If the constitution means what it says, why are we doing this?

Mike Krempasky at Red State has a piece about Congressman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) introducing a bill in Congress to "exclude the Internet from the definition of "public communication" in the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002". While that's probably a good thing, I think that the entire FEC is out of control. Instead of piddling around the edges of the BCFRA, it is time for radical action.

It is time to amend the constitution.

The language I'm thinking we should use is something to the effect of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." You know, something like that.

Anyway, that would obviously supersede any attempt by the Federal Government to regulate speech on the internet, right?