Orrin Hatch: “more than 40 years ago, in New York Times v. Sullivan, Justice William Brennan described ``a profound national…”

“more than 40 years ago, in New York Times v. Sullivan, Justice William Brennan described ``a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.'' The measure now before the Senate shows that this commitment is in serious jeopardy. Next week marks the 227th anniversary of the drafting of the U.S. Constitution. Those who participated in that process agreed that individual liberty requires limits on government power, but they differed on how explicit and extensive those limits should be. Many thought the simple act of delegating enumerated powers to the Federal Government and reserving the rest to the States would be enough. Others were more skeptical of government power and insisted that the Constitution needed a bill of rights. Those skeptics, however, were not skeptical enough. The measure before us today, S.J. Res. 19, would allow the government to control and even prohibit what Americans say and do in the political process. Yesterday a member of the majority leadership said this measure is ``narrowly tailored.'' It is possible to believe that only if you have never read S.J. Res. 19 and know nothing about either the Supreme Court's precedents or past proposals of this kind. This is not the first attempt at empowering the government to suppress political speech, but it is the most extreme. Four elements of this proposal are particularly troubling.…”