American
11-19-2007, 12:39 AM
This is from DailyPaul, think it should be here as well.
On Oct. 23 HR 1955 the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007" was passed by the House with 404 members voting in favor of this blatantly unconstitutional bill. This bill is essentially a thought crime bill with wording so vague that it could easily be used against any group or person espousing dissenting views from that of the government.
This bill mirrors the comments made by Glenn Beck regarding Ron Paul supporters, and that leads me to believe it is more than just coincidence.
WE MUST NOT LET THIS BILL BECOME LAW!!!
HR 1955 has now been sent to the Senate Committee for Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs for review before going to the Senate floor for vote. Let's contact our committee members and our state Senators via letters, email, and phone calls and let them know that this is unacceptable.
The Committee members are:
Democrats:
Joseph I. Lieberman, Chairman (ID) (CT)
Carl Levin (MI)
Daniel K. Akaka (HI)
Thomas R. Carper (DE)
Mark L. Pryor (AR)
Mary L. Landrieu (LA)
Barack Obama (IL)
Claire McCaskill (MO)
Jon Tester (MT)
Republicans:
Susan M. Collins, Ranking Member (ME)
Ted Stevens (AK)
Geroge V. Voinovich (OH)
Norm Coleman (MN)
Tom Coburn (OK)
Pete V. Domenici (NM)
John Warner (VA)
John E. Sununu (NH)
I am also enclosing a sample letter made by a member of our meetup group that can be used to mail or email the Senators.
If we all come together and do this WE CAN STOP THIS.
Please take the time to do this and please spread this far and wide.
Here is the link to HR 1955: dead link...
Dear Senator ________,
As you know, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech" (Amendment I to the U.S. Constitution). Yet, the House of Representatives has passed HR 1955, which states:
The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.
(HR 1955, emphasis mine)
While violent thoughts, speech, and writings may be anathema, they are clearly protected under United States law. In *Yates v United States*, the court wrote that "advocacy of forcible overthrow of the government" was *protected speech* under the First Amendment.
The court further expanded the protection of the First Amendment in *Texas**v Johnson *, when it noted that "if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable."
Though its supporters may argue that HR 1955 solely addresses speech meant to directly incite violence (which would not protected under *Schenck v. United States*), this is an inapplicable argument, because HR 1955 oversteps the boundaries of prohibiting inciteful speech and instead prohibits "the adopting . . . a belief system." It is impractical, impossible, and unconstitutional to determine if "an extreme belief system" is explicitly "for the purpose of facilitating . . . violence" and it is further impossible to determine what belief system someone has adopted
There is simply no good way to reliably determine the intent of someone's speech until their intentions become actions. There is no way at all to determine the purpose of someone's adopted system of beliefs. HR 1955 and the commission it would create would encourage law-enforcement agencies around the nation to engage in domestic pre-emptive strikes based on nothing more than assumptions, lies, and flawed intelligence. We do not need to make thoughts and beliefs a crime in order to combat terrorism. Such laws would only drive terrorists further underground, making attacks more likely and America less safe.
We cannot subject our minds to searches for weapons that do not exist. I implore you to vote your oath, uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, and never let HR 1955 become law.
Sincerely,
On Oct. 23 HR 1955 the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007" was passed by the House with 404 members voting in favor of this blatantly unconstitutional bill. This bill is essentially a thought crime bill with wording so vague that it could easily be used against any group or person espousing dissenting views from that of the government.
This bill mirrors the comments made by Glenn Beck regarding Ron Paul supporters, and that leads me to believe it is more than just coincidence.
WE MUST NOT LET THIS BILL BECOME LAW!!!
HR 1955 has now been sent to the Senate Committee for Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs for review before going to the Senate floor for vote. Let's contact our committee members and our state Senators via letters, email, and phone calls and let them know that this is unacceptable.
The Committee members are:
Democrats:
Joseph I. Lieberman, Chairman (ID) (CT)
Carl Levin (MI)
Daniel K. Akaka (HI)
Thomas R. Carper (DE)
Mark L. Pryor (AR)
Mary L. Landrieu (LA)
Barack Obama (IL)
Claire McCaskill (MO)
Jon Tester (MT)
Republicans:
Susan M. Collins, Ranking Member (ME)
Ted Stevens (AK)
Geroge V. Voinovich (OH)
Norm Coleman (MN)
Tom Coburn (OK)
Pete V. Domenici (NM)
John Warner (VA)
John E. Sununu (NH)
I am also enclosing a sample letter made by a member of our meetup group that can be used to mail or email the Senators.
If we all come together and do this WE CAN STOP THIS.
Please take the time to do this and please spread this far and wide.
Here is the link to HR 1955: dead link...
Dear Senator ________,
As you know, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech" (Amendment I to the U.S. Constitution). Yet, the House of Representatives has passed HR 1955, which states:
The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.
(HR 1955, emphasis mine)
While violent thoughts, speech, and writings may be anathema, they are clearly protected under United States law. In *Yates v United States*, the court wrote that "advocacy of forcible overthrow of the government" was *protected speech* under the First Amendment.
The court further expanded the protection of the First Amendment in *Texas**v Johnson *, when it noted that "if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable."
Though its supporters may argue that HR 1955 solely addresses speech meant to directly incite violence (which would not protected under *Schenck v. United States*), this is an inapplicable argument, because HR 1955 oversteps the boundaries of prohibiting inciteful speech and instead prohibits "the adopting . . . a belief system." It is impractical, impossible, and unconstitutional to determine if "an extreme belief system" is explicitly "for the purpose of facilitating . . . violence" and it is further impossible to determine what belief system someone has adopted
There is simply no good way to reliably determine the intent of someone's speech until their intentions become actions. There is no way at all to determine the purpose of someone's adopted system of beliefs. HR 1955 and the commission it would create would encourage law-enforcement agencies around the nation to engage in domestic pre-emptive strikes based on nothing more than assumptions, lies, and flawed intelligence. We do not need to make thoughts and beliefs a crime in order to combat terrorism. Such laws would only drive terrorists further underground, making attacks more likely and America less safe.
We cannot subject our minds to searches for weapons that do not exist. I implore you to vote your oath, uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, and never let HR 1955 become law.
Sincerely,