Skip to comments.Ted Cruz: Democratic Senators Want to ‘Repeal the First Amendment’
Posted on 05/22/2014 9:42:37 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) told attendees at a Family Research Council pastors retreat that Democrats wanted to limit free speech through amending the Constitution.
When you think it cant get any worse, it does, Cruz said at the FRCs Watchmen on the Wall 2014 event in Washington, D.C. on Thursday. This year, Im sorry to tell you, the United States Senate is going to be voting on a constitutional amendment to repeal the First Amendment.
Calling these perilous, perilous times, Cruz said Senate Democrats have said they are ready to vote on the amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 19an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Sorry Ted, the bastards want to repeal the whole Bill of Rights. The problem is, 47% of the morons living in this country say it’s okay with them as long as the freebies and handouts keep coming.
That’s when the gravy train stops, though. Sold their freedom for a bowl of soup.
We really need to break the logjam both our main parties hold over America politics.
Sure there is a problem with the democrats, that people cannot live on handouts.
But also America cannot export our economy to China. Americans needs JOBS.
Bring back jobs to the USA. While we’re doing that, stop giving away a bunch of free handouts to people who don’t work, but bring back jobs at the same time.
No news in that.
What I can see in the near future is an amendment making it illegal to criticize Islam or homosexuality, like in Europe. It will say something like “From now on, when any American mentions one of those subjects, they will be legally required to follow it up with ‘not that there’s anything wrong with that’”.
Jobs from any source?
Unsure of your question. Sorry.
I think America freedom, is to be cherished. Above everything.
That said, I believe American jobs are very important.
America needs jobs. We are giving away the thing, that keeps our people, voting for our freedoms.
Sorry but I do not believe we are helping America, by sending jobs to China.
Bring back US jobs.
I’m so glad I voted for Ted. The sad thing is I voted early today in Montgomery County Texas and it’s become a joke around here because we have 2 or 3 TP here and they fight over Who is the real TP. I’m so glad I stay informed.
That has nothing to do with this thread.
And you refuse to clarify the means by which to achieve this off-topic economic revival, so I once again conclude you are not serious about it.
I completely disagree.
That said, it’s time to go to bed here. Just keep in mind we need (a whole huge bunch) of jobs right here in the USA.
We have been sending US jobs everywhere in the world but the US, for now at least four administrations.
America needs to bring back jobs.
Have a good one.
You completely disagree with what?
I disagree this is off topic.
America needs jobs.
Neither party is doing even one single thing, to help.
No, this thread is about Senate Joint Resolution 19.
Why do you refuse to talk about how to bring jobs back to the USA, when you do so? And do you ever talk about any other subject?
Only in part.
This is also about America.
America cannot succeed if Americans don’t have jobs. That is my big point.
I get fired up a bit about Cruz because he’s potentially a hugely influential politician in America.
I just want him to focus on what, is going very terribly wrong right now, and that is in large part that our country is losing the global lead.
We cannot keep importing everything from China.
So sure this is off topic. But it’s not.
I’m sorry I get fired up about this, but it is a very important topic which nobody is currently speaking about.
I gotta go.
Nice talking with you.
Which has nothing to do with Senate Joint Resolution 19.
Well color me ignorant but I didn’t think Congress had the power to amend the Constitution. I thought it was like 2/3 of both House and Senate to even propose an amendment then had to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. What am I missing?
Politics is all relative.
People need jobs.
Wish you a good night. Gotta go.
Sloganeers don’t care about the subjects they promulgate. No solutions, no seriousness.
Got something to say about Senate Joint Resolution 19? If not, please don’t come back. I’m not averse to being freepmailed on any subject, but I am averse to threads being spammed.
I do not agree with your characterizing my views as “sloganeering”.
I will respond where appropriate. Thanks all the same.
There are already laws in some European countries making defamation a criminal offense. It seems the Supreme Court has already evicerated part of the First Amendment by saying that George Soros organizations and labor unions are people, and that their money is speech. We need an amendment to repeal that decision and restore the concept that only living humans are people and that their words alone are speech.
That’s what I was thinking too. This just ain’t new.
That’s exactly how they’re getting around the Constitution these days, not by rewriting it buy redefining the words that make it up. Speech now includes pornography it seems, in many ways no different than prostitution. When they say corporations are people, however, they mean made up of people and having the same rights. Anyway, yes you can go to jail in Europe for racism, and anyone can charge you with it.
The Bill of Rights has been dying for a long time — much of the fault is the War on Drugs; thanks to the judicial justifications and legal-doublespeak on its behalf, 90% of the Bill of Rights is greatly damaged:
Amendment 10 Destroyed by combining necessary and proper with the intrastate/interstate regulation of Wickard.
Amendment 9 Everything. Seriously, EVERYTHING about the War on Drugs is about the federal government exercising powers not expressly delegated by the Constitution.
From Justice Thomass Dissent in Raich:If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress Article I powers as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause have no meaningful limits.Amendment 8 Mandatory minimums and zero tolerance combine to make the punishments outweigh many of the crimes, even is you accept the crime as valid.
Amendment 7 In [civil] asset forfeiture, the victims are routinely denied jury-trials even though the amount in controversy exceeds $20.
Amendment 6 The clogging of the courts with drug-related cases erodes the notion of a speedy trial to a joke. Often drug charges are added on to the list of crimes, which can taint the jury w/ prejudices. Often police act on informants whose identities are protected, which impairs the ability to confront the accuser.
Amendment 5 How does Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984 comply with No person shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law?
Amendment 4 Kentucky v KingThe Fourth Amendment expressly imposes two requirements: All searches and seizures must be reasonable; and a warrant may not be issued unless probable cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity. [...] The proper test follows from the principle that permits warrantless searches: warrantless searches are allowed when the circumstances make it reasonable, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment , to dispense with the warrant requirement.In other words:Yes, the fourth amendment requires warrants for searches, but fuck that!
Amendment 3 [Nope, nothing here... yet.]
Amendment 2 Arguably, the prohibited persons from the `68 GCA.
Amendment 1 Religious freedom is denied via the war on drugs (see Employment-Division v. Smith), there are stories of legalization-advocacy publishers being raided/harassed.
Also all the other nine. And they haven’t much use for the rest of the document either. Its only the product of a bunch of old slave-holding sexist white Christian guys, right?
Yup, especially when a bunch of slaveholding communist guys ruling the roost is so much better. The party of segregation and discrimination and all that.
That sounds fascistic to me. Only fascists like Obama want to limit free speech.
I have free speech. You have free speech. The legal arrangements surrounding how we sound off and how we pay for our megaphones should have no relevance!
As soon as you admit any other possibility, you are a tool of the Left!
The reason for the 2nd amendment is to protect the rest of the BOR.
See Donald Sterling and others, people are already being punished for having the “wrong” opinions
Video on you tube from the article - pass this one around...also see post #29
Ted Cruz Senate Dems to Repeal the First Amendment
“......the bastards want to repeal the whole Bill of Rights.”
BINGO! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!
It’s not just the First Amendment, the lawless Demmunists can’t abide the entirety of the Constitution.
I had to do a double take on that one, what with that acronym also being used on here as the initials of Bill O’Reilly aka the real-life Ted Baxter. (He thinks he’s a Bill O’Rights all to himself.)
Some combination of these three, or so it’s beginning to feel like.
Chinese exports to America last year: 440 billion dollars.
American exports to China last year: 122 billion dollars.
Well I don’t agree completely, but here’s another link from your apparently favorite site:
I don’t think my post was however a left field post. I believe I do focus on American jobs - but I do that because both parties are 100% sold out about moving US jobs to other countries - have been for many years.
As I said earlier in this post, I responded to the original post because it was about Ted Cruz.
I believe Ted Cruz has a very huge significance in America.
I believe he may be America’s president.
So I believe any topic about Ted Cruz automatically becomes one I might respond to. You pick Ted Cruz to talk about, you get a whole lot of messages back.
Now I admit I am more concerned than just about anyone else on this site, about China absorbing all of our jobs.
That may be because I have been there and worked there, and I recognize what this means.
China is overtaking America.
I believe this is HUGELY important, and I believe America needs to change our way of dealing with China, before China simply takes over the entire world.
Admitedly this means, I focus on China more than most do. However most have their heads in the sand about China.
China now makes more than America makes. And that is rapidly growing.
So I talk about it.
Nobody else does.
Until we get more involved in our own country’s future, that is what the deal is.
But if you’ve got to use one of your posts, I believe that one above is closer.
I’m not trying to disrupt things totally. I merely am trying to say some things, which apparently put me on the opposite side from quite a few people on this site.
So be it.
Again, here is the link to the site you like to reference, with another link:
I don’t completely agree with that, but it’s closer.
The shakers and movers of today’s USA have managed to put the remarkable capabilities of the USA, at least as once was, between the rock of backwardness of Islam for oil and the hard spot of Chinese cleverness for industrial expansion and goods.
I think it’s less that people are disagreeing with you, and more that it’s getting tiresome to see it from you on every single page, even on topics that don’t have anything to do with jobs.
Especially since you’re not really offering any kind of solution that we can do right now. All I’ve seen you proposing is a tariff, but even if I was to accept that was a good start, how do you propose to get it passed?
Glad to see the first amendment in operation here.