BOMBSHELL! SENATOR TED CRUZ SAYS THAT US SENATE VOTE WILL NEUTRALIZE FIRST AMENDMENT (VIDEO)

Now The End Begins ^ | May 31, 2014 | 1 Comments | NTEB NewsDesk

[lbryce]

OBAMA’S REICHSTAG FIRE MOMENT TAKES THE STAGE

Sen. Ted Cruz dropped a bombshell, as you will see in this video, where he emphatically states that the United States Senate this year will vote on a Constitutional amendment to effectively repeal the First Amendment. This is Senate Joint Resolution 19 that Se. Cruz is referring to. It proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.

Cruz: Obama To Repeal The First Amendment from Now The End Begins on Vimeo.

This vote will give the Congress the plenary power and unlimited authority to regulate political speech. The door that they plan on using revolves around campaign finance reform, but will extend to all areas of political speech across the board.

“When you think it can’t get any worse, it does,” Cruz said. “This year, I’m sorry to tell you, the United States Senate is going to be voting on a constitutional amendment to repeal the First Amendment.”

“I am telling you — I am not making this up. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has announced the Senate Democrats are scheduling a vote on a constitutional amendment to give Congress the authority to regulate political speech because elected officials have decided they don’t like it when the citizenry has the temerity to criticize what they’ve done,” he added.

[Aevery_Freeman]

Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification.

Amendments may be adopted and sent to the states for ratification by either:

• Two-thirds (supermajority) of both the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States Congress;
  OR
• By a national convention assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (at present 34) of the states.

To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by either (as determined by Congress):
• The legislatures of three-fourths (at present 38) of the states;
  OR
• State ratifying conventions in three-fourths (at present 38) of the states.

  ---

  An extremely high bar, the Demon Ratz will try something far more surreptitious than a frontal assault as they are total cowards.

[Lazamataz]

We aren’t in a dictatorship yet.

LOL!

You, sir, write wonderful satire!

[Lazamataz]

Tar and Feather. It is time.

Rather antiquated. We should modernize.

[Publius]

If we were truly in a dictatorship, FR would have been shut down long ago, and both you and I would be occupying adjoining bunks in the gulag.

[Lazamataz]

This ‘amendment’ will shut down Free Republic.

And the powers that be recognize that a softer tyranny is generally more effective.

Open your eyes.

[Amendment10]

"There is another path to amending the Constitution where both houses of Congress have to approve an amendment by 2/3's majority."

With all due respect SoConPubbie, if I understand you correctly that's not another path. Congress has no constitutional authority to ratify proposed amendments to the Constitution.

Regarding the 2/3 majority indicated in the Constitution's Article V, please consider the following. When one or more members of Congress want to propose a new amendment to the Constitution to the states, they must first win at least 2/3 support of both Houses for the proposed amendment before Congress can actually propose the amendment to the states. And if at least 2/3 of both Houses support the proposed amendment then Congress can present the proposed amendment to the states and the states can choose to either ratify the proposed amendment or ignore it.

[Amendment10]

"Concern troll is concerned!"

Harvard Law School must be teaching the perversions of both the Commerce Clause and the 14th Amendment by FDR's activist justices. They're evidently not teaching the Constitution as the Founding States had intended for the Constitution to be understood imo.

[SatinDoll]

“Every child born to citizens on military deployment are natural born citizens.”

FALSE!

McCain was a citizen. That doesn’t make him a natural born citizen. Read my tagline.

Panama was an unincorporated territory of the United States. Anyone born there of U.S. citizens was a U.S. citizen as well, per the U.S. Congress, but the Constitution does not always follow the flag and that territory was Panamanian soil. Puerto Rico, an unincorporated territory which is not a U.S. state of the Union, is similar: born U.S. citizens but not natural born citizens.

MINOR v. HAPPERSETT REVISITED.

…the only time the US Supreme Court ever did define the class of persons who were POTUS eligible under Article 2 Section 1 was in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), wherein it was held:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

McCain had accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from George Soros, and hid the money. You shouldn’t make excuses for him as he doesn’t deserve any.

[cynwoody]

Every child born to citizens on military deployment are natural born citizens.

True.

But McCain would be still be a natural born citizens even if his parents had been tourists in Panama, or even, to pick a more germane example, his daddy had been an immigrant, and they had been working in the oil patch down thataway.

[paltz]

Everybody, calm down. The Democrats need 67-—67 votes to pass this in the upper chamber. That is not gonna happen. This is just pie in the sky for Democrats. It’s certainly something to look out for next time the Democrats have more than 60 seats in the Senate and have the House as well as the WH, but until that time, this is nothing but a publicity fundraising stunt.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/senate-campaign-finance-amendment-vote-106179.html

[cynwoody]

Otherwise, am I still overlooking something?

The Wall Street Journal lays it all out quite clearly here:

Rewriting the First Amendment
Chuck Schumer thinks he can improve on James Madison

So I still like my election year theories.

And what would those be? If they could, these turds would gladly make political speech subject to the administrative state. Because, after all, non-experts such as Amendment10 shouldn't be talking incorrectly!

Of course, they won't succeed, the hurdles to passing an amendment being too high, but they'll try anyway, because it stirs up the base.

[Amendment10]

"Because, after all, non-experts such as Amendment10 shouldn't be talking incorrectly!"

Here's my Supreme Court-issued "license" to interpret the Constitution.

“3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition.” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.

[cynwoody]

Ah, but in Chuckie Schumer’s America, would that license be deemed valid under the rules duly issued by the Secretary of Political Discourse?

[Amendment10]

"... Ah, but in Chuckie Schumer’s America, would that license be deemed valid under the rules duly issued by the Secretary of Political Discourse?"

Oh my! I just noticed that Sen. Schumer got his constitutional indoctrination at Harvard Law School. Whatever they're teaching at Harvard Law School, it's not the Constitution as the Founding States had intended for it to be understood.

[Graewoulf]

Your statement cannot be improved on: WELL SAID!

[SunkenCiv]

Senate Joint Resolution 19 ping. Thanks lbryce.

[Graewoulf]

Word for Today:
“ Fascism: Noun. - - - A system of Government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of the opposition - - - “

Hitler, Hitler,
He’s our Man!
If he can’t do it,
Judge Roberts can!

Roberts, Roberts,
He’s our Man!
If he can’t do it,
Geithner’s IRS can!

Geightner, Geithner,
He’s our Man!
If he can’t do it,
BLM’s Reid can!

Reid, Reid,
He’s our Man!
If he can’t do it,
Obama’s NSA can!

Obama, Obama,
He’s our Man!
If he can’t do it,
Gestapo Holder can!

Holder, Holder,
He’s our Man!
If he can’t do it,
The Democrats
Damn sure will.

[Wiser now]

You are ignoring the born to a parent on military active duty status.
I’m not going to argue with you, but they are “natural born citizens”. The location of Panama is irrelevant. He could have been born anywhere the Navy had a base hospital.

[SatinDoll]

I'm a navy veteran and remember how difficult it was to extricate two children, dependents born at the base hospital, to two active duty personnel who died in a traffic accident. The parents had not bothered to register their babies at the U.S. embassy following birth, and the country who owned the land under the base claimed them as citizens. If they had been registered as Americans, though born in Spain, there wouldn't have been any problem for the grandparents.

The only place ‘natural born citizen’ appears in federal law is the U.S. Constitution, and that as an eligibility requirement for President or Vice President. It IS NOT a type of citizenship, for which you seem to mistake it.

[Wiser now]

I am the one saying there is no “type of citizenship”.