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 can’t get any worse, it does,” Cruz said at the FRC’s Watchmen on the Wall 2014 event in Washington, D.C. on Thursday. “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.”
Calling these “perilous, perilous times,” Cruz said Senate Democrats have said they are ready to vote on the amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 19—“an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.” …
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
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 Thomas’s 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 King”The 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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1jsU9hQH84
“......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.)
How?
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.