The First Amendment may be the death of us

First it was the Westboro Baptist Church's First Amendment right to picket "gays" at the funerals of service members--American soldiers who died while in service to our country.  That was protected.

Next up was the "Citizen's United" by the Supreme Court last year, which gave corporations the ability to spend literally unlimited amounts of money in political campaigns, all for the sake of their "First Amendment rights."

Earlier his week, the Supreme Court began deciding whether a government representative's First Amendment rights are denied if--get this--he or she is expected to be recused from any governmental decision if he or she has, say, taken money from someone involved.

Say what?

Here you go:

Supreme Court Hears Dispute Over Nevada Ethics Law

by NINA TOTENBERG

At a time when some groups are calling for stricter ethics rules for the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices on Wednesday seemed disinclined to interfere with state ethics laws.

At issue was a question never examined by the court before: whether a legislative vote is free speech protected by the Constitution, and more specifically, whether states may forbid officeholders to vote on matters that appear to involve a personal conflict.

In 2007, the Nevada Ethics Commission ruled that Michael Carrigan, a city councilman in Sparks, Nev., had violated the state ethics code by voting for a casino development at a time when his close friend and campaign manager was being paid $10,000 a month by the developer. After consulting the city attorney, Carrigan disclosed his relationship but voted to approve the casino project. The Ethics Commission ruled that Carrigan should have recused himself from voting.

Nevada Ethics Commission Executive Director Caren Jenkins said the ruling was based on a determination that "a reasonable person in Mr. Carrigan's position would be materially affected by the conflict such that they would have a hard time exercising independent judgment."

But Carrigan disagreed, saying he had no conflict and had done nothing wrong. He appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court, which ruled in his favor, declaring that voting by an elected public officer is protected speech under the First Amendment.

So now, if this goes the First Amendment freedom way, you can pay off a government representative and STILL have him vote in your favor.

If you're a praying person, get busy on this one.  Let's hope it goes against this guy in Nevada.

Link:  http://www.npr.org/2011/04/27/135778737/top-court-hears-protected-speech-arguments