Thursday, November 06, 2014



How Ted Cruz Exposed the Free-Speech Haters

[2009 in the "Citizens United" case:] In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of freedom of speech and against the We-Can-Ban-Books Administration.

The court's defense of freedom of speech outraged certain members of the United States Senate. They offered an amendment to amend the First Amendment, which in its final form was advanced by Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois.

This proposed constitutional amendment said in part: "Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections."

This means: If you happen to be one of the "others" and Congress deems that you have raised and spent beyond what is "reasonable" in order to tell people Barack Obama seeks to curtail American liberty, the government can shut you up.

The proposed amendment also said: "Congress and the states shall have the power to ... 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 means the government can prohibit a family-owned grocery store chain from speaking about an election.

On June 18, when this proposed constitutional amendment came up in the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Sen. Ted Cruz did a simple thing: He offered an amendment to replace this amendment with the exact words of the First Amendment.

The subcommittee defeated the First Amendment. Every Democrat on the panel voting against it.

On July 10, when the proposed constitutional amendment came up in the full Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Cruz again offered the First Amendment as a substitute. Every Democrat on the full committee voted against it.

There are politicians in America today who do not like your First Amendment rights -- and will vote against them when given the chance.

SOURCE


7 comments:

Anonymous said...

The proposed amendment is far worse than just restricting Corporations or Businesses. Read it again:

"Congress and the states shall have the power to ... 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 proposed amendment explicitly includes "natural persons" and apparently allows Congress and the States to prohibit their spending money to influence elections as well.

This is what happens when you let idiots hold seats in Congress.

Anonymous said...

Fortunately the idiots who controlled the Senate at that time are on their way out!

Bird of Paradise said...

Liberals want to burn all conservative books just like the nazis did and the nazis were liberals

Anonymous said...

As always politicians, especially of the left, seek to limit the rights of the citizen. Normally they pretend it is in the national interest, particularly national security. When ever I see such things I immediately think of political rather than national interests. The Democrats have been masters of that art for decades.

Anonymous said...

Saw where the teacher's union alone spent $80 million on the last election, mostly on Democrats. Wonder how the left will react if under the wording of this proposed amendment that is cut off?

Go Away Bird said...

So accordlingly us Yangs have no free speech but the Coms do

Anonymous said...

I think I heard this before:

"Is that legal?"

"I will MAKE IT legal!"