Senate Dems plan vote amending the First Amendment to curtail criticism

posted at 12:41 pm on April 30, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Think of the big issues facing the American public. We now routinely borrow about 40 cents on the dollar for our federal budget, our entitlement programs are heading for a fiscal collapse in the hundreds of trillions of dollars, and our economy has stagnated through nearly five years of Democratic-run economic policy in the “recovery.” What do Senate Democrats plan to do about this? Make it harder for us to complain about it, as John “Doc Zero” Hayward quipped on Twitter:

Senate Democrats will schedule a vote this year on a constitutional amendment to reform campaign finance as they face tens of millions of dollars worth of attack ads from conservative groups.

The Senate will vote on an amendment sponsored by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) that would overturn two recent court cases that have given corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals free rein to spend freely on federal races.

“The Supreme Court is trying to take this country back to the days of the robber barons, allowing dark money to flood our elections. That needs to stop, and it needs to stop now,” said Senate Rules Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who announced the plan.

“The only way to undo the damage the court has done is to pass Senator Udall’s amendment to the Constitution, and Senate Democrats are going to try to do that,” he said.

Schumer said the vote would take place by year’s end and called on Republican colleagues to join Democrats to ensure “the wealthy can’t drown out middle-class voices in our Democracy.”

Yes, that will be amusing to watch. For the record, constitutional amendments require two-thirds votes for passage in both chambers of Congress before going to the states, three-quarters of which must vote to ratify it. I doubt that Senate Democrats will get three-quarters of their own caucus to vote to amend the First Amendment, but if they do, that will make a really tasty talking point for Republicans in the midterms. “Democrats can’t defend their policy failures,” they’ll argue, “so they want to keep people from spending their own money to criticize them.” And they’ll be right.

If Democrats think this will allow them to ride a wave of Occupy Wall Street populism, they’d better look again at the polling this week. Despite spending weeks on the Senate Floor ranting about the Koch Brothers, Harry Reid’s McCarthyite campaign of Kochsteria has resulted in … almost nothing. In the NBC/WSJ poll linked earlier, only 31% had an opinion about the Koch Brothers at all, and only 21% thought of them negatively in a poll where 43% of the respondents admit to voting for Obama in 2012. Michael Bloomberg, one of the left’s multibillionaire activists, got a 26% negative score, and the Democratic Party got a 37% negative score. (The GOP got 44%.) Nearly twice as many respondents think of Barack Obama negatively than they do the Koch Brothers, despite weeks of hard-sell demonization from top Democratic Party leaders.

If Democrats (and Republicans) want to act seriously to take billionaires out of the political game, they’re aiming at the wrong Supreme Court decision. They should pass an amendment repealing Wickard v Filburn‘s impact on the interstate commerce clause. That decision shifted massive political power from the states to Washington DC by defining practically everything as interstate commerce — including non-commerce. Killing Wickard would shift most regulatory power back to the states, and take the corruption out of Washington DC as the stakes would become too small for billionaire investment. Don’t expect Senate Democrats to do anything meaningful on crony capitalism, though … or anything meaningful at all, if this stunt is all they have.

Update: Citizens United president David Bossie responds:

“As with the failure of the DISCLOSE Act in 2010, this shameful attempt to alter the United States Constitution to protect incumbency will go down in flames,” said David N. Bossie, President of Citizens United. “With recent polls coming out showing that Democrats in Congress face another huge midterm loss, it is not surprising that they would go back to their bag of tricks and try to defeat Citizens United and free speech. This latest attempt is laughable, Senate Democrats should focus on creating jobs not infringing on every Americans First Amendment rights.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Good luck with that.

The loss of power is never pretty.

22044 on April 30, 2014 at 1:42 PM

The fascists aren’t even trying to hide it anymore.

gwelf on April 30, 2014 at 1:44 PM

I’m sure the American people will love giving Congress more power.

Right.

LASue on April 30, 2014 at 1:39 PM

The problem is, it isn’t up to us. If we’re very lucky, it will never get out of Congress. If we’re only moderately lucky, it will be up to the legislatures to not ratify it. If we’re very unlucky, it will be Congressionally-constituted state conventions packed to ensure adoption.

Steve Eggleston on April 30, 2014 at 1:44 PM

If Democrats (and Republicans) want to act seriously to take billionaires out of the political game, they’re aiming at the wrong Supreme Court decision. They should pass an amendment repealing Wickard v Filburn‘s impact on the interstate commerce clause. That decision shifted massive political power from the states to Washington DC by defining practically everything as interstate commerce — including non-commerce. Killing Wickard would shift most regulatory power back to the states, and take the corruption out of Washington DC as the stakes would become too small for billionaire investment. Don’t expect Senate Democrats to do anything meaningful on crony capitalism, though … or anything meaningful at all, if this stunt is all they have.

Ed, I usually think you are RINO-tastic, but you nailed it right there. Congress CAN define the definition of interstate commerce, and that would go a very long way towards reeling in the federal govt.

iwasbornwithit on April 30, 2014 at 1:46 PM

Brilliant post Ed.

gwelf on April 30, 2014 at 1:46 PM

They just need to figure out the wording to carve out an exception for that great middle class guy George Soros. Maybe call it the Bloomberg-Steir Amendment.

NOMOBO on April 30, 2014 at 1:47 PM

I doubt that Senate Democrats will get three-quarters of their own caucus to vote to amend the First Amendment, but if they do, that will make a really tasty talking point for Republicans in the midterms.

Considering that, as of yesterday, 36 Rats (including the Maine “independent”) were co-sponsors, and Reid is now actively whipping votes, I won’t offer the easy-money (for me, that is) bet on that.

Steve Eggleston on April 30, 2014 at 1:47 PM

The fascists aren’t even trying to hide it anymore.

gwelf on April 30, 2014 at 1:44 PM

Hiding in plain sight, scary. That the sheeple don’t see, scarier. If they do see, they don’t care, scariest.

Brat on April 30, 2014 at 1:49 PM

If Democrats (and Republicans) want to act seriously to take billionaires out of the political game, they’re aiming at the wrong Supreme Court decision. They should pass an amendment repealing Wickard v Filburn‘s impact on the interstate commerce clause. That decision shifted massive political power from the states to Washington DC by defining practically everything as interstate commerce — including non-commerce. Killing Wickard would shift most regulatory power back to the states, and take the corruption out of Washington DC as the stakes would become too small for billionaire investment. Don’t expect Senate Democrats to do anything meaningful on crony capitalism, though … or anything meaningful at all, if this stunt is all they have.

Right on

gwelf on April 30, 2014 at 1:50 PM

Don’t miss this

Schadenfreude on April 30, 2014 at 1:51 PM

The fascists aren’t even trying to hide it anymore.

gwelf on April 30, 2014 at 1:44 PM

Hiding in plain sight, scary. That the sheeple don’t see, scarier. If they do see, they don’t care, scariest.

Brat on April 30, 2014 at 1:49 PM

It’s been too long…

Comment of the Day™

Steve Eggleston on April 30, 2014 at 1:51 PM

Hiding in plain sight, scary. That the sheeple don’t see, scarier. If they do see, they don’t care, scariest.

Brat on April 30, 2014 at 1:49 PM

Nah, the scariest is that said sheeple/sardines do vote, against the hands that feed them, every time.

Schadenfreude on April 30, 2014 at 1:53 PM

There are three courses of action that can correct the path this nation is on:

1. Article V Convention of States
2. Proper state nullification in line with the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions
3. Armed cconflict and/or succession

That’s it folks. Those are your options. Everything else is just window dressing to include electing bona-fide conservatives to the federal government. Once you rationally come to the conclusion that those are your only options then you will care less about the associated risk of each.

Option 1 and 2 are complementary not mutually exclusive.

Meat Fighter on April 30, 2014 at 1:53 PM

Schumer is such a corrupt hack.

He’s one of the biggest recipients of political donations.
He’s one of the guys who rented out the Senate to Steyer.
All while decrying money in politics.

He’s the ugly face of corrupt governance.

gwelf on April 30, 2014 at 1:53 PM

He’s the ugly face of corrupt governance.

gwelf on April 30, 2014 at 1:53 PM

And, Schumer is the devil with whom Rubio made the amnesty pact.

Schadenfreude on April 30, 2014 at 1:54 PM

This is sedition and honestly these men should be impeached by the states stripping them of authority to write law . Too far is too far also they should be censored like what OK is doing to those activist judges.

sorrowen on April 30, 2014 at 1:55 PM

Stop trying to correct the federal government within the apparatus of the federal government.

The states are the answer.

Meat Fighter on April 30, 2014 at 1:55 PM

That’s what I’m saying the states should refuse to recognize laws they pass even Obamacare.

sorrowen on April 30, 2014 at 1:58 PM

And, Schumer is the devil with whom Rubio made the amnesty pact.

Schadenfreude on April 30, 2014 at 1:54 PM

Yeah.

gwelf on April 30, 2014 at 1:59 PM

Since Tom Udall is the sponsor of this bill, Cory Gardner needs to be drumming this from dawn till dusk what the Dems are trying to do. The Dems, if they bring this to floor, means that they know they are going to lose the Senate in the fall.

ConservativePartyNow on April 30, 2014 at 2:01 PM

Chyron graphic on the pic…

SEN. SCHUMER MOCKS MILLIONAIRES

Oh the irony.

Brat on April 30, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Is the tattooing of conservatives required in the bill…?

d1carter on April 30, 2014 at 2:06 PM

I would say Dems seems keen on royally screwing themselves even more then they are…when it doubt double down?

sorrowen on April 30, 2014 at 2:06 PM

In the NBC/WSJ poll linked earlier, only 31% had an opinion about the Koch Brothers at all, and only 21% thought of them negatively in a poll where 43% of the respondents admit to voting for Obama in 2012

Maybe 43% was all he actually got – and the rest, 8-9%, was all voter fraud.

TarheelBen on April 30, 2014 at 2:06 PM

Since Tom Udall is the sponsor of this bill, Cory Gardner needs to be drumming this from dawn till dusk what the Dems are trying to do. The Dems, if they bring this to floor, means that they know they are going to lose the Senate in the fall.

ConservativePartyNow on April 30, 2014 at 2:01 PM

You’re thinking of Mark Udall, Tom’s brother in CO. Tom is in NM and is probably safe.
I’m sure Cory can get mileage from this, anyway.

22044 on April 30, 2014 at 2:07 PM

I’m sure the American people will love giving Congress more power.

Right.

LASue on April 30, 2014 at 1:39 PM

The problem is, it isn’t up to us. If we’re very lucky, it will never get out of Congress. If we’re only moderately lucky, it will be up to the legislatures to not ratify it. If we’re very unlucky, it will be Congressionally-constituted state conventions packed to ensure adoption.

Steve Eggleston on April 30, 2014 at 1:44 PM

It’s not up to us to vote on, but since it has to pass both houses by 2/3 (I think) our elected representative (yes I know, hahaha), particularly in the house, will get a a boatload of pressure from us if there is even an inkling this could pass.

LASue on April 30, 2014 at 2:12 PM

“The Supreme Court is trying to take this country back to the days of the robber barons, allowing dark money to flood our elections. That needs to stop, and it needs to stop now,” said Senate Rules Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who announced the plan.

Waitaminute.

dark money“???

THIS GUY’S A RACIST!!!!!!111!11!1!!!!

brentspolemics on April 30, 2014 at 2:13 PM

Schumer said the vote would take place by year’s end and called on Republican colleagues to join Democrats to ensure “the wealthy can’t drown out middle-class voices in our Democracy.”

Yes, that will be amusing to watch. For the record, constitutional amendments require two-thirds votes for passage in both chambers of Congress before going to the states, three-quarters of which must vote to ratify it.

They would need 290 votes in the House, and Democrats only have 190 seats. Good luck trying to get 100 House Republicans to abolish the First Amendment!

We don’t love Big Brother, and we’re NOT going to shut up!

Steve Z on April 30, 2014 at 2:18 PM

Those who can’t handle the truth,
try to silence those who speak it.

-Red Pill

ITguy on April 30, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Opponents say the law will enable Putin to silence opponents who are rarely given air time on the mostly state-controlled or pro-Putin television channels

ITguy on April 30, 2014 at 2:22 PM

allowing dark money to flood our elections

Why, that’s a racist squirrel whistle!

dreadnought62 on April 30, 2014 at 2:24 PM

Is the tattooing of conservatives required in the bill…?

d1carter on April 30, 2014 at 2:06 PM

About the only space left on me is between the rear cheeks, so I’m safe. You however are in trouble.

Bishop on April 30, 2014 at 2:24 PM

Hey, Schumer/Reid– try this tag-line for your bid: “The Founding Fathers Never Intended for Liberty to Intrude Upon Government.”

morganfrost on April 30, 2014 at 2:26 PM

According to the Open Secrets website that keeps track of political funding, its “Heavy Hitters” list of the top all-time donors from 1989-2014 shows the following:

1. ActBlue

$100,887,828

Percent of contributions to Democrats 99%

Percent of contributions to Republicans 0%

2. American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees

$61,339,129

Democrats 80%

GOP 1%

3. National Education Assn

$58,783,738

Dems 56%

GOP 4%

The list continues in similarly lopsided fashion through at least the top 15. Unions overwhelmingly funding Democrat politics. Not a Koch Brother to be found.

You wonder why they would go so full idiot as to try to revise the First Amendment? See above. Their campaign finance monopoly, based on a damaging quid pro quo with favored constituencies, often to the detriment of the rest of us, has been blown up. And Democrats fully recognize the long-term ramifications of that.

FishingwFredo on April 30, 2014 at 2:29 PM

d1carter on April 30, 2014 at 2:06 PM

But I don’t WANT another tattoo! o_O

Newtie and the Beauty on April 30, 2014 at 2:31 PM

Well when all your policies turn to shit and you have no sound reasons for those policies to continue, it’s time to tell the peasants to STFU!

Problem solved.

GarandFan on April 30, 2014 at 2:32 PM

About the only space left on me is between the rear cheeks, so I’m safe. You however are in trouble.
Bishop on April 30, 2014 at 2:24 PM

LOL. Comment of the day!
How many of the d’s cosponsors are:
A) Millionaires?
B) receiving donations from millionaires/corporations?

Doc Holliday on April 30, 2014 at 2:32 PM

Senate Dems Demofascists plan vote amending the First Amendment to curtail criticism

VorDaj on April 30, 2014 at 2:34 PM

Hypocrites. They are the millionairs.

crankyoldlady on April 30, 2014 at 2:38 PM

Dems:
Our money is directed for more benevolent purposes, therefore it’s unjust to allow money from our opposition to be considered similar in purpose. Their money is used to suppress others by offering them the proverbial “fishing lesson” rather than simply providing them an all u-can eat buffet at Long John Silvers.
We simply give the people what they want and provide them direction into becoming the best Gov’t bitch they can be.
Our IRS clearly has identified the differences with money provided by ideological extremists and how it contrasts with our righteous ideology,.. as have other depts. and media outlets we currently control consult.
There can be no doubt, our money is greener than theirs damn’t. We’re the ones we’ve been waiting for and the vast majority of the USSR *US agrees with us.
We simply can’t wait for another challenging election cycle to pass without instituting these changes.
(*Mother Jones/Kos/NBC/Pravda poll 4/2014 Dem + 70 sample)

StubbornGreenBurros on April 30, 2014 at 2:38 PM

Dems:
Our money is directed for more benevolent purposes, therefore it’s unjust to allow money from our opposition to be considered similar in purpose. Their money is used to suppress others by offering them the proverbial “fishing lesson” rather than simply providing them an all u-can eat buffet at Long John Silvers.
We simply give the people what they want and provide them direction into becoming the best Gov’t b*tch they can be.
Our IRS clearly has identified the differences with money provided by ideological extremists and how it contrasts with our righteous ideology,.. as have other depts. and media outlets we currently control consult.
There can be no doubt, our money is greener than theirs damn’t. We’re the ones we’ve been waiting for and the vast majority of the USSR *US agrees with us.
We simply can’t wait for another challenging election cycle to pass without unconstitutionally forcing instituting these changes!
(*Mother Jones/Kos/NBC/Pravda poll 4/2014 Dem + 70 sample)

StubbornGreenBurros on April 30, 2014 at 2:41 PM

Well when all your policies turn to shit and you have no sound reasons for those policies to continue, it’s time to tell the peasants to STFU!

Problem solved.

GarandFan on April 30, 2014 at 2:32 PM

Can we at least get some cake?

dentarthurdent on April 30, 2014 at 2:42 PM

How come there are protests in front of the WH every week about some dumb issue like a pipeline, terrorists imprisoned in Guantamo for attacking American interests, or the dumb topic of the week such as abortion or gay marriage (and yes, I said “dumb” because never it is discussed by protestors in logical terms), yet there is never a rushed protest about the erosion of the Bill of Rights by the government it is supposed to limit?

And yes, I know there are way too many ignorants about the Constitution out there who believe Sterling violated the Constitution by what he said. But still, I have to believe those are not the majority (I hope).

ptcamn on April 30, 2014 at 2:42 PM

yet there is never a rushed protest about the erosion of the Bill of Rights by the government it is supposed to limit?
ptcamn on April 30, 2014 at 2:42 PM

That’s cuz the people who would want to do that protest are at work – to pay for all those others who are living on gubmint handouts.

dentarthurdent on April 30, 2014 at 2:51 PM

Doubtless, Chuckie knows he can count on “our republicans”.

“Is the tattooing of conservatives required in the bill…?”

No, but we do have to wear a red-white-and-blue star every place and sign everything with the middle name George for men and Martha for women.

formwiz on April 30, 2014 at 2:59 PM

The Dems have lost their minds.

Nomennovum on April 30, 2014 at 2:59 PM

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.

But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.

He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist.

A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague. –Cicero

opunmind on April 30, 2014 at 3:09 PM

Doesn’t anyone know the process for amending the Constitution. Congress doesn’t have the power.

***

Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification.[1]

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.

erp on April 30, 2014 at 3:14 PM

Interesting. Democrats want to violate the 1at Amendment (Congress shall pass no law…) To amend the Constitution and curtail not just free speech, but protesting peaceably and redress of grievance. You silly people who say Dems have never read the Constitution are silly.

William Teach on April 30, 2014 at 3:16 PM

Since Tom Udall is the sponsor of this bill, Cory Gardner needs to be drumming this from dawn till dusk what the Dems are trying to do. The Dems, if they bring this to floor, means that they know they are going to lose the Senate in the fall.

ConservativePartyNow on April 30, 2014 at 2:01 PM

Wrong Udall. This one is from New Mexico.

Sniper on April 30, 2014 at 3:20 PM

“The Supreme Court is trying to take this country back to the days of the robber barons, allowing dark money to flood our elections. That needs to stop, and it needs to stop now,” said Senate Rules Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who announced the plan.

Senator Schmuck needs to re-read his C.S. Lewis.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

sumpnz on April 30, 2014 at 3:32 PM

Welcome to the totalitarian state…

zoyclem on April 30, 2014 at 3:38 PM

We’re getting closer…..

Something is going to happen. Some issue is going to wake our dormant populace.

I have said that 2016 will be an issue driven election.

I have no idea what the “issue” will be – but something is going to set loose the American spirit.

I believe that.

jake-the-goose on April 30, 2014 at 12:46 PM

If Obamacare doesn’t impact the elections then we are finished.

Bob Davis on April 30, 2014 at 3:41 PM

Welcome to Communism. One inch at a time.

RdLake on April 30, 2014 at 3:46 PM

Senator Schmuck needs to re-read his C.S. Lewis.

He’s read C.S. Lewis in the first place? He doesn’t appear to be a person who’d appreciate Lewis’ writings or learn anything from them.

Schumer would probably be more comfortable to have Lewis banned from public schools and libraries as literature that is “destructive to the new order and contagious to the minds of people”.

hawkeye54 on April 30, 2014 at 3:50 PM

Lazy article. This is about overturning the Supreme Court decision allowing unrestricted totals of money to flood into elections. Without PACs and all that crap we would be much better off.

Oh, you think that will hurt Tea Party Republicans? Why, HA just had an article here the other day stating virtually none of the donations went to anything meaningful.

Shut out unions, PACs, and big donors and maybe the little guy might actually have an impact?

antisense on April 30, 2014 at 3:58 PM

when all else fails, change the first ammendment….easy peasy…

jimver on April 30, 2014 at 4:03 PM

Interesting. Democrats want to violate the 1at Amendment (Congress shall pass no law…) To amend the Constitution and curtail not just free speech, but protesting peaceably and redress of grievance. You silly people who say Dems have never read the Constitution are silly.

William Teach on April 30, 1814

No where does it say they are trying to amend the 1st Amendment. There are already campaign finance laws on da books.

I am still curious why people think it is a great idea that lawmakers and politicians can receive money from anyone.

When it happens in lets say.. AFRICA or Mother Russia we call it corruption! *finger wag*

Here: “oh this is speech and clearly people with more money deserve more speech because they are more equal.” (And they have that money because they worked hard and are better than the average man, just as God intended)

antisense on April 30, 2014 at 4:03 PM

It’s not up to us to vote on, but since it has to pass both houses by 2/3 (I think) our elected representative (yes I know, hahaha), particularly in the house, will get a a boatload of pressure from us if there is even an inkling this could pass.

LASue on April 30, 2014 at 2:12 PM

You forget that McCain-Feingold passed a “Republican” House and a “Republican” Senate, was signed into law by a “Republican” President, and survived its first SCOTUS challenge in front of a “conservative” Court. We got fortunate that the consolidated Citizens United/Wisconsin Right to Life case got to the Court before Roberts betrayed his Lawgiver-In-Black tendencies.

Steve Eggleston on April 30, 2014 at 4:04 PM

Land of the Free…

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 30, 2014 at 4:06 PM

If Chucky is for it, I’m against it.

HiJack on April 30, 2014 at 4:07 PM

Don’t miss this

Schadenfreude on April 30, 2014 at 1:51 PM

Holy $hit…that there’s creepy.

BigWyo on April 30, 2014 at 4:16 PM

Never happen.

Johnnyreb on April 30, 2014 at 4:18 PM

Rather Stalinistic….

sorrowen on April 30, 2014 at 4:34 PM

It’s “Frog In The Pot” syndrome. Technically, it’s called “acclimation”, and it’s associated with behavior modification techniques.

Dems have been using it for years to alter the trajectory of American society.

Conservatives don’t engage in guile and deceit the way Dems, which IMO leaves us somewhat vulnerable to the tactics they use.

Fascinating topic! Really hard to explain to the general public when people haven’t learned to develop the insight that would let them not only recognize these kinds of techniques but also guard against them.

lineholder on April 30, 2014 at 1:07 PM

So true.

avagreen on April 30, 2014 at 4:35 PM

There are three courses of action that can correct the path this nation is on:

1. Article V Convention of States

2. Proper state nullification in line with the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions

3. Armed cconflict and/or succession

That’s it folks. Those are your options. Everything else is just window dressing to include electing bona-fide conservatives to the federal government. Once you rationally come to the conclusion that those are your only options then you will care less about the associated risk of each.

Option 1 and 2 are complementary not mutually exclusive.

Meat Fighter on April 30, 2014 at 1:53 PM

.
You left “recognition of God” out of that.

There are three only courses of action that can correct the path this nation is prayer.

Your three courses of action are secondary to that.

listens2glenn on April 30, 2014 at 4:40 PM

No matter what tactic they’ll use, this would still be an EXTREME violation of our God-given rights.

Hayward’s remarks DO remind me of a little joke I came up with:

IN THE EVENT OF A BRAIN-EATING ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE:
Conservatives will shoot the zombies in the head.
Liberals will outlaw brains.

RockinRickOwen on April 30, 2014 at 4:45 PM

Here: “oh this is speech and clearly people with more money deserve more speech because they are more equal.” (And they have that money because they worked hard and are better than the average man, just as God intended)

The amount of money someone has doesn’t matter: you either support the 1st Amendment in full or you don’t. Period.

William Teach on April 30, 2014 at 5:05 PM

Nothing the GOPe would like better than to make it illegal for us to complain. Seems like Boehner and McConnell would be big supporters of this amendment.

RJL on April 30, 2014 at 5:35 PM

Nothing the GOPe would like better than to make it illegal for us to complain. Seems like Boehner and McConnell would be big supporters of this amendment.

RJL on April 30, 2014 at 5:35 PM

Rrright, are you coming up with these pearls of wisdom while you’re having a bowel movement…that’d explain them…I am sure Boehner hates the Kochs’ guts and is totally against them putting their money into conservative/libertarian politics lol :)…

jimver on April 30, 2014 at 5:50 PM

I’d agree to let them dabble with the constitution if they agree to stick their heads in nooses and balance on a chair first.

Diluculo on April 30, 2014 at 5:52 PM

Still, something has to be done! Haven’t we all seen the violent swing to the Right by the New York Times and the rest of the MSM since Citizens United was decided? What better proof could there be that where money talks, corporate money shouts rudely? Why, only last week “The Bangor Daily News” mentioned Susan Collins in a semi-tolerant way, and even spelled her name right.

PersonFromPorlock on April 30, 2014 at 5:57 PM

We killed Nazis during WWII.Now we have to put up with them in the Senate?

redware on April 30, 2014 at 6:25 PM

In the words of a pants-suited cow (aka Hitlery)… “At this point, what difference does it make”?

I tend to agree.

Does the first amendment really mean anything anymore? 40 years of Demoncrat domination of academia has successfully turned the vast majority of Americans into drooling morons who are easily captivated by whichever dangling string the media place in front of them.

Most Americans can barely put their shoes on the correct foot. And you expect them to form an opinion on campaign finance and amending the constitution? We’re talking about the same public who laugh off the murder of Americans in Benghazi, but soil their enormous, Dorito stained sweatpants because of mildly racist rantings by an old NBA owner.

acetylene420 on April 30, 2014 at 6:31 PM

You guys are idiots. You only think each thing in front of you through to the point where you can interpret it the way you like.

Allowing the continued free and infinite flow of money into our election processes and government is not a good idea.

And you’ll be complaining in two days about how wrong it is when some story comes out about some democrat making a decision that benefits people who helped pay for their election.

Do you not understand that the money available to our “representatives” is of such a quantity that it completely nullifies YOUR influence on your representative?

You’re agitating for a furtherance of our already existing Oligarchal “republic”. And arguing against your own interests, on behalf of people who do not give a **** about you.

You do realize that right?

Genuine on April 30, 2014 at 6:42 PM

You guys are idiots. …

Well, THAT sure draws me in and makes me want to engage — respect for my intelligence, especially if I just happen to hold an opinion that differs from yours.

Nah, I’ll pass.

Alien on April 30, 2014 at 6:45 PM

Well. once Russia and China control the internet… who is really going to stop them from doing whatever they want?

Will we ever even find out they voted on it? Like CBS and ABC is going to start reporting the real news?

Probably the main stream press is all for China and Russia controlling the internet. It’ll be like the old glory days for them.

Yeah.. just imagine firing up your internet and every web page has a portrait of Obama smiling at you!

JellyToast on April 30, 2014 at 6:52 PM

Well, THAT sure draws me in and makes me want to engage — respect for my intelligence, especially if I just happen to hold an opinion that differs from yours.
Nah, I’ll pass.
Alien on April 30, 2014 at 6:45 PM

Oh believe me. I’ve tried that whole “respectful debate” thing here. I tried diligently and very hard when I first started here.

It doesn’t exist here.

Furthermore, it’s not even close to being what the vast majority of posters here are looking for anyway. It’s not what they’re interested in. They prefer to approach those of who disagree as visceral enemies.

There is no reasonable discussion here that you speak of.

I’ve tried.

Genuine on April 30, 2014 at 6:57 PM

Amending the First Amendment will never succeed. As authoritarian, dictatorial, lawless, and absolutely peevish the Democrats have become, I am, quite frankly, surprised that they didn’t attempt to revive the Alien and Sedition Acts, which criminalised criticism of the President, Congress, Supreme Court, and Federal government. No, I didn’t accidentally omit the Vice-President. He was specifically excluded from coverage. John Adams was President and Thomas Jefferson was Vice-President. The two, especially the former, loathed one another.

These were just a few of the ‘terms of endearment’ thrown around by both:

From the Adams camp:

‘Jefferson is a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.’

“Should Jefferson prove victorious, there is scarcely a possibility that we shall escape a Civil War. Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, incest will be openly taught and practised, the air will be rent with the cries of distress, the soil will be soaked with blood, the nation black with crimes.”

‘Jefferson is the son of a half-breed Indian squaw raised on hoe-cakes.’

“Are you prepared to see your dwellings in flames? Female chastity violated? Children writhing on the pike? If, not prepare for the task of protecting your government. Look at every leading Jacobin as at a ravening wolf, preparing to enter your peaceful fold, and glut his deadly appetite on the virals of your country.”

‘Jefferson is a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward.’

“Every dissolute intriguer, loose-liver, forger, false coiner, and prison-bird; every hair-brained, loud talking demagogue; every speculator, scoffer and atheist – is a follower of Jefferson.”

“The question is not what he will do, but what he is. Is he an infidel? Then, you cannot elect him without betraying our Lord. From all known infidels then let us withdraw our confidence and support. We are highly criminal if we knowingly contribute in any way to increase their influence or power for in so doing we contribute to our own and our country’s ruin. Let us hear no more, at such times, of amiability and gentleness — or candor, liberality, and moderation — of conciliating, mild and generous feeling. Such qualities are now not virtues, but vices.”

“Great god of compassion and justice, sheild my country from destruction.”

– The banner of the Connecticut Current, a Federalist-leaning newspaper.

“If Thomas Jefferson wins, murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced. The air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes. Are you prepared to see your dwellings in flames, female chastity violated, and children writhing on a pike?”

‘Jefferson is one of the most detestable of mankind. Preach it!’

- Martha Washington to clergymen

From the Jefferson camp:

‘President Adams has a hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.’

‘Hamilton is a Creole b@stard brat of a Scotch pedlar.’

‘John Adams is a blind, bald crippled toothless man, who secretly wants to start a war with France. When he’s not busy importing mistresses from Europe, he’s trying to marry one of his sons to a daughter of King George III.’

‘Adams is a traitor, who wants to marry one of his daughters to the Prince of Wales and return the United States to Britain.’

‘Adams is a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant.’

Fortunately, Jefferson defeated Adams and the Acts were repealed.

Woodrow Wilson resurrected the Sedition Act and added the Espionage Act for good measure, which saw even men criticising America’s entry into WWI – that would be the entry into a war four months after Wilson won reelection with the slogan ‘He kept us out of the war – at their own dining room tables prosecuted for sedition and/or espionage.

Read this horrifying story for an idea of the hideousness and flagrant abuse of these two Acts:

How Progressives Killed Robert Goldstein Through Censorship, Police State Tactics, Unconstitutional Laws, & Railroading All The Way Into A Cattlecar On The Road To A Nazi Concentration Camp

Fortunately, the Sedition Act, for all intents and purposes, was neutered by the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). Per the decision, it is unconstitutional to punish Americans for their inflammatory or critical speech unless such is intended to incite and is likely to result in imminent, lawless action.

The most protected of speech is that which is political in nature. Money is speech and when used for political purposes it should be given the same intense level of respect and protection that we afford the freedoms of speech, religion, the press, assembly, and the right to seek from our government redress of grievances.

Resist We Much on April 30, 2014 at 8:34 PM

Silly Dems…it just proves that they have not read the Constitution. It takes two-thirds of the states to amend the Constitution. And the Bill of Rights cannot be amended or repealed by legislative, judicial, or executive decision.

xmanvietnam on April 30, 2014 at 10:14 PM

Notice the arguments on this subject and virtually all other subjects as well.

They boil down to:

“Freedom is just too messy, and must be curtailed.

You like your big truck, your gun, your single-family home, your doctor, your health plan, your yard, your steak. Too messy, must be controlled, for your own good. You don’t even know what’s good for you!”

Not to worry, the busybodies are here to enlighten you.

A elite-controlled life is better than one lived in freedom.

It is the same with everything except abortion on demand.

Meremortal on April 30, 2014 at 10:58 PM

They can’t win democratically, so now out comes the totalitarian repression.

Archangel Nation on May 1, 2014 at 12:21 AM

We killed Nazis during WWII.Now we have to put up with them in the Senate?

redware on April 30, 2014 at 6:25 PM

We didn’t kill them because they were Nazis, and besides, the Bolsheviks and Maoists were our allies.

What does that tell you about the wonderful leadership we’ve had in this country for over a century, or the ability of the American people to buy into nonsense if you wrap it up in Old Glory?

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 1, 2014 at 12:54 AM

There is no reasonable discussion here that you speak of.

I’ve tried.

Genuine on April 30, 2014 at 6:57 PM

Opening a post with “You guys are idiots” isn’t a reasoable way to start a conversation. I wouldn’t call it ‘trying’ either.

Maybe you should go off and throw an tantrum somewhere…

zoyclem on May 1, 2014 at 8:33 AM

allowing dark money to flood our elections

Is that anything like dark matter? Or is it more like dark magic?

Schumer said the vote would take place by year’s end

My guess is that means on or after 5 Nov?

GWB on May 1, 2014 at 9:22 AM

Democrats say its OK for the New York Times and MSNBC (owned by Microsoft etc.) to spew political propaganda for them 24/7 worth millions of dollars because they pretend to be called “the press”, but it’s not OK for companies trying to defend themselves from these attacks to use their own money.

Perspicacious on May 1, 2014 at 11:31 AM

Ed comparing vile Reid to honorable McCarthy is vile and despicable and utterly grossly IGNORANT, though understandably brainwashed by vile, lying media like Commie harlot Murrow, one of America’s most vile traitors, with Cronkite & Sevareid giving him stiff competition. See why at http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2819/Execrable-Harry-Reid-Is-No-Joe-McCarthy.aspx
It’s one of the reasons I’m not a “conservative,” in view of how many of them are as ignorant and inane as “liberals” when it comes to principle and history.

russedav on May 2, 2014 at 10:57 AM

I just hope the Dem amendment assures no criticism of the original Amendment as written is allowed, includes criticizing any opposition to another’s stated viewpoint or spoken word at anytime, place, or being.

MSGTAS on May 2, 2014 at 11:33 AM

Liberals continue to undermine the 1st amendment socially: it’s called political-correctness. That part of their strategy is working: they just dispossessed an American of his NBA team for what he said in a private conversation – so they can do it to you too, for any reason at all.

Trying to alter the 1st amendment formally is hopeless because there are not enough traitors and fellow-travelers in government to go along with its clear intent of constitutional destruction (free-speech).

Politically, why are they doing something hopeless? So that they can claim they are doing something “important” for the American people before the election. Something that doesn’t shine a light on their record in office.

They want to embrace a time-wasting lost-cause because it is safer than engaging on the disaster of Obamacare ™, the economy at home or on the graveyard of their pro-Islamic foreign policy and the cold war they renewed.

virgo on May 4, 2014 at 12:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 2