Posted on 07/31/2019 2:09:56 PM PDT by ransomnote
Full Title: Tyrants: Democrats, led by Schumer, want to amend 1st Amendment to block political speech they don’t like
In 2010, in the infamous Citizens United case, the high court ruled that corporate speech — and speech by companies, businesses, labor unions, and other organizations — most certainly is speech that is protected by the First Amendment, the same as speech by an individual.
What’s more, monetary donations made by some of these same entities to political parties and candidates also amounts to ‘political speech,’ and, thus, is summarily protected under the Constitution.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and his hack underling, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), don’t think so. They want to limit speech by corporations, companies, businesses, and labor unions because they may actually support causes and policies and political positions these tyrannical Democrats disagree with.
While standing in front of the Supreme Court building — for dramatic effect, no doubt — Schumer and his lackey proclaimed the First Amendment flawed, along with the high court’s ruling, which was written, by the way, by historic ‘swing vote’ and now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Both were at the high court to announce their support for Sen. Tom Udall’s (D-N.M.)’s proposal to amend the First Amendment. CNS News explains:
Specifically, in 2010, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission that Americans enjoy freedom of speech not only when they act as individuals but also when they form corporations.
In other words, a movie-making company has the same right to free speech that its owners individually do.
The same can be said for a book publishing company — or a company that manufactures lawnmowers or fishing rods.
In the United States, they all enjoy a freedom of speech that Congress “shall make no law … abridging.”
Schumer, et al, hate that.
“Few decisions in the 200 and some odd years of this republic have threatened our democracy like Citizens United,” Schumer said on Tuesday.
“If I get to be majority leader with the help of my colleagues here and all of you, Citizens United will go. It must,” he said.
“Overturning Citizens United is probably more important than any other single thing we could do to preserve this great and grand democracy,” he continued.
The ‘most important thing’ we can do to preserve America?
Wow. Talk about hyperbole.
In any event, we have to ask ourselves time and again why Democrats are the ones who are always seeking to take away fundamental constitutional rights rather than vote to secure and uphold them?
And then we answer our own question: Because Democrats of today have the exact same autocratic, authoritarian mindset of King George and the 17th-century Great Britain monarchy against which our founders rebelled.
The similarities are stunning, which proves the adage, “History doesn’t repeat itself but it sure rhymes.”
By Jon Dougherty, The National Sentinel
Little chuckie can purpose all he wants. It won’t get to DJT’s desk and he won’t sign it. In the meantime they keep waving their true colors. The limp resistors didn’t want to admit how vile the Dimms are. So DJT is making it open and they have to own it. Little chuckie can PO.
” . . . enemies foreign and domestic. . . .”
Schumer and Durbin are traitors to our nation and Constitution
Funny, he did not mention to punish the fake news speech of big lynch media
ALL speech is political.
This is when the Turtle should Remove them from ALL Committee Assignments, Suspend All privileges and give them each a copy of the Constitution, tell them to study it and we will have a quiz before you are reinstated.
Truth hurts... can’t have none of that.
But change 1A to read political lies are a hangin’ offense. At least a tar and feathering offence and a ride outta DC on a splintery old school rail.
They are only pissing off those who defend this country. They have a standing lower than ISIS at this point. They should seriously think what this means and what can happen to them.
IMHO only persons who are legal citizens with the right to vote in an election should be able to give money to political candidates or campaigns. Corporations, unions, and special interest groups should be allowed to solicit contributions from citizens for a given cause, but not to actually donate money themselves.
Wouldn’t ANY law they passed be dead on arrival at the SC because they have already ruled free speech rights cannot be denied? Any law abridging free speech would be deemed unconstitutional as it already has been, right?
Chuck is an absolute moron.
Amendments don’t go to the President’s desk—he has no say in the matter whatsoever. Proposed amendments must pass each house with 2/3rds majority and be ratified by 3/4ths of the states.
Although not forbidden by the Constitution, an argument could be made that since the Constitution was originally ratified because of the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, any change in the BofR could be considered an attack on the very foundation of our government.
(Of course this wouldn’t include the 2nd Amendment since it was only included to suppress slave revolts. (Yes I’m being sarcastic)).
I think our democracy - it's actually a representative republic, Mr Harvard Law and US Senator Schmuckie - is doing just fine.
Scratch a liberal, find a totalitarian.
And Chuck Schumer will never be Senate Majority Leader.
As for Dick 'Turban' Durbin.... Ugh.
When your 1A right to question a liar in Congress is suppressed by the accomplices of the liar, you know the 1A is no longer and the republic is gone.
Satanic verses redux. Tactics of totalitarians.
DEPOPULATE totalitarian scumbags and their accomplices from the body politic.
live - free -republic
Chickie is so stupid that he doesn’t realize what he is asking for would prohibit him from political speech. He is a total idiot.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED —
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Freedom of speech is not to be abridged nor defined by the very politicians who seek to muffle the citizens who find them failing in their responsibilities and assume a state of mind that we are less than them and we need to be shut down.
Thanks for posting this Ransomnote, a bit of a kick in the pants showing just how desperate they are to hold on to power
Sic Semper Tyrranis!
The Bill of Rights is an odd duck. In reality it was written to not change a thing. The Ninth and Tenth Amendmentsbasically say exactly that. In so many words, it articulates the argument against having a bill of rights in the Constitution.
- Amendment 9
- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
- Amendment 10
- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The topic is the First Amendment - and it turns out that, like the Second, it contains within it the implication that it doesn’t change anything. The Second Amendment refers to “the right of the people” - basically asserting that if you repealed the Second Amendment, nothing would change because the right to keep and bear arms pre-existed the Constitution, and is not compromised by the Constitution.
The First Amendment refers to “the freedom . . . of the press” - meaning, freedom of the press as it already existed when the Amendment was ratified. That freedom, note, did not include the right to libel; the right to sue for libel is thus embedded in the First Amendment itself. This according to Antonin Scalia, BTW . . .
This brings up the difference in the concept of “rights” between the “liberals” and the liberals (i.e., us). The true liberal (“conservative”) asserts that a right comes from God - whereas “liberals” claim the ability to make up rights on a whim.
THis one hasn’t a ghost of a chance anyway so no big.
We’re not talking about them passing a Constitutional amendment here, We’re talking about an ignorant dumb-ass bill signed by an ignorant asshole governor. They can’t just vote a national candidate off the ballot like this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.