Posted on 10/12/2017 9:46:31 AM PDT by Hadean
Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse issued a statement asking President Trump is he is “recanting” the oath he took to defend and uphold the Constitution after Trump suggesting revoking the “licenses” of network news organizations.
“Mr. President: Words spoken by the President of the United States matter,” the Republican senator wrote in a statement. “Are you tonight recanting of the oath you took on Jan. 20 to preserve, protect, and defend the 1st Amendment?”
Sasse’s tweet came after Trump sparked backlash from both conservatives and liberals by saying he should censor certain news outlets.
“Network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked. Not fair to public!” Trump wrote.
“With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License?” Trump asked in another tweet.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
“It wouldn’t hurt to make a law that mandates a Senator must spend 150 days of the year in his home-state, and require them not to travel outside of the US unless it’s to attend funerals.”
And add to that, that they actually have to a bona fide residence in that state, and be registered to vote there.
Not really. Threatening government action against a new outlet is a serious constitutional danger.
This guy is a low-life uber RINO. I wonder if he ever asked Barry that question??
Oh please. Ben Sasse. He is beyond ridiculous with such a question.
The courts do not decide Constitutional questions out-of-the-air.
Don’t you know how the process is initiated?
These matters are very basic.
Again, and I’ll type slowly. Someone has bring a suit or otherwise petition a court for it to make a decision.
Who would be empowered to bring suits / petitions regarding the accuracy of a news story before a court?
When did any of them ask that of obama, clinton, et al?
I’m sorry - I didn’t realize that my comment had a passive component.
I am still trying to discern the very basic Constitutional concept which you recognize but I don’t.
Please note that I am not denying that courts decide Constitutional questions - I am trying to figure the process by which the question would be placed before it.
No, he did not vote for McMullin. And BTW, Sasse has one of the most conservative voting records in the Senate.
Sasse was a NeverTrumper from the jump.
Absolutely right. These bums sure are big and brave when it comes to dissing Trump, but where were they for eight years when Obama and the ‘Rats were running wild? Why didn’t they speak up then? What were they afraid of? Why were they cowards then and phony brave now? They sat quietly in their seats while perhaps the meanest, nastiest, most partisan and tyrannical Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, ran the Senate like his own petty kingdom, never passing a budget. never doing a dime’s worth of useful work. What, did they have laryngitis for those eight years, they never spoke up?
“...nobody in their right mind is buying their stuff.”
Rats don’t have a mind—they have emotions. So I’d say close to half this country emotionally “buys” into their lies.
“First Amendment thing is vastly over-rated”
I missed where the first amendment grants exclusive rights to specific wavelengths of the airwaves to disseminate particular political persuasions. Kindly point out that provision which I apparently overlooked.
Contrarily, the first amendment is being violated by those who exercise exclusive control of the airwaves.
“Trump has overwhelming support when he crosses lines that others were too afraid to cross.”
Bingo! And those lines form the rope being used to hang us all!!
Sasse is a Republican only in the sense that he needed to run as a Republican in Nebraska to get elected.
I don’t recall Sasse saying anything about the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” being used not as a means of balance but as a means of silencing talk radio all those years.
One way is through legislation, which would be reviewed by the Court. (See Trumps immigration attempts.) Another is an by an aggrieved party, most of which would have a very high burden of proving standing, but likely tossed out of court before the Supremes even see it years later.
Well said. Just wish “our” senators were as concerned about the 1st amendment 8 years ago as they are now. Or even earlier- seems to me they were perfectly OK with the press parroting government lines when it was to promote the man made global warming theory as “undisputed fact.” And when others have suggested punishing “deniers” like Steyn, etc., no peep of protest came out of the Senate to chasten those suggesting it.
Precisely my point.
When their license is revoked and they sue.
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.