Saying that, while the bill has flaws, it "improves the current system of financing for federal campaigns," President Bush signed the unconstitutional campaign finance legislation into law last Wednesday. Immediately, the National Rifle Association filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the new law. The legislation "eviscerates the core protections of the First Amendment by prohibiting, on pain on criminal punishment, political speech," the NRA’s legal complaint says.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), an adamant opponent of the bill, said he will also file suit and expects the law to be overturned. Opponents know the bill will not take the influence of money out of politics -- "There won’t be a single penny less spent on issues and campaigns in America after this becomes law," McConnell said. "The real loser under this legislation is the American voter, who can no longer rely on the political party as an indicia of what that candidate stands for.”

The Senate vote was 60-40. There were 48 Democrats, 11 Republicans and one independent. Opposed were 38 Republicans and two Democrats. The bill passed the House last month, 240-189.

"With a stroke of the president’s pen, we will eliminate hundreds of millions of dollars of unregulated soft money that has caused the American people to question the integrity of their elected representatives," Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), the chief perpetrator of the unconstitutional act, gloatingly said.

Throughout American history, political speech was usually the most protected of speech. This began with English law and was included in the constitutions of most of the original Thirteen Colonies. Representative James Madison presented the protection of speech in the first Congress as part of the Bill of Rights.

Madison’s version of the speech and press clauses, which was introduced in the first House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, provided: “The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.”⁽¹⁾

The special committee then rewrote (condensed) the language to some extent, adding other provisions from Madison’s draft, to make it read: “The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.”⁽²⁾

That was the form that went to the Senate. The first Senate then rewrote it to read: “That Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The religion clauses and these clauses were combined by the Senate. The final language was agreed upon in conference: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Which for speech, we can shorten to: "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech …"

The words “shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech” seem rather clear out here in flyover country. Which means, the 240 representatives and 60 senators approving that campaign finance legislation intentionally and maliciously violated the Constitution.

They also violated a federal statute. Because, a federal law requires that, "An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath":⁽³⁾

"I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Clearly, 300 lawmakers violated that law.

In The Federalist Papers No. 62 James Madison admonishes: "It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?"

And, in The Federalist Papers No. 78, Alexander Hamilton informs us that:

"There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."

One sentence there sums it up nicely: "No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid." When government violates the Constitution, government then becomes an illegal entity and relinquishes its Constitutional authority. This places the burden of correction squarely on the shoulders of the people.

Out position, then, should be to assure that none of the offending 300 perpetrators ever hold a position of honor again.

The Federalist Papers, by the way, are often cited by the United States Supreme Court as a source of Constitutional law. The United States Supreme Court cited The Federalist Papers as a source of Constitutional law as far back as 1821 (Cohens vs. Virginia), wherein Chief Justice John Marshall said: "Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank [as a commentary on the Constitution], and the part two of the authors performed in framing the Constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed."⁽⁴⁾

Still today, the Supreme Court refers to The Federalist Papers in many of its opinions. An inexpensive paperback version can be found in any bookstore. The text should be studied by every liberty loving American citizen.