Posted on 04/30/2014 3:34:12 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Senate Democrats said Wednesday that the Supreme Court has stretched the First Amendment too far when it comes to campaign finances, and vowed to hold a vote to amend the Constitution and undo a number of landmark decisions.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat and chairman of the Rules Committee, said he will push a constitutional amendment to the full floor later this year that would give Congress the power to impose strict limits on campaign finance.
“It will draw to a fine point where we are at — and that is, the First Amendment is sacred, but that the First Amendment is not absolute, and by making it absolute you actually make it less sacred to most Americans,” Mr. Schumer said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
> Schumer, New York Democrat and chairman of the Rules Committee, said he will push a constitutional amendment to the full floor later this year that would give Congress the power to impose strict limits on campaign finance.
He’s talking out of his ass. Anyone who would vote for such a measure in Congress would be (figuratively speaking) signing their own death warrant. They’d be out on their asses through recalls, or through a dump of dossiers compiled on them (because, y’know, all politicians are scumbags). None of the state-level scumbags would ever vote to ratify it.
Remember, this is the same Upchuck who threatened to go after breakfast cereal manufacturers because they charged too much for a box of ready-to-eat cereal — despite the fact that no one has a gun to anyone’s head to buy and eat breakfast cereal. He’s a blowhard and a demagogue.
Thanks Oldeconomybuyer.
Thank you for voting indirectly for Obama. Yes, I said it...YOU AND OTHERS VOTED INDIRECTLY FOR OBAMA!!!!
Get over it, or get serious.
Rebellion is HARD, risky and scary. 2012 was just the beginning. Blame the RNC for putting a ruse up as the nominee.
There is more coming for the RNC. The Tea Party got their attention in ‘12, but they may need to be convinced one more time in ‘16.
Brace yourself.
Oh, what the 17th Amendment hath wrought!
To newnhdad, your posts acknowledge a reality, that our freedoms depend on who ends up in office.
That is what our Framers understood to be tyranny of the majority, tyranny through democracy.
We need to accept the fact that our republic is almost dead, the national government is limited only by its imagination, and our freedoms rest on the whims of the elected and unelected denizens of Washington DC.
Elections have become courtesies. They are scraps off the political table of arbitrary government that comfort us into thinking we are still a free people.
If it was an EO I’d be worried...
Thx.
Money does not corrupt government. Government corrupts money.
okay? The reality is that through our own weaknesses, we have allowed the government to become so big that national elections mean more than they should. But, reality is reality and I like the chances of wresting control back with leadership that leans right than runs left. Ignoring that fact helps nobody, and hurts everyone that believes in the little r republican form of governance.
Sitting on you thumbs, bitching and moaning about haircuts, teeth and “style” and refusing to engage the battle that has been waged against the republic is of no help. We are as free a people as we deserve and sitting home and not voting gives us the leadership we deserve.
In reality, they want it more and guess what, unless we engage, they will get it. Kiss free expression goodbye, kiss self defense goodbye, kiss religion goodbye because they are all sharply in the sights of the powers that we allow to stay through our own inaction.
Join or Die.
I didn’t expect you to address the substance of my post. You didn’t disappoint.
You need to learn how to read. I addressed the substance of your post but I chose not to insult. I actually agree and feel that you make excellent points but I decide to live in reality where a difference can be made instead of being a bystander and bemoaning like so many here chose to do.
Time to stop back biting and start engaging.
I don't believe that for one second.
You see how our opposition party
puts pressure on the other party's guy
… that is to say, they don't — what, then, makes you think that they would be inclined to hold their feet to the fire
on their own guy?
To assert that my vote, which was for neither Romney or Obama, was for Obama (because Romney lost) then you are really saying that my vote does not count unless it aligns with your sensibilities. Well, buddy, you voted for a losing candidate as well, so you voted for Obama too… at least I can say I didn't vote for his political clone.
A vote for Romney was a vote for the orchestrator of Obamacare, the final blow to our economy.
A vote for Romney was a vote for the cram down against religious liberty, not only in forced coverage of abortifacents in employee insurance that is in the courts today, but also facilitated gay marriage in Massachusetts.
Blue Obama voting state representatives are now the Republican leadership in office today running the Republican Party.
Enough of the Lefty influence in the R Party, and enough from their enabling voters whining over a Romney loss.
There was NO real loss. No moral loss either.
Thx, OWS.
They're not going to bother with the ratification by 38 states part of the process. This will be Senate dictate followed up by Obama Executive Order. Watch.
That said I voted for Perry in the primary and in 2016, I hope Ted Cruz will be on the ballot. I want the ticket of Cruz/Palin or Cruz/Walker.
If you assert that my vote, which was for former NM Gov. Gary Johnson, was a vote for Obama because he couldn't win
then yes — the logic is the same that you would be applying.
Really, no I voted for Romney, because even though I knew he wasn't 100% conservative, he would be better than the Marxist we have now.
Again, see the above.
That said I voted for Perry in the primary and in 2016, I hope Ted Cruz will be on the ballot. I want the ticket of Cruz/Palin or Cruz/Walker.
I'd like to see Cruz on the primary; however, I do have some concerns about his birth WRT the NBC clause — we cannot ignore it when it is to our advantage
precisely because that means that the Constitution is worthless. (And it would be the height of hypocrisy.)
What about his birth WTR the NBC clause? What do you mean?
Insofar as I know, he was born in Canada.
From the Wikipedia entry for Ted Cruz:
Born Rafael Edward Cruz
December 22, 1970 (age 43)
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
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.