Second Term - A Novel of America in the Last Days (The End of America Series Book 1) (18 page)

III.

 Congress

Votes
on the

Lawrence
McAlister

 Hate
Speech

and

 Hate
Weapons

Elimination
Bill

FORTY
ONE

Washington,
DC – U.S. House of Representatives

Under the arcane
rules of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker has sole
discretion on many matters before the House, including when the Members may
engage in a floor debate over pending legislation, and how many minutes they
each may speak. The Speaker alone decides.

Having been a Member
of the House for almost two decades, the Speaker was well aware that she could
help frame how the nation views bills being considered by her chamber of the
Congress. She did it by scheduling long floor debates, in good viewing times,
for legislation she favored. She diminished Americans’ exposure to the details
of legislation she didn’t favor. Generally, legislation that she didn’t favor would
never come to a floor debate because the bill would never make it through the
House Committee to which she had assigned it. She would suggest to the Chairman
of the Committee to which the unfavored bill was assigned that the Chairman
either never set a hearing to consider the bill, or alternatively, vote down
any bill not favored by House Leadership. Either way, the Speaker ruled. It was
good to be Queen.

With the McAlister
Bill, though, the Speaker was faced with a slightly different situation. She
did not want to increase public visibility and perception of the Bill for quite
obvious reasons. Those Americans who favored passage of the bill were already
in support and didn’t need to be persuaded by a lengthy prime time floor
debate. On the other hand, those who were opposed to the Bill didn’t need to be
stirred up any more, as they would then increase pressure on her Members. The
vote was going to be razor thin, either way, she knew from early head counts,
so she concluded that scheduling a high visibility, lengthy formal floor debate
would not serve her purposes. In addition, though she was firmly committed to
the Bill’s passage, she knew enough American history, from having once been a
high school history teacher, to convince her that the opponents had by far the
best argument against passage of a Bill seeking to re-interpret the first two
key provisions in the Bill of Rights. So why, she thought, give them a forum?
Let them go on Fox News. This is my House, and you don’t use my House for your
hate speech, she concluded as she signed the floor debate notification. The
Speaker, who was tall and thin, was widely-known for her extravagant wardrobe, her
acerbic tongue and her general dullness when it came to nuanced public policy
issues.

When the Speaker posted
the notification of the floor debate there was a hue and cry from the Members
of the minority the likes of which and not been seen or heard since the 1960’s,
when Vietnam and civil rights issues reigned. The Speaker had scheduled the
floor debate on the McAlister Hate Speech and Hate Weapons Elimination Bill for
8 AM on Monday, March 18th, allowing only three Members to speak from each
side, and for only three minutes each. In her notification the Speaker
cryptically said,
“This Bill has been thoroughly debated in the media. It’s
time to vote.” 
Republicans and tea party members were outraged.

The Minority Leader
in a hastily called news conference summarized their anger, “Nine minutes? Nine
minutes? That’s all the time we get, total? To debate a bill that purports to
take away our Constitutional rights to speak as we see fit and to keep and bear
arms? This is utter nonsense. It’s the tyranny of the majority in its worst
possible form. Thomas Jefferson said it best when he said, ‘When people fear
their government there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there
is liberty.’ We know under the House Rules the Speaker can get away with this
high-handed act of oppression against free speech, but she should know that in
doing so she is feeding a growing quickly awakening giant, the American people,
and they will not let her get away with it. No, sir, not by a long shot. This
government had better start fearing the people, just as Jefferson said.”

MSNBC’s most liberal
talking head in his commentary that evening accused the Minority Leader of
threatening the Speaker with violence. “When the Republican leader said ‘not by
a long shot’, isn’t that actually
code
, for calling for gun violence? If
it is, we just can’t have that in this country any more. Then, when the
Minority Leader said the government should fear the people, is that a call for even
more armed insurrection? These are scary comments, sure enough.”

Most House Members
travel to their home Districts over the weekend, returning to DC late Monday or
early Tuesday. By scheduling the brief debate for 8 AM on a Monday morning, the
Speaker purposely forced the Members to return on Sunday, which did not set
well with most, even many in her own Democrat caucus. Her point was to schedule
the debate early enough so that potential viewers in the nation’s eastern time
zone would be getting ready for work and sending kids off to school. In the
other times zones, millions would sleep through this momentous House expression
of free speech. Perfect timing. That is, if one didn’t want a lot of attention.

At 8:10 AM the
Speaker gaveled the House to order and recognized the first Member to speak on
the bill. “The Chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman from California for
three minutes, speaking in favor of 113-S.-1.”

“Madam Speaker, thank
you for allowing me to address the reasons for passage of this most important
bill. All Members here this morning recognize that we are in this Chamber in
historic times, as we will soon have the opportunity, to actually make, that
is, to help in making history. History will record that as we adopt this…..”
The Member from California consumed his full three minutes describing the
historicity of the debate over the gun bill, but without advancing any legal,
political or policy arguments for its adoption.

 “Thank you. The
Chair now recognizes for three minutes only, I would remind you, and time will
be strictly enforced…Uh…I recognize…who is it?…yes …The gentleman from Ohio in
opposition to the Hate Speech and Weapons Elimination Bill…uh…113-S.-1.”

The Congressman from
Ohio was briefly tempted to point out how the Speaker’s introductions of
himself and the Congressman from California varied so greatly, but he knew it
would just consume part of his time, and fair-minded viewers would have caught
it in any case.

 “Madam Speaker, I
rise today to oppose the McAlister Bill. Not because I favor gun violence or
hate speech, but because I favor the rule of law. Let me be crystal clear in my
brief time. If this Congress, the White House or the American people, for that
matter, want to amend our Constitution to repeal our right to own firearms, or
to curtail free speech, then they know how to do that. This bill is a
reprehensible attempt to do an end run around our sacred founding document, by
a mere simple majority vote of Congress. In their wisdom, our Founding Fathers
knew that a day could come in this nation, as has been the case throughout
history, in which the passion of the moment would be used to strip citizens of
their rights. When times are scary, when the blood runs hot, when the mob
demands that action be taken, they knew that it would be in those times when
our freedoms would most be at risk. The writers of the Constitution knew this
and required super majorities of the Congress and of the states in order to
dissolve a fundamental right. They allowed it to be done, but they made it
almost impossible to accomplish in order to prevent government by mob action.

“Let us not set this
most dangerous of precedents. Today, the right that may be lost is the right to
express your opinion openly and the right to own firearms. Gun ownership is now
not popular with the governing authorities, nor with the media, and likewise
not so popular with some Americans, the truth be told. The authors of this Bill
have tied together changing the First Amendment right of free speech with the
more popular ban on gun ownership. What rights will we take away tomorrow, next
year, the year after that? How many Americans have decided not to engage in the
national debate over the McAlister bill because the President unwisely declared
martial law, in a transparent attempt to shut down the debate over gun
ownership?

“Which due process
rights in our Constitution do we lose by simply voting them away, as we
threaten to do with the McAlister Bill? Can we so easily ‘reinterpret’, and
then lose, those rights that were won for us by the many who gave their lives,
their fortunes and their sacred honor? May God forbid that it would ever be.
Let us kill this dangerous precedent before it is born, before it becomes the
road map for the loss of all of our rights as Americans. Those rights are all
now hanging by a thread. Your vote, your single vote, could literally decide
the fate of this Bill. Your single vote could decide the very future of our
rights as Americans. Cast it wisely, my dear colleagues, cast it
very
wisely. A final point….Don’t let the violence that we have witnessed in our
streets divert our attention from preserving our rights as a free people. Thank
you, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.”

“The gentleman from
Ohio’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the distinguished gentle lady
from New York.”

“Thank you, Madam
Speaker. I’ll use the time that you have so graciously given to me to talk
about hate.

“Hate…is…what…brings…us…together…today.
What is hate? Hate is what makes us pick up a firearm and take another person’s
life. Hate makes us think we should be allowed to live, while others die. Hate
is what fills our streets with protestors, many using their guns, who just
couldn’t abide the re-election of our President. What makes a person hate? We
may not know all of the reasons why people hate enough to kill another human
being, but we do know that guns kill people. So to stop the hate killings in
America I am a proud co-sponsor of the Lawrence McAlister Hate Speech and Hate Weapons
Elimination Bill.

“Our colleagues who
oppose this noble bill are skilled at raising legal objections about amending
the Constitution. But, if you are like me, you know in your heart that we have
to ban guns in America, except of course the guns we have entrusted to our
military, who may well be needing them if conditions in the world worsen. Legal
technicalities shouldn’t stand in the way of protecting us from gun violence.
The gentleman from Ohio suggests that we have to wait, for who knows how many
years, for the various states to consider a formal amendment to the
Constitution. That could take possibly several years before thirty four states
have the chance to consider and vote for an amendment banning hate weapons, and
shutting down all of this rampant hate speech that we hear on cable TV and on
the radio, and read on the internet. We can’t wait that long. How many hundreds
or thousands of our neighbors, our friends, our public officials, even our
family members will die, from gun violence, instigated by hate speech, while we
wait on those legal technicalities?

“No, Madam Speaker,
waiting is not the answer. We must prohibit the private ownership of guns now,
because if we don’t take this unique opportunity, we may never again be in a
position to take away the firearms that are too frequently used to kill others.
At a time when the world is worried about a war in the Middle East that could
break out, we need to get this matter resolved now. No more delay. Madam
Speaker, you should order a vote sooner rather than later. Stop the hate – stop
the killing – vote yes on the Lawrence McAlister Hate Speech and Hate Weapons
Elimination Bill. I yield back the balance of my time.”

Tensions on the House
floor were at a breaking point. If the final vote was a foregone conclusion,
the Members would have been considerably less tense, knowing the outcome. But,
both sides had head counts, as recently as the morning, showing a dead heat. One
Member’s vote, therefore, took on critical importance. The Members of the
Minority knew that the Speaker was abusing her authority, but they also knew
that when they were in the Majority they had been accused of similar actions.
One thing that the Members would agree upon if polled at this early morning
session was that no one would change their vote based on a total of eighteen
minutes of floor debate, which was just as the Speaker intended.

The Speaker then
recognized the second opponent to the McAlister Bill, Representative Adam
Nation, a leader in the Tea Party Caucus of the U.S. Congress. Congressman
Nation had seated himself close to the podium so that he could quickly begin his
remarks once he was recognized by the Speaker, who clearly did not like this
new Member of what she thought of as
her
House.

“Madam Speaker.
Members of the House. My fellow Americans. There are two surprising aspects of
this floor debate being held on this early morning. First, that this OBGYN from
the Midwest is speaking in this Chamber today. Except for the American people
rising up and electing me, and many other tea party supporters, I would still
be treating hot flashes in Michigan. The second surprise to me as a new Member
of this body is that I even have to defend rights as foundational and
fundamental as the right to free speech and the right to defend oneself from a
weapon-bearing assailant, that is, with more than one’s bare hands. What could
possibly be more important to one’s life than the right to stay alive, to defend
oneself, with a firearm, if necessary, and when assaulted by a criminal using a
firearm? Name any right more important than the right to stay alive.