Laws against Senate bribery and laws forbidding "oral communication" are two very different things. One is a first amendment right that the administration is regulating in the name of "ethics" and transparency. You'll notice rights are always removed a bit at a time, and always for the betterment of society...
Ambiguity in these policies is intentional. It gives the administration more leeway to impose its will born from the varying definitions that can be derived from the ambiguity. And unfortunately, many Judges these days do not base their decisions on the Constitutionality of policy but instead on their own partisan beliefs. Jarrad On Jun 1, 2009, at 2:24 PM, Joel Brauer wrote: > > Joel Brauer > > Only you can decide to be happy! The rest of life is in the > details... > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Jarrad Reiner <[email protected]> > wrote: > Yes, we understand Eisen's "Justification" for the policy. But both > Tapscott and Morrisey believe that if the federal government > restricts political expression in one specialized area, other areas > are soon to follow: > > A new White House policy on permissible lobbying on economic > recovery and stimulus projects has taken a decidedly anti-First > Amendment turn. It's a classic illustration of Big Government trying > to control every aspect of a particular activity and in the process > running up against civil liberty.... > > You know I'm a proponent of Civil liberty and the 1st amendment. > But how far does it go? Are the laws preventing bribes to senators > for pork unconstitutional since they are simply preventing the giver > from expressing their first amendment rights? I know there are some > that would argue yes. But with the system as broken as it is, this > would cause a world that is unlivable for all but the aristocracy. > > > ...The key passage is the reference to expanding regulation from > registered lobbyists to "anyone else exerting influence on the > process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique > circumstances of the stimulus program." This is the Camel's nose > under the tent, being poked because of special circumstances. Let > government restrict political expression - i.e. lobbying of > government officials regarding policy - in one small, supposedly > specialized area and not long after the specialized area starts > expanding. Eventually, all political expression regarding all policy > will become subject to government regulation. > - Mark Tapscott, Washington Examiner > > The restrictions are also ambiguous enough that a lobbyist or other > petitioner won’t be sure how to fully comply. So if someone runs > afoul of White House officials, a phone call to a news outlet or a > friendly prosecutor can punish the offender. Ambiguous rules plus > capricious application equals negative rule of law. > -- Carter Wood > > Actually ambiguity makes it easy for a judge to clarify the > ambiguity. It allows the Judicial branch of the government to > balance out the executive. Mmmmm.... gotta love the taste of > Governmental check's and balances in the morning! > > -joel > > > > > On Jun 1, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Joel Brauer wrote: > >> OMG, Did you actually read it? This is FUD, pure and simple. It >> is NOT saying they are going to silence criticism. It IS saying >> that oral communication by those involved in the bidding process >> will be regulated so that deals are not cut under the table. Wow, >> Hotair has just gone on my conspiracy theory alert list of sites. >> That is a HUGE stretch and misleading article that if you don't >> read closely and just wear your blinders to follow allong with >> whatever the GOP henchment want you to believe today you could >> easily fall for. >> >> Joel Brauer >> >> Only you can decide to be happy! The rest of life is in the >> details... >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 5:58 AM, Jarrad Reiner <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/30/white-house-well-cut-off-criticism-of-porkulus/ >> >> Jarrad >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Politically Opinionated Outspoken People Expounding Religion" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pooper?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
