Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In his speech, "A Time for Choosing", Reagan stressed the need for smaller government. The speech raised 1 million dollars for Goldwater [1] and is considered the event that launched Reagan's political career. [2] It also marked a shift of the Republican Party from a moderate to a "Western more politically charged ideology."
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem", said by Ronald Reagan. [18] "I will not exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience", said by Ronald Reagan in the second debate with Walter Mondale, defusing the age issue.
This speech occurred shortly after the federal government shutdown of 1995 and 1996 which had resulted from disagreements on the 1996 United States federal budget. President Clinton discussed the economy and declared that "the era of big government is over," and continued, "but we cannot go back to the time when our citizens were left to fend ...
The government encouraging them to remove false speech only violates the 1st Amendment if it can be proved that the government caused, and will cause in the future, speech to be blocked.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
[2] During his speech, President Reagan outlined his plan for economic recovery, calling for large cuts to taxes and federal spending. [1] Some observers described it at the time as the most comprehensive economic proposal since President Franklin D. Roosevelt announced his New Deal program in March 1933. [ 3 ]
Both cases pose the question of when speech by government officials violates the First Amendment. The leading Supreme Court precedent, Bantam Books v. Sullivan, was decided in 1963.
The government speech doctrine establishes that the government may advance its speech without requiring viewpoint neutrality when the government itself is the speaker. Thus, when the state is the speaker, it may make content based choices. The simple principle has broad implications, and has led to contentious disputes within the Supreme Court. [1]