SCOTUS upholds government power to outlaw dissent
Court fails to differentiate words and deeds:
"The US Supreme Court on Monday upheld the constitutionality of a federal law that makes it illegal to teach members of a foreign terrorist group how to use peaceful means to pursue political goals.
The statute, outlawing the provision of ‘material support’ to designated terrorist organizations, does not violate free-speech and free-association protections of the First Amendment, and it is not unconstitutionally vague, the majority justices declared.
In a 6-to-3 decision, the high court said the law — part of the USA Patriot Act — is specific enough to provide would-be violators fair notice of when their conduct crosses the line into illegality.
The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, says that Congress intentionally wrote the statute with a broad sweep to outlaw material support to terror groups in any form, including assistance or expertise that might help nudge the group toward NONviolence.”
Source
Surely it is the 1st Amendment rather than the intent of Congress that was the issue here. This is a very disappointing decision. But a court that is capable of finding a right to abortion in the constitution when the word "abortion" is not even mentioned there is obviously a political body first and a judicial body second.
7 comments:
Though conservative, I concur with this opinion - I don't appreciate fellow citizens "Aiding and abetting the enemy".
I have no problem with this decision. IMO, "any" support to terrorists is a clear threat to our national security regardless of how leftists and bleeding hearts try to camouflage it. That the 9th Circus and the leftists on the SCOTUS disagreed, is no surprise. In fact, that they disagreed is proof that this opinion was a good one.
The problem is where to draw the line.
"Aiding and abetting the enemy" is all good and well as long as it's Al Qaeda.
But what if Obama decides the tea party movement is a terrorist organisation, the GoP the enemy?
Under this decision anyone supporting them in word or deed could be locked up indefinitely under the Patriot Act as being a terrorist.
Which is no doubt what the court had in mind when they made this decision (and the government when they let it get to the court).
It opens the door for the federal government stamping down on political opponents of those currently in power under the excuse that they're enemies of the State (now where have we seen that before...).
Under this decision anyone supporting them in word or deed could be locked up indefinitely under the Patriot Act as being a terrorist.
Clearly you did not read the decision, the history of the case, or the applicable law.
The law only applies to "foreign terrorist organizations."
I am pretty sure that the Tea Party is not "foreign."
Anon 5:05, i understand your point and it's a good one. But, with this Marxist administration in power, they won't need this decision, or anything else, to demonize anyone or anything that disagrees with them. In fact, they've been doing it from their start. As many of us have seen, they have no problem with "creating a cirsis", especially with the always-present help of the MSM. Once a "crisis" is invented, they can then do anything they want. Again, they've been doing this since last year. Unfortunately, the American people are not smart enough, or strong enough, to do anyhting about it. Pathetic.
"I am pretty sure that the Tea Party is not "foreign.""
One member working for a company that's foreign owned (and there are certain to be some) would be enough to classify them as "foreign", after all they're then receiving foreign funding (through that person's salary, part of which he uses to travel to meetings, make signs, etc.)...
The thought police is highly creative. If I can come up with that, they surely have thought of it before.
One member working for a company that's foreign owned (and there are certain to be some) would be enough to classify them as "foreign",
The definition of "foreign terrorist organization" is defined in the Patriot Act and is not what you think it is.
Post a Comment