Democrats out to repeal First Amendment


Wake up America, this abortion is buried in a campaign finance reform bill…”The Senate began a 15 minute roll call vote on the motion to invoke cloture on S.J.Res.19, Constitutional amendment relating to campaign finance reform;” this MUST be squashed and NOW!!! http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:S.J.Res.19:

With House Republicans focused on legislation to boost job creation, the Senate is spending its time on an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would repeal the First Amendment with respect to political speech. Democratic Whip Dick Durbin said before the debate even officially began: “I expect a fully partisan vote.” So what exactly are all the Senate Democrats for and Republicans against?

Section 1 of the proposed amendment (S. J. Res. 19) says: “Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.”

The key words here are “and others,” meaning anybody Congress chooses to regulate and “to influence elections,” meaning not just express advocacy that calls on voters to support or oppose a candidate, but any communication politicians think might influence an election.

It gives Congress — and the states — the power to restrict paid communications (political speech) about any significant public policy issue with respect to incumbent politicians. Vast swaths of core political speech — much of it wholly unrelated to elections — would be restricted. Politicians would advance controversial policies knowing that any criticism of them could be prohibited.

In 1976, the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo found there was no compelling governmental interest that would justify regulating speech that mentions candidates without calling for their election or defeat.

The Judiciary Committee report accompanying the new proposed constitutional amendment is clear on the purpose of Section 1: “It expressly overturns Buckley v. Valeo.”

Got that? No more First Amendment protections for any political speech that Congress or your state legislature decides might “influence elections” — regardless of its specific content. Any criticism of an elected official’s record or communication about an upcoming vote could be restricted.

Section 2 of the proposed amendment says: “Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.”

This is an open-ended grant of power to outright prohibit speech not just by corporations, but other “entities created by law,” including non-profit groups. The movie “Hillary” that was at the heart of the Citizens United case could be banned under this amendment, and if Congress — and the states — can ban movies they can surely also ban books, pamphlets, videos and any other vehicle for political speech paid for by a group.

READ MORE: http://www.newssun.com/opinion/article_7ae75d4f-576c-5b07-88fe-ea37a9cae319.html

About a12iggymom

Conservative - Christian - Patriot
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Democrats out to repeal First Amendment

  1. Basharr says:

    Reblogged this on Basharr's Outpost and commented:
    AMERICA, PAY ATTENTION

    Like

  2. Basharr says:

    I replied to this on the Arlin Report as I have copied below. Great find here and thank you for posting it. Dealing with those elected to serve us is often like a three card monte scam…They do what they want even if it does not serve our best interests.

    I have to say, it is time for Americans to make their voices heard. I am sick and tired of some loon thinking they need to limit the rights of WE THE PEOPLE! I don’t give a damn what party they claim to represent, if they are trying to remove, diminish, or attack our God given rights then we need to throw every one that votes for this crap out! But leave it to the likes of Slick Dick Durbin to jump on the Censorship train. The man is a HACK!

    Like

  3. desertradio says:

    Fortunately, cooler heads than Harry Reid’s prevailed and it died in the Senate. It never would have passed the House, and the Supreme Court would have slapped it down. Great read!!!

    Like

  4. Reblogged this on Arlin Report and commented:
    Keep this circulating.

    Like

  5. nanarhonda says:

    Reblogged this on My Soapbox and commented:
    This is so very important! The Democrats are trying to take away your 1st Amendment Rights! We have to stop them!!!
    Thanks to a12iggymom’s blog for posting this!

    Like

  6. reasonablyliberal1 says:

    You’ve been listening to Ted Cruz….This is about getting money out of politics, which Citizens United helped to destroy. May the richest man win?

    Like

    • a12iggymom says:

      are you crazy liberal? If this was the case, WHY HIDE this Constitutional Amendment deep in a bill that has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment and freedom of speech? Do you think liberals will be any better off than conservatives under a totalitarian regime. No, you won’t you will be subjected to the same boot on your throat…this has nothing to do with politics, it has to do with FREEDOM!

      Like

    • a12iggymom says:

      And I can not support Ted Cruz in a Pres run because, like Mobamahad, he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen, born of 2 citizen parents ….

      Like

      • reasonablyliberal1 says:

        Well, Cruz would be certainly be challenged on it. He was born in Calgary, Canada in 1970. His mother was apparently born in the U.S. and his dad in Cuba. Politifact says that the courts would have to decide it.

        Like

      • a12iggymom says:

        the congress took an Oath to protect and defend the Constitution, if any of them have have ever even read it, it clearly states “Natural Born Citizen”. Since our laws were based on the French Vattel’s Law of Nations, not the British Blackstone, the British we had just defeated in a blood war of independence, section 212 clearly states a Natural Born Citizen is of two citizen parents because of allegiances to ones country. It was most important that the FATHER be a citizen as the world was run under a Patriarchal order in those days. I think it should be manditory for Americans especially anyone running for office, take a Constitution course, (the crap they teach lawyers is case law, not the Constitution) including the notes of the constitutional congress. The ignorance of the Constitution in this country of blinding! And I include myself up until 10 years ago when I started my road to reading AND UNDERSTANDING the reasons for why the writers added what they did from their own writings.

        Like

      • reasonablyliberal1 says:

        OK, well, Politifact seems to think that one parent might be enough.

        http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/aug/20/ted-cruz-born-canada-eligible-run-president/

        If it’s not enough, that’s fine by me. I don’t like Cruz anyway.

        Like

      • a12iggymom says:

        Please, politifact? you might as well use Soros funded factcheck.org! Like I said, I did the research on the clause of Natural Born Citizen and it MUST be of 2 citizen parents. use your search engine and look for Vattel Section 212, if you can’t do that you can read here, http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htm I would hope people would want to know as much as they can learn in todays virtual tyranny under the last few presidents!

        Like

Comments are closed.