A federal law aimed at keeping advertisements critical of national drug policy out of Metro stations and bus shelters illegally chills free speech and cannot stand, a federal judge ruled yesterday.I remember hearing about the requirement when it was passed and thinking it was so outrageous that a suit against it should be a slam dunk. Then I remembered what decade I'm living in and began to wonder.
U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman barred the U.S. government from enforcing a law passed by Congress this year that calls for denying federal transportation money to any transit system that accepts ads promoting the legalization of drugs.
However, as it turns out it appears the judge didn't have much trouble recognizing it for what it was. He called it
a clear case of "viewpoint discrimination" and noted that Metro displayed the Office of National Drug Control Policy's anti-drug ads when it refused the other ads.Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK), the nitwit who sponsored the original amendment to the 2004 appropriations bill, says the issue isn't over.
"Congress ... cannot prohibit advertisements supporting legalization of a controlled substance while permitting those that support tougher drug sentences," the judge said. He called the law "an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' broad spending power."
"I'm confident that ultimately the courts will agree with the long-standing principle that Congress is free to decide what we will or will not fund," Istook said.Fine. Let's have a few upsets in November and have the Democrats win both Congress and the presidency. Then they can pass a law barring federal aid to any agency, institution, or organization that employs conservative Republicans. Or maybe just bar any federal spending of any kind within the state of Oklahoma.
I'm sure Istook would approve. It was, after all, his idea.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment