Subject:

Comments:
: John, : From before the Constitution and ever since the Constitution was ratified, our Congresses and Legislatures have been funding art and architecture projects. Thus whereas you have presented an interesting and novel discussion -- particularly given the quotes from some early Congressmen -- clearly other Congressmen and Legislators have concluded otherwise from the beginning of our nation. : : : Follow the link below for Scalia's lecture! : : If Justice Scalia believed what he preached at Princeton last week regarding : : an adherence to the intent of the framers and ratifiers, : : [ http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/Content/2001/02/26/news/938.shtml ] : : he would not have given the cuncurring opinion he did in the Finely case. : : The following article "Enemies of our Republic" will explain...see the : : Finely case link for Scalia's concurring opinion giving his tacit approval : : to taxpayer funded art through the NEA in spite of the framers and ratifiers : : specific rejection of such power being granted to Congress. : : [doentation provided]!. : : AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE : : Box 4474, Seminole, FL 33775 Phone: : : March, 2001 : : Enemies of our Republic : : A Washington Times Feb. 21 Editorial, "Yo philistines", is quite saddening : : because it focuses on the same old tired bread-and-circus debate concerning : : taxpayer funded art, and neglects to identify enemies of our : : constitutionally limited Republic, especially those in Congress embled : : and those on the Supreme Court of the United States! : : Republicans in Congress have for many years argued it is reprehensible for : : taxpayer dollars to be used to fund ography. Congressional Democrats : : have responded that a denial of taxpayer dollars to artists, because their : : work may be subjectively perceived by some as being ographic or : : otherwise objectionable, would be censorship and violate these artists’ : : First Amendment rights. The truth is, these carefully orchestrated strawman : : arguments cleverly leave in tact a continued misappropriation of federal : : revenue, and avoid a discussion of the 1st Amendment rights of those forced : : by folks-in-government to fund the personal expressions of others, and the : : subjugation of their constitutional guarantees! : : In 1998, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of : : legislation requiring the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to ensure : : that "artistic excellence and artistic merit are the criteria by which : : [grant] applications are judged, taking into consideration general standards : : of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American : : public." [see National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley : : http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/doc28.html : : Karen Finley became well known for a public performance in which she : : stripped to her and covered herself with chocolate syrup. The case : : cited involved an alleged violation of Finley’s freedom of expression rights : : with regard to a denial of a NEA grant of approximately $7,000. The Court : : found "respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public", : : as a test in rejecting such a grant, did not violate the 1st Amendment : : rights of Karen Finley. In so ruling, the Court gave its tacit approval that : : such grants are lawful expenditures of Congress. But are they? : : To put this matter into perspective, it is essential to first understand a : : fundamental principle of constitutional law: "Perhaps the most basic of all : : the rules of constitutional construction (since it is the rule which all : : other rules may be said to be designed to implement) is the principle that a : : constitution is to be given the effect and meaning contemplated by its : : framers and by the people who adopted it..." [ see Vol 16 American : : Jurisprudence (constitutional law) Sec. 91].[1] : : So, what was the "intent" of the Framers and Ratifiers with regard to : : Congress’ role in the promotion of art? : : Upon researching the record of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, we : : find Delegate Charles Pickney, on August 18th, proposed a broad power "To : : establish seminaries for the promotion of literature and the arts and : : sciences", but this proposal was rejected by the Convention in favor of a : : limited grant of power expressed in Article 1, Section 8, Cl.8, of the : : proposed constitution. The limited power, later agreed upon by ratification, : : authorizes Congress "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, : : by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right : : to their respective Writings and Discoveries." : : Contrary to the Courts’ suggestion that federally appropriated NEA grants : : are constitutional if content does not offended "...general standards of : : decency..." etc., the historical record clearly shows the Framers and : : Ratifiers intentionally rejected a power being delegated to Congress to : : finance the arts, and, this irrefutable fact was eloquently re-affirmed by : : Representative John Page while speaking before The House of Representatives : : on February 7th, 1792, to wit: "The framers of the Constitution guarded so : : much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if : : Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and : : useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power. . . ". : : This brings us to the Courts’ actual ruling which declares it was not a : : violation of Finley’s First Amendment rights for the NEA to reject her grant : : if such funding were to be used in a manner as would offend a "respect for : : the diverse beliefs and values of the American public". But the First : : Amendment is silent in regard to "offensive speech", and unequivocally : : declares: "Congress shall make no law...abridging... freedom of speech...", : : which is exactly what takes place when the force of government is used to : : finance a selected individual’s personal expressions in a more forceful : : fashion than the expressions of those taxed to fund the personal expressions : : of others! : : Surely, the allowing of such a grant, regardless of content as applied in : : the Finley case, would be a misappropriation of federal Treasury revenue, : : would conflict with the well established tenet of "equal law"; would be an : : abridgement of freedom of expression in that it would bolster one Taxpayers’ : : expressions over other Taxpayers expressions using the force of government; : : and would, if allowed, as warned by the above mentioned Representative John : : Page [here paraphrasing another part of his statement before the House], : : allow Congress to: elevate selected individuals with views favorable to : : government above the general public; be inattentive to men unfriendly to the : : views of Government; reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one State, and : : neglect a much greater genius of another! This, the Court, has agreed to : : ignore. : : In conclusion, the real debate is not one concerning decent or indecent art, : : it is a debate concerning the very foundation of our constitutionally : : limited government; the exercise of power not authorized by the : : Constitution; the misappropriation of Federal Treasury money; the : : willingness of Congress to abridge freedom of speech prohibited by the : : Constitution; and, the Supreme Court aiding and abetting in this tyrannical : : practice! : : Justice O'CONNOR, delivered the opinion of the Court in the Finely case in : : which, REHNQUIST, STEVENS, KENNEDY, and BREYER, joined. GINSBURG, joined in : : part. SCALIA, filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in which THOMAS : : joined. SOUTER, gave a dissenting opinion. [2] : : John William Kurowski : : Founder : : American Constitutional Research Service : : Seminole, FL : : [1] Also see Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted : : in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967), which : : instructs us: "In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it : : such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by : : those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which : : would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was : : understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, : : would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express : : language of the Constitution." And, see Rhode Island v. Machusetts, 37 : : U.S. (12Pet.) 657,721(1838), in which the .Supreme Court has pointed out : : that construction of the constitution"...must necessarily depend on the : : words of the Constitution; the meaning and intention of the conventions : : which framed and proposed it for adoption and ratification to the : : Conventions...in the several states...to which this Court has always : : resorted in construing the Constitution." : : [2]See below link to learn if your Representative voted to subjugate your : : rights, and compel you to fund the personal expressions of others! : : http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=1999&rollnumber=473 : : [Permission is hereby given to reprint this article if credit to its author : : and the ACRS appears in such reprint. No copyright is claimed for quotes : : within the article which are public domain materials.]

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: