an international outcast accused of supporting terrorism, including the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, on Dec. 21, 1988 - 15 years ago Sunday. That bombing killed 270 people. "This is a major victory in the war against terror and a personal triumph for Tony Blair and for British diplomacy," said George Foulkes, a lawmaker from Blair's Labor Party. "I hope those who have been all too ready to criticize him in the past will now be big enough to come out and publicly acknowledge this success." Until Friday, the United States treated Libya as a kind of junior member of Bush's "axis of evil" comprising Iran, North Korea and prewar Iraq. Britain, by contrast, resumed diplomatic relations with the north African nation on July 7, 1999 - 15 years after cutting ties when London police constable Yvonne Fletcher was killed by gunfire from the Libyan "People's Bureau," as its London embassy was called. Relations warmed further this year, when Tripoli accepted responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing and Britain introduced a successful U.N. resolution lifting sanctions imposed in 1992. In October, Britain even hosted one of the Libyan leader's sons, Seif el-Islam Gadhafi, at an energy meeting and a Foreign Office news conference. Britain, along with Germany and France, has used a similar, pro-engagement stance in relations with Iran, where America also has held a harder line. However, Blair's political fortunes are likely to be determined by issues closer to home. Pollsters say the government's handling of the economy and its performance on public services are far more important to voters than events overseas.

To: calgal who wrote (7887)	12/20/2003 12:22:30 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 10965

Amending an Amendment Rich Tucker (archive) December 20, 2003 \| Print \| Send The First Amendment is dead. Repealed. History. Do I still have the right to still say that? Better check with the Supreme Court. In a strange decision last week, a 5-4 majority of the court upheld the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, often known as McCain-Feingold. One element of the law bars “soft money” donations to political parties. In other words, even if you want to give a fortune to the Democratic Party, you’ll no longer be allowed to. But political parties hardly matter anymore, because of another provision of McCain-Feingold. The law also bars them, and unions, interest groups and corporations from running TV ads that mention a specific candidate in the 60 days before a federal election. But if they’re not allowed to engage in politics during the two months before election day (when people might actually be paying attention), why should any of these groups bother engaging in politics at all? Or, maybe, that’s what the incumbent politicians want. “In the main we uphold BCRA’s two principal, complementary features: the control of soft money and the regulation of electioneering communications,” wrote Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O’Connor in their majority opinion. They also insisted the law was “modest,” and would have “only a marginal impact on political speech.” Now, the First Amendment is quite clear on this. “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” As Casey Stengel might have said, you could look it up. Nothing in the constitution would lead a reasonable person to divine that a law would be OK as long as it has only a “marginal impact” on political speech. And, unquestionably, a law that allows Congress to “regulate electioneering communications” would violate the First Amendment. Yet five justices saw fit to let that unconstitutional law stand. This is just part of a troubling trend -- judges reading the Constitution to find what they want to find there, and discarding what’s actually written there if they find it inconvenient. Probably the best illustration of finding something that isn’t there is the so-called “right to privacy.” Here’s how the American Civil Liberties Union explains it on their Web site: “The right to privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has said that several of the amendments create this right. Other amendments protect our freedom to make certain decisions about our bodies and our private lives without interference from the government.” (Their emphasis). This extra-constitutional Constitutional “right” was used in 1973’s Roe v. Wade to legalize abortion and, most recently, last summer to toss out a Texas law banning sodomy. It’s been reaffirmed in ruling after ruling, and is clearly still expanding. Which brings us back to the First Amendment. Since it’s actually in the Constitution, why is it shrinking, rather than expanding? Lawmakers bear much of the blame, of course. After all, they’re the ones who passed McCain-Feingold in the first place. Supreme Court Justices O’Connor, Stevens, Steven Breyer, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg shoulder even more of it, for misreading the First Amendment and deciding that it allows Congress to place restrictions on certain types of political speech. But President Bush bears the most blame. He knew McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional. “I believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished,” he announced at the bill signing in March 2002. Then he signed a bill that will diminish public participation in elections. “When individual freedoms are restricted,” Bush continued, “questions arise under the First Amendment. I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising.” But for political reasons, he punted the issue to the courts, and hoped they would do the right thing. They didn’t. Eventually, a future Supreme Court ruling will overturn large sections of the McCain-Feingold, perhaps after we witness the amusing spectacle of someone being hauled off to jail for attempting to televise a political ad attacking Sen. Jones or Rep. Smith on Nov. 1. But until that happens, we’ll just have to do what Congress has ordered -- keep our mouths shut. Rich Tucker is manager of professional training in the Center For Media and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, a Townhall.com member group. ©2003 The Heritage Foundation