Posted on 05/09/2014 10:43:01 AM PDT by Kaslin
More reining in of freedom.
Oh those New York Democrats! First we have Hillary (OK, only a New Yorker in a carpetbagging sort of way, but still . . .) wanting to "rein in" our notions that we have real Second Amendment rights. But that's the Second Amendment. That's not as important as the First, right? So for that one, we need Chuck Schumer, Hillary's senior as a senator before and after her tenure, to launch the attack.
The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision allowing unions and corporations to donate to independent political groups has driven liberals to such fits that they now want to amend the First Amendment. At a Senate Rules Committee meeting last week, New York Democrat Chuck Schumer announced a proposal to amend the Constitution to empower government to regulate political speech.
"The Supreme Court is trying to take this country back to the days of the robber barons, allowing dark money to flood our elections," Mr. Schumer said. The Senate will vote this year on the amendment to "once and for all allow Congress to make laws to regulate our system, without the risk of them being eviscerated by a conservative Supreme Court." He even rolled out retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens to pronounce his unhappiness with freedom's bedrock document.
According to the text of the proposed revision to James Madison's 1791 handiwork, sponsored by New Mexico Senator Tom Udall, the states and federal government would have the power to regulate the "raising and spending of money" through a wide range of means "to advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all."
A Chuck Schumer attack on free speech is hardly a big surprise. He's one of the senators who goaded the IRS into going after Tea Party groups based on the rationale that they were undermining confidence in government. Oh no, not that!
To amend the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress and the ratification of 38 states. That is not going to happen. But that doesn't mean there's nothing to be concerned about here. When a U.S. senator is willing to be so brazen as to propose we amend the Constitution to weaken the First Amendment - and specifically to empower Congress to restrict free speech - what that really tells us is where the political landscape stands. Not long ago it would have been inconceivable that mainstream politician hoping to remain in office would propose to take away basic First Amendment rights for the purpose of empowering politicians to impose new restrictions on same. At least in the reading of Sen. Schumer and others who back this proposed amendment, the political landscape has changed and it is now possible to propose such a thing without being flogged by the voters as a result.
This is all cloaked, of course, in language about "dark money" and so forth. You know what that's about, right? What has been the leading Democrat theme this year? It's sure as hell not how wonderful ObamaCare is. It's attacking the diabolical Koch Brothers. Democrats have decided to turn major donors to conservative causes and candidates into objects of public disdain, and they don't like it when they can't do so. They also don't like it when they can't put any restrictions on such individuals, groups or corporations.
But the Constitution was not written for the political protection of incumbent politicians. It was written to protect the rights of the people who have to live under the governance of such people. If that's creating problems for Chuck Schumer, then I'd say it's doing exactly what it was supposed to do. I hope enough of the citizenry still understands that sufficient to recognize what an obscene power grab Schumer and his allies are attempting.
Good point
“wake up” no longer garners any response. “Pull your head out” seems to work these days, and it describes the condition of the general populace.
Chuck Boy that’s you a Domestic Enemy.
I have a better idea: let’s amend the Constitution so killing idiots like Chucky Schmucky is legal.
Would be a great time for a 12’x12’ asteroid to come through the roof with those four assembled.
Here ya go Chuckie, here’s one that is a better fit for you-
http://www.memo.ru/library/books/sw/chapt43.htm
Because the traitorous leaches have infected every level of our society.
I’ve got a better idea: Let’s pass a bill of attainder against Schmuck Schumer.
What about unions who use public funds to support Commie candidates and give the most of all groups?
Soros, Hollywood, foreign terrorists, Chinese?
Chuckles is a card-carrying Marxist...
Those ‘wascally’ Founding Fathers sure screwed it up for the Marxist wannabes. Bill of Rights, Constitution,etc. The troglodyte Marxists have been working to neuter them for over one hundred years.
Gillibrand is the one with the IQ of a cow. Murray maybe has the IQ of a box of rocks.
Oh, OK. I figured it was the other guy from NY but when I looked up a photo of Sen. Gillebrand, she actually does look like a woman (as opposed to Sen. Murray).
Four Horse-Hinds of the Apocalypse
I suspect that Sen. Schumer is exploiting constitutionally ingorant voters by brandishing the idea of Congress amending the Constitution along the same lines that Obama uses constitutionally undefined executive orders. More specifically, Obama has been known to make constitutionally indefensible executive orders to make himself look like a king making edicts in the eyes of low-information voters.
The bottom line is that corrupt federal politicians cannot afford for low-information voters to find out that the federal government has no constitutional authority to amend the Constitution. Only the states have the constitutional Article V power to ratify proposed amendments. But this doesn’t stop “leaders” like Schumer from giving clueless voters the impression that Congress can amend the Constitution.
Got rope?
Once an idiot, always an idiot.
That’s Chuckie
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.