Posted on 06/29/2014 1:19:29 PM PDT by Kaslin
If they can get The First Amendment killed .it’s all over for the US
We must never allow them to do it.
Udall is up for re-election this November in New Mexico.
What a fine time to let him feel the power of the people.
Oh, and here is the complete list of Senate co-sponsors from the body of the bill:
Mr. Udall of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Tester, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Coons, Mr. King, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Franken, Ms. Klobuchar, and Mr. Udall of Colorado) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
They used to teach in school that the Bill of Rights was the shining example for the world of what the USA was all about, and that it was sacrosanct and untouchable. It used to be thought that no one would ever dare to even suggest modifying a single word in the Bill of Rights,
That’s obviously changed now!
“If they can get The First Amendment killed .it’s all over for the US.”
Uhhh, waiting for that to happen is sort of like waiting around for the coroners inquest. You don’t need it to know that someone has gone to their eternal reward.
It’s time for a divorce.
Which is very unfortunate and you can thank the left for it
That’s obviously changed now!
The advent of the low-information voter.
All rats, so it does not surprise me . How far have they been able to go with it?
Oh, and here is the complete list of Senate co-sponsors from the body of the bill:
Mr. Udall of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Tester, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Coons, Mr. King, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Franken, Ms. Klobuchar, and Mr. Udall of Colorado) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
No surprise at all Schumer, Boxer, King, and Frankenstein are on the bill...
1 - the amendment would give each State the same authority regarding State elections that it gives Congress for federal elections.
2 - the amendment also allow for the regulation or prohibition of "in-kind equivalents", which sounds like saying anything supporting or opposing a candidate (even if no money is spent or raised).
3 - even though the amendment says that it does not permit Congress to abridge freedom of the press, it does not say the same thing regarding the States; this suggests the powers each State would be given could be used to control all forms of the news media within a State's borders.
Even though this amendment has no chance of being adopted (for now at least), it does show that a growing number of Democrats have become so arrogant that they feel that they can openly call for the silencing of their critics.
they want to take out free speech on the very core subject it was put in there to guarantee - political speech.
The Second Amendment is there to guarantee the sanctity of the First. These azzholes better think about that.
The Democrats don’t like any of the bill of rights
Only 44 RATs? Make ‘em all run on that.
“The Democrats don’t like any of the bill of rights”
Not exactly. They love the amendment that guarantees a woman’s right to abort babies. Let’s see, which number is that one again?
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.