Amend the First Amendment?

[Tigermike 3,427]

Why People Don’t Trust That Speech Restrictions Will Be Applied Fairly to Both Sides

Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky /

June 04, 2014

The largest hearing room the Senate has in the Hart Building was standing-room only on Tuesday when the Senate Judiciary Committee held its hearing on the resolution proposed by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) that would amend the First Amendment and give Congress unlimited, plenary power to restrict political speech and political activity.

In a historic and unprecedented event, both majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) appeared as the first two witnesses. They had starkly different presentations, with Reid complaining about so-called “dark money” and corporations and special interests “meddling” in congressional races. He clearly doesn’t like the fact that Americans have the ability to criticize him and his policies.

McConnell went back to first principles, talking about the First Amendment and the fundamental importance of protecting political speech, as did Floyd Abrams, the well-known First Amendment lawyer who won the historic New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case. As Abrams said, the purpose of this proposed amendment is clearly “limiting speech intended to affect elections.” He observed that the title of the amendment, “Restore Democracy to the American People,” is based on the false notion that our democracy has already been lost. According to Abrams, “the notion that democracy would be advanced – saved, ‘restored’ – by limiting speech is nothing but a perversion of the English language.”

The Democratic witnesses in favor of the amendment seemed obsessed with the Koch brothers, including a state senator from North Carolina who made bizarre claims about supposed Koch-financed efforts to implement a voter ID law to “suppress” the votes of racial minorities.

It was almost funny – Democrats can’t even hold a hearing about the First Amendment without working in their talking points about voter ID and “vote suppression.” All of the Republican senators who spoke, including Sens. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), made stirring statement about the importance of preserving the Bill of Rights. I won’t summarize their statements but they are worth watching (here and here).

What was most interesting was something that happened before the hearing started that shows just how dangerous it would be to give Congress the power Udall, Reid and 39 other Democratic senators are seeking (there are 41 cosponsors of this resolution) and how they don’t believe the rules should apply to them. I was standing in line outside the hearing room waiting to get in and get a seat. There was a sign prominently taped to the wall where we were all standing that warned attendees of all of the things not allowed in the hearing room, like standing, shouting, applauding, and most importantly, “no signs.”

I was at the head of the line when a large cart loaded with boxes came down the hallway, accompanied by six or seven individuals, many holding protest signs like “Restore the First Amendment – Get Oil Money out of Elections” and “Big $$ out of Politics.” The boxes had prominently pasted on their side the names of liberal advocacy groups and PACs including People for the American Way, the Daily Kos, Public Citizen, Wolf PAC, Moveon.org, the Coffee Party, and Common Cause. The boxes were apparently full of petitions supporting Udall’s censorship amendment. As the cart headed into the hearing room with the protest signs held high, I reminded the Democratic committee staffer supervising entry that these individuals were violating the posted rules about no signs and no protests. She just ignored me and looked away.

About thirty photographers and reporters facing the entry started snapping pictures of the advocacy group representatives the moment they came in as the cart was trundled up to the front of the hearing room. Several of the advocacy representatives went to sit down, but not before standing up with their signs held high and posing for more photos from the media.

I have no doubt that if I had attempted to walk into the hearing room with signs protesting this amendment, as opposed to supporting it, I would have been stopped by the committee staffer, and if I had persisted, she would have called over the Capitol policeman who was also standing at the entrance studiously not seeing the liberal protestors violating the posted rules.

It is true that Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) warned the attendees after the hearing started about no sign waiving or protests and one individual was eventually ejected; however, Leahy only did that after the cameras were turned on for anyone watching the hearing on the committee website. It was his committee staff who, after all, allowed their supporters to come in early with their protest signs and helped to stage-manage protests prior to the start of the hearing for the benefit of the photographers in the hearing room. You can see one of those photos here – notice there are no staffers or Capitol Police hurrying over to eject the CodePink demonstrators from the hearing room.

So it seems that some Democratic senators want to amend the Constitution so that the American people give them the power to set the rules for raising and spending money on political campaigns and independent expenditures that speak in support of, or opposition to, candidates. However, at the very hearing at which this amendment was introduced, some of these senators were prepared to apply the Senate’s own rules to only one side of the debate. Not something that inspires confidence that any such rules on political activity and political speech would ever be enforced in a nonpartisan, unbiased, and objective manner.

link

Pelosi: Amend the First Amendment

April 19, 2012 - 4:35 PM

(CNSNews.com) - House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday endorsed a movement announced by other congressional Democrats on Wednesday to ratify an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow Congress to regulate political speech when it is engaged in by corporations as opposed to individuals.

The First Amendment says in part: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

Read the rest of it here.

[TexasTiger 13,559]

Or just interpret it correctly. Money ain't speech, y'all .

[Guest NC1406]

Or just interpret it correctly. Money ain't speech, y'all .

Does it matter whose money before you declare it not being free speech?

[Tigermike 3,427]

So Tex what do you think the chances are of this passing?

[TheBlueVue 177]

This will never pass.....ever! Isn't it interesting who is always behind diminishing civil liberties? Progressives know the only way they can force their agenda on the masses is by usurping more and more of their freedoms. That's why they only talk about equality and very rarely discuss liberty and freedom because the fact is they are for increasing govt controls over individual freedoms aside from what we are free to say, right down to the foods we eat, the cars we drive and on and on.

[autigeremt 6,970]

Or just interpret it correctly. Money ain't speech, y'all .

Unless the money is used to purchase speech. ;)/>

[TexasTiger 13,559]

So Tex what do you think the chances are of this passing?

Close to zero.

[TexasTiger 13,559]

Or just interpret it correctly. Money ain't speech, y'all .

Unless the money is used to purchase speech. ;)/>

One doesn't purchase speech. You write or say it.

[TexasTiger 13,559]

Or just interpret it correctly. Money ain't speech, y'all .

Does it matter whose money before you declare it not being free speech?

No.

[japantiger 4,077]

This will never pass.....ever! Isn't it interesting who is always behind diminishing civil liberties? Progressives know the only way they can force their agenda on the masses is by usurping more and more of their freedoms. That's why they only talk about equality and very rarely discuss liberty and freedom because the fact is they are for increasing govt controls over individual freedoms aside from what we are free to say, right down to the foods we eat, the cars we drive and on and on.

Well said.

[Tigermike 3,427]

Or just interpret it correctly. Money ain't speech, y'all .

The ACLU dosen't agree with you or the democrats.

[Tigermike 3,427]

Here's the link. http://dailysignal.com/2014/06/05/aclu-rejects-amendment-corral-campaign-spending/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

[AUFAN78 4,061]

Or just interpret it correctly. Money ain't speech, y'all .

The ACLU dosen't agree with you or the democrats.

Crickets......

[autigeremt 6,970]

Or just interpret it correctly. Money ain't speech, y'all .

Unless the money is used to purchase speech. ;)/>

One doesn't purchase speech. You write or say it.

I totally disagree. The width and depth of speech is purchased through various means.

[TexasTiger 13,559]

Or just interpret it correctly. Money ain't speech, y'all .

The ACLU dosen't agree with you or the democrats.

So ?

[TheBlueVue 177]

Or just interpret it correctly. Money ain't speech, y'all .

The ACLU dosen't agree with you or the democrats.

So ?

Nobody is surprised democrats dont give a crap about civil liberties. Clearly, ALL they care about is winning elections thus maintaining the brute political power to ram their progressive agenda down the throats of the populace.

[TexasTiger 13,559]

Or just interpret it correctly. Money ain't speech, y'all .

The ACLU dosen't agree with you or the democrats.

So ?

Nobody is surprised democrats dont give a crap about civil liberties. Clearly, ALL they care about is winning elections thus maintaining the brute political power to ram their progressive agenda down the throats of the populace.

Okay, so you're now a fan of Feinstein, the ACLU and who else?

Btw, I don't favor this amendment. I hope one day we'll have better minds on the Supreme Court, provided we haven't become a complete oligarchy due to the current Court's ineptitude.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Or just interpret it correctly. Money ain't speech, y'all .

The ACLU dosen't agree with you or the democrats.

So ?

Nobody is surprised democrats dont give a crap about civil liberties. Clearly, ALL they care about is winning elections thus maintaining the brute political power to ram their progressive agenda down the throats of the populace.

Okay, so you're now a fan of Feinstein, the ACLU and who else?

Btw, I don't favor this amendment. I hope one day we'll have better minds on the Supreme Court, provided we haven't become a complete oligarchy due to the current Court's ineptitude.

Would a Court comprised of radical left wing socialist progressives be more competent in your view?

Your liberal use of straw men is less than amusing and only weakens your position on these topics.

[TexasTiger 13,559]

Or just interpret it correctly. Money ain't speech, y'all .

The ACLU dosen't agree with you or the democrats.

So ?

Nobody is surprised democrats dont give a crap about civil liberties. Clearly, ALL they care about is winning elections thus maintaining the brute political power to ram their progressive agenda down the throats of the populace.

Okay, so you're now a fan of Feinstein, the ACLU and who else?

Btw, I don't favor this amendment. I hope one day we'll have better minds on the Supreme Court, provided we haven't become a complete oligarchy due to the current Court's ineptitude.

Would a Court comprised of radical left wing socialist progressives be more competent in your view?

I doubt it.

[homersapien 11,812]

This will never pass.....ever! Isn't it interesting who is always behind diminishing civil liberties? Progressives know the only way they can force their agenda on the masses is by usurping more and more of their freedoms. That's why they only talk about equality and very rarely discuss liberty and freedom because the fact is they are for increasing govt controls over individual freedoms aside from what we are free to say, right down to the foods we eat, the cars we drive and on and on.

Perhaps you would prefer Somalia (for example).

[homersapien 11,812]

Or just interpret it correctly. Money ain't speech, y'all .

The ACLU dosen't agree with you or the democrats.

So ?

Nobody is surprised democrats dont give a crap about civil liberties. Clearly, ALL they care about is winning elections thus maintaining the brute political power to ram their progressive agenda down the throats of the populace.

ICHY, you've been working on your spelling!

[TexasTiger 13,559]

This will never pass.....ever! Isn't it interesting who is always behind diminishing civil liberties? Progressives know the only way they can force their agenda on the masses is by usurping more and more of their freedoms. That's why they only talk about equality and very rarely discuss liberty and freedom because the fact is they are for increasing govt controls over individual freedoms aside from what we are free to say, right down to the foods we eat, the cars we drive and on and on.

You want the liberty and freedom to tell others what they should do and where they should live. You're very committed to that principle.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Or just interpret it correctly. Money ain't speech, y'all .

The ACLU dosen't agree with you or the democrats.

So ?

Nobody is surprised democrats dont give a crap about civil liberties. Clearly, ALL they care about is winning elections thus maintaining the brute political power to ram their progressive agenda down the throats of the populace.

ICHY, you've been working on your spelling!

While I appreciate the flattery of imitation, I am growing tired of other people copying my shtick.

Okay, I admit it. I actually copied them. That there is how us libtard dimocraps operate. If we ever had a good idear witch we aint. We done stole it.

No Blue, that is not an admission. I am still a registered Republican. I'm just confused by the "don't tax and spend" model vs. the "tax and spend model". I apologize for not buying into the fundamentalist, firebrand rhetoric of "oblammer is the anti Christ" and "them regressive libtards is destroyin our country". Tell you what, I'll listen to some Rush today (I really like Rush btw, especially Limelight and Subdivions) and, I'll watch some of that there FOX news. Who knows, maybe I will "get it" one day. If I really apply myself, by this time next week, I could be a cross between Hailey Barbour and Lindsey Graham. :-\

[Strychnine 1,804]

Or just interpret it correctly. Money ain't speech, y'all .

The ACLU dosen't agree with you or the democrats.

So ?

Nobody is surprised democrats dont give a crap about civil liberties. Clearly, ALL they care about is winning elections thus maintaining the brute political power to ram their progressive agenda down the throats of the populace.

ICHY, you've been working on your spelling!

While I appreciate the flattery of imitation, I am growing tired of other people copying my shtick.

Okay, I admit it. I actually copied them. That there is how us libtard dimocraps operate. If we ever had a good idear witch we aint. We done stole it.

No Blue, that is not an admission. I am still a registered Republican. I'm just confused by the "don't tax and spend" model vs. the "tax and spend model". I apologize for not buying into the fundamentalist, firebrand rhetoric of "oblammer is the anti Christ" and "them regressive libtards is destroyin our country". Tell you what, I'll listen to some Rush today (I really like Rush btw, especially Limelight and Subdivions) and, I'll watch some of that there FOX news. Who knows, maybe I will "get it" one day. If I really apply myself, by this time next week, I could be a cross between Hailey Barbour and Lindsey Graham. :-\

I see a Bill O'Reilly box set in your future.

[AUUSN 823]

Not to hijack the thread but I just read a fantastic book on the NSA spying. Seems to me free speech is fine as long as you stay within your "allowed" speech. From the book:

"All of the evidence highlights the implicit bargain that is offered to citizens: pose no challenge and you have nothing to worry about. Mind your own business, and support or at least tolerate what we do, and you'll be fine. Put differently, you must refrain from provoking the authority that weilds surveillance powers if you wish to be deemed free of wrongdoing. This is a deal that invites passivity, obedience, and conformity. The safest course, the way to ensure being "left alone," is to remain quiet, unthreatening and compliant."

http://www.amazon.com/No-Place-Hide-Snowden-Surveillance/dp/162779073X