Senate Democrats Want to Abolish the First Amendment

[LowDown]

Unhappy with the Supreme Court's campaign finance jurisprudence, Senate Democrats have introduced a constitutional amendment that would effectively repeal the First Amendment. It would allow Congress to regulate nearly all political speech, including that of newspapers and television stations. It is an act of vandalism that undermines a key political liberty, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It is a reckless and cynical maneuver, and it should be stopped dead.

Harry Reid Displays Appalling Contempt for the First Amendment

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Unhappy with the Supreme Court's campaign finance jurisprudence, Senate Democrats have introduced a constitutional amendment that would effectively repeal the First Amendment. It would allow Congress to regulate nearly all political speech, including that of newspapers and television stations. It is an act of vandalism that undermines a key political liberty, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It is a reckless and cynical maneuver, and it should be stopped dead.

Harry Reid Displays Appalling Contempt for the First Amendment

When it gets down to it, those on the far-wrong have do not have much more respect for the First Amendment than they do for the Second Amendment.

 

[Redress]

Unhappy with the Supreme Court's campaign finance jurisprudence, Senate Democrats have introduced a constitutional amendment that would effectively repeal the First Amendment. It would allow Congress to regulate nearly all political speech, including that of newspapers and television stations. It is an act of vandalism that undermines a key political liberty, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It is a reckless and cynical maneuver, and it should be stopped dead.

Harry Reid Displays Appalling Contempt for the First Amendment

See, this is a good example of why you should stop reading ****ing editorials and look at actual news. Here is the proposed amendment: Udall Constitutional Amendment on Campaign Finance. What it does is say that the federal and state governments can regulate raising and spending of money for elections. Not surprisingly, that is not at all what you said. But the best is the blatant lie about newspapers and television statements. Let's quote what the amendment actually says about them:

SECTION 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.

Editorials are for people who can't think for themselves and don't mind being lied to. Don't be one of those people.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Unhappy with the Supreme Court's campaign finance jurisprudence, Senate Democrats have introduced a constitutional amendment that would effectively repeal the First Amendment. It would allow Congress to regulate nearly all political speech, including that of newspapers and television stations. It is an act of vandalism that undermines a key political liberty, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It is a reckless and cynical maneuver, and it should be stopped dead.

Harry Reid Displays Appalling Contempt for the First Amendment

what undermines our liberty is when monied corporations use millions to influence elections away from what the people want to see accomplished...........

 

[Arbo]

See,

What we have here is a failed attempt at defense. It is about freedom of speech, yet what you quote from the proposal is that it would not interfere with 'freedom of the press'. There's a big difference between the two.

The entire thing, so no more cherry picking goes on:

‘‘ARTICLE
—

‘‘SECTION
1. To advance the fundamental principle
of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity
of the legislative and electoral processes, Congress shall
have power to regulate the raising and spending of money
and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections,
including through setting limits on—

‘‘(1) the amount of contributions to candidates
for nomination for election to, or for election to,
Federal office; and

‘‘(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by,

in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

‘‘SECTION
2. To advance the fundamental principle
of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity
of the legislative and electoral processes, each State shall
have power to regulate the raising and spending of money
and in-kind equivalents with respect to State elections, in-
cluding through setting limits on—

‘‘(1) the amount of contributions to candidates
for nomination for election to, or for election to,
State office; and

‘‘(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by,
in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.


‘‘SECTION
3. Nothing in this article shall be con-
strued to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom
of the press.

‘‘SECTION
4. Congress and the States shall have
power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.’’.

It will never get anywhere by the way, for as much as (D)'s whine about spending, they have loads of their own (more actually) rich people that give and give and give… they are just as guilty.

 

[Cameron]

Thank god we have the freedom of speech to grossly mischaracterize the actions of legislators. And just think, soon anyone (with resources) will be able to spend unlimited amounts of money to jam their uninformed opinions and malicious lies down every available crevice of discourse, instead of, you know, creating jobs or stimulating demand in a way not revolving entirely around partisan idiocy. What a glorious and advanced country we live in.

 

[notquiteright]

Unhappy with the Supreme Court's campaign finance jurisprudence, Senate Democrats have introduced a constitutional amendment that would effectively repeal the First Amendment. It would allow Congress to regulate nearly all political speech, including that of newspapers and television stations. It is an act of vandalism that undermines a key political liberty, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It is a reckless and cynical maneuver, and it should be stopped dead.

Harry Reid Displays Appalling Contempt for the First Amendment

Old Japanese proverb- If a man believes everything he reads- he should stop reading... :mrgreen:

Coming from the Heritage Foundation perhaps a more honest man would look at a few other sources to see if there is more to this than what DeMint's Demented have to say.

I will give some of my experience from my RECON days. During training we sat in the bleachers getting yet another boring lecture. Suddenly the NCO Instructor asked what color is that building over there? Everyone he pointed to answered "white Sergeant" (the building, he was a VERY black NCO). Anywho he just shook his head and told us we had not been paying attention. He asked his assistant the same question- "The side I see appears to be white."

The NCO turned to us and said, "Gentlemen (he could make that word sound worse than a racial slur) THAT is the answer, out on a mission you report ONLY what you see and you ain't seen nuttin worth keying the Pric over until you have seen the objective from at least three sides!"

So perhaps our CON partisans could read a few other opinions on a subject than a failed Senator's TP propaganda platform... :2wave:

 

[Unitedwestand13]

What we have here is a failed attempt at defense. It is about freedom of speech, yet what you quote from the proposal is that it would not interfere with 'freedom of the press'. There's a big difference between the two.

The entire thing, so no more cherry picking goes on:



It will never get anywhere by the way, for as much as (D)'s whine about spending, they have loads of their own (more actually) rich people that give and give and give… they are just as guilty.

money cannot equal speech because the amount of money available is unequal.

 

[Arbo]

Thank

Old

money

If the supreme court has said that money is speech, then what would the government be limited by limiting donations? It's an easy question, feel free to answer it directly.


(added bold for the last person quoted)

 

[Fearandloathing]

When it gets down to it, those on the far-wrong have do not have much more respect for the First Amendment than they do for the Second Amendment.

Like the New Democratic Party Socialists here, they embrace the concept of freedom of speech with high regard....that speech with which they agree. Try to get anti-abortion flyers on any campus. Try to use the word "homosexual" or "negro".

I once had a leader of Canada's NDP, an academic in fact, who angrily asserted that the concept of "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it" was "social suicide", that man must fight to the death to prevent harmful ideas from taking hold. I told him that was a harmful idea and asked if I could kill him.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

So we had "limited free speech" before Citizens United?

So since spending money is considered speech, and since the rich have more money than the average guy, does this mean the rich guy has more "free speech"?

 

[ttwtt78640]

See, this is a good example of why you should stop reading ****ing editorials and look at actual news. Here is the proposed amendment: Udall Constitutional Amendment on Campaign Finance. What it does is say that the federal and state governments can regulate raising and spending of money for elections. Not surprisingly, that is not at all what you said. But the best is the blatant lie about newspapers and television statements. Let's quote what the amendment actually says about them:



Editorials are for people who can't think for themselves and don't mind being lied to. Don't be one of those people.

I am perfectly capable of thinking for myself. Obviously, incumbents have a huge advantage because they can (and do) essentially make news. I am sure that this will not count as political spending, since it does not now, but it certainly is valuable. The moronic idea that political speech is somehow supposed to be regulated, the desire of this proposed amendment. is dangerous since the party in power can limit the spending of "all". Naturally these incumbents can bop around the countryside making "policy statements" and "informing the voters of their wondrous intentions/accomplishments" at taxpayer expense getting all sort of news coverage while limiting any challengers to $5 maximum individual contributions.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

If the supreme court has said that money is speech, then what would the government be limited by limiting donations? It's an easy question, feel free to answer it directly.


(added bold for the last person quoted)

some peoples speech would be drowned out by the massive amounts of money spent to influence elections. if money equals speech then the freedom of speech of people who don't have millions to spend on campaign contributions would be drowned out.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

some peoples speech would be drowned out by the massive amounts of money spent to influence elections. if money equals speech then the freedom of speech of people who don't have millions to spend on campaign contributions would be drowned out.

Hasn't anyone heard of independent research? If you rely totally on paid advertisements, you probably should not be voting...

 

[notquiteright]

If the supreme court has said that money is speech, then what would the government be limited by limiting donations? It's an easy question, feel free to answer it directly.

Interesting CON game- usually CONs howl about the decisions unelected official make from the bench after so many of the CON laws and supposed 'will of the people' gets struck down.

Now let's address this CON game. CONs try and make a regulation a prohibition. EVERY Right has regulations, every Right has restrictions. It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court says. eace

 

[Redress]

I am perfectly capable of thinking for myself. Obviously, incumbents have a huge advantage because they can (and do) essentially make news. I am sure that this will not count as political spending, since it does not now, but it certainly is valuable. The moronic idea that political speech is somehow supposed to be regulated, the desire of this proposed amendment. is dangerous since the party in power can limit the spending of "all". Naturally these incumbents can bop around the countryside making "policy statements" and "informing the voters of their wondrous intentions/accomplishments" at taxpayer expense getting all sort of news coverage while limiting any challengers to $5 maximum individual contributions.

It does not limit speech, it allows for limits to be placed on raising and spending money. It is a difference. Note that I am not suggesting it is a good idea. My complaint at this thread is that it is presented dishonestly. For the record, I am opposed to the amendment for multiple reasons.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It does not limit speech, it allows for limits to be placed on raising and spending money. It is a difference. Note that I am not suggesting it is a good idea. My complaint at this thread is that it is presented dishonestly. For the record, I am opposed to the amendment for multiple reasons.

Mass communication costs money therefore limits on poltical spending are limits on political speech.

 

[TurtleDude]

what undermines our liberty is when monied corporations use millions to influence elections away from what the people want to see accomplished...........

what happens when corporations push for stuff that millions of us want-especially those of us who are actually paying most of the taxes?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

what happens when corporations push for stuff that millions of us want-especially those of us who are actually paying most of the taxes?

What happens when they dont? Its not a matter of what they are "pushing".

 

[TurtleDude]

What happens when they dont? Its not a matter of what they are "pushing".

corporations pay tons in taxes. They should be able to demand representation!

 

[TheDemSocialist]

corporations pay tons in taxes. They should be able to demand representation!

Corporations already have representation via lobbyists.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

corporations pay tons in taxes. They should be able to demand representation!

Corporations should pay no income taxes. It's antithetical the the employment of individuals the government wants to tax...

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Corporations should pay no income taxes. It's antithetical the the employment of individuals the government wants to tax...

You see corporations are people now.. Isnt natural for the government to tax people?

 

[AlabamaPaul]

You see corporations are people now.. Isnt natural for the government to tax people?

Not if the government wants to tax individual income...

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Not if the government wants to tax individual income...

Since when has only taxing "individual income", "natural"?