[Terry Mross]

Wouldn’t this “change in freedoms” require a constitutional amendment?

[Eddie01]

I’m expecting all republicans to stand up and fight. They will start tomorrow for sure.

[VRWCarea51]

No worries, John Boner is one the job! He’ll be sure to cry over it.

[Steely Tom]

Wouldn’t this “change in freedoms” require a constitutional amendment?

I think there's pretty much a general agreement among the DC elites that we don't need to follow the Constitution if it's too much of a hassle to do so.

[Ken H]

Wouldn’t this “change in freedoms” require a constitutional amendment?

Nah. Just say it has a 'substantial effect' on interstate commerce, and voila. At least, that's how it worked with the Tenth Amendment.

[Marcella]

“Wouldn't’t this “change in freedoms” require a constitutional amendment?”

I wish you people would stop thinking correctly! /s

All it takes is for Hussein to issue an Executive Order - that is the way he governs now and no one opposes him.

I expect him to do this if reelected. It will be a federal offense/automatic required prison time, to speak ill of Islam - I doubt he will get around to the other religions - just Islam, his religion. I'm going into hiding now.

[9YearLurker]

Here are a couple of good articles on the subject:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/troubling-signals-on-free-speech-20091031

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/321039/obama-vs-first-amendment-andrew-c-mccarthy

[butterdezillion]

Only if we had the rule of law in this country. So... no, not here in Amerikkka.

[wastedyears]

Wouldn’t this “change in freedoms” require a constitutional amendment?

Come now, in Obama's America, there are no such things as Constitutional Amendments.

[Thane_Banquo]

“Wouldn’t this “change in freedoms” require a constitutional amendment?”

No, John Roberts will just say it’s a tax.