Rewriting the First Amendment

Suppose you wanted to amend the Constitution to bar Congress from restricting freedom of speech in any way.

How would you word it?

You might write something like this: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

That certainly sounds airtight. Congress shall make "no law" abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.

"No law."

Not "no unreasonable law."

Not "no unfair law."

"No law." Congress shall make "no law" abridging (definition: depriving, cutting off) the freedom of speech or of the press.

That should do it. We would just need to get it approved by two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate, and then by three-quarters of the fifty state legislatures, and it would be the law of the land.

Of course, we can save ourselves a lot of trouble by reading the Constitution we already have, because that's what it says now.

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently puzzling over the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which stems from a documentary motion picture critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton. At issue is whether the movie is some kind of an illegal campaign advertisement under the campaign finance laws passed by Congress.

It's possible that the justices will throw out the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act and any number of other restrictions on who can say what when about incumbents and their challengers.

It's also possible that the justices won't throw out these laws and instead will continue to decide on a case-by-case basis which restrictions on campaign donations and ads are reasonable, and which ones aren't.

And this brings us to the strange case of Congressman Alan Grayson, Democrat of Florida.

Rep. Grayson wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on December 15 asking him to investigate and prosecute Angie G. Langley for putting up a website that is critical of him and seeking to raise money to defeat him next November.

The website is called MyCongressmanIsNuts.com. "Utterly tasteless and juvenile," Rep. Grayson complained in his letter.

The congressman wants Ms. Langley fined and imprisoned for five years for violating 18 U.S.C. 1001.

Maybe Angie G. Langley has violated 18 U.S.C. 1001 and maybe she has not, but either way a citizen of the United States has a perfect right to ask:

"What the hell kind of an unconstitutional law prohibits a citizen from criticizing a congressman and trying to raise money to defeat him in the next election?"

And while we're thinking about it, "What the hell kind of an unconstitutional law makes a congressman believe he can threaten a citizen with arrest for ridiculing him?"

It's easy to say Congressman Alan Grayson is a whack job and no one in the Justice Department will take his request seriously. But it's no small thing to be threatened with arrest by the United States government. It's expensive to defend yourself against federal charges, and just the reported possibility of charges can be enough to destroy a career and throw a life into financial chaos.

Do we want to live in the kind of country where citizens are afraid to criticize elected officials and terrified to raise money to defeat them?

Let's hope the U.S. Supreme Court throws out the entire body of federal campaign finance law. Justices and lawmakers take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Perhaps we should make them take an oath to read it, too.


Copyright 2009