Skip to comments.Chuck Schumer: Let's amend the Constitution so Congress can restrict free speech
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.
And he is:
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.
I’m now of the opinion that Schmuckie needs to be throttled.
Who’s that guy on the right?
Schumer has body odor.
Chuck Schumer has always been utterly evil, a man who does Satan’s bidding, and he hates freedom of any kind.
I’m surprised that, based on the SC decision that corporations can be considered as and “individual”, these barbarians haven’t used that definition to force them to “buy” health insurance for their employees. Since the law requires all “individuals” to have health care why not make the corporations buy health care?
That photo - four faces of evil.
Those marxists see the Constitution as an obstacle to steamrolling this country into marxism.
Ohhhhhh dark money. Was there any reference to money raised by the campaigner-in-chief nonstop money schmoozing tour in Cali with 4 34k-62k a plate dinners for Schumie and his minions ? That kind of dark money ?
Free expression by a corporation should be curtailed, but they are still required to pay taxes and and subject to government regulations. I suppose they are expected to just shut up, bend over and take it.
Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois.
The guy on the right is Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of NY.
Dark money sounds racist.
Off with his head!
We need you like a TUMOR.
c2005 ,”The 21st Century So far” by LTOS.
I think that’s Durbin
You know seventy years ago those comments would be treasonous and he would be thrown in jail. Why are they not now?
Freedom of thought has always been a threat to Marxism. He only wishes they could have showers and ovens.
Pray America wakes up
The left is being so brazen because they believe (and I’m afraid that they may be correct) that none of these proposals will ever be turned against them, because one way or another, they are never going to be out of power again. By which I mean, even if the GOPe should take the White House or a Congressional majority, they will be no threat to the leftward ratchet of America.
I don’t believe there is ever going to be a truly conservative American majority again, therefore never a truly conservative President or Congressional majority. We are too far down the rabbit hole, and academia at every level, plus the media, is only indoctrinating future generations-the majority of them, at any rate-to be ever more statist. The only “freedom” they will be trained to desire will be the “freedom” to be licentious.
As in the days of decadent Rome, bread and circuses. But they’re indoctrinated to think that they are so “free” when they “occupy”, scream for more freebies, and live the hook-up lifestyle. While they’re nothing but lab rats or government serfs.
No that’s Patty Murray of WA. Kirsten Gillebrand is the other senator from NY
You said it