Help End FReepathons by Donating Monthly! Generous FReeper Sponsors are donating $10 for every New Monthly Donor! Please Sign Up today!
Posted on 05/06/2015 2:25:34 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Fresh off the heels of CNN anchor Chris Cuomo’s embrace a philosophy that would result in the elimination of federal protections on “hate speech” (he mistakenly believed that those protections had been eliminated over a half-century ago by the Supreme Court), Barack Obama’s likely successor as America’s leading Democrat has embraced the cause of restricting free speech.
In her dogged quest to sate her restless left-flank, Hillary Clinton has endorsed the notion that the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC can only be reversed by passing an amendment to the Constitution. The Court determined in Citizens United that restrictions on campaign financing violated the First Amendment to the Constitution. As such, any amendment aimed at reversing that decision necessarily requires restricting the freedoms protected by the first item in the Bill of Rights.
Democrats contend that their amendment does not do away with the First, although they must concede that it does reform that key article of the Bill of Rights. Committed liberals often note that preventing unaccountable wealthy donors from unduly influencing the political process is generally popular. And it is, but so is the First Amendment. These two opposing conditions are irreconcilable. As a result, Democrats often refuse to attempt to reconcile them.
“Throughout American history, this constitutional guarantee of free speech has been the bulwark of the country’s experiment in self-government,” Donald McGahn wrote in a recent Wall Street Journal opinion. “Yet this consensus disappeared following Citizens United. The Democratic Party’s leadership, fearing the electoral losses that ultimately came to pass, called for a crusade to undo the Supreme Court’s decision. Their holy war found its fullest expression in the demand for a constitutional amendment that would, in essence, repeal the First Amendment.”
Hillary Clinton is now on board this campaign, based on her recent pledge to “fix” our political system “even if that takes a constitutional amendment.” For a hint of what her proposed amendment might look like, consider the measure then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) brought to the Senate floor last year. The so-called Udall Amendment—introduced by Sen. Tom Udall (D., N.M.), co-sponsored by 48 other Democratic senators, and ultimately supported by 54 senators, but no Republicans—was designed to reverse Citizens United.
Outside the bubble, political observers can sense intuitively that attacking the First Amendment in order to satisfy the Democratic Party’s left wing will be a disaster for Democrats. This mission reflects the degree to which the fringe activist base has supplanted moderates as the constituency that sets the party’s agenda.
When Democrats passed a procedural vote that allowed debate on this new constitutional amendment, then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid scolded Republicans for failing to block it. He noted that debate on this matter would limit the time they could have used to consider agenda items that had a snowball’s chance of passed. In other words, the Nevada Democrat was frustrated that Republicans did not save his party members from themselves.
“Critics have claimed that the amendment would repeal the First Amendment’s free speech protections. But it does the exact opposite,” wrote amendment backers Udall and former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) in an op-ed supportive of restrictions on constitutionally protected free expression. “[T]he proposal is an effort to restore the First Amendment so that it applies equally to all Americans. When a few billionaires can drown out the voices of millions of Americans, we can’t have any real political debate.”
Democrats intend to destroy the First Amendment in order to save it. It doesn’t take a consultant to know that this is not a winning message ahead of 2016. Add to this the progressive commitment to addressing the scourge of “hate speech,” and you have a liberal crusade to permanently undermine the bedrock American freedoms of expression, association, and thought.
Inside the bubble, the Democratic Party’s illiberal mission to undo one of the greatest achievements of the founding generation will cheered on by influential media figures like Chris Cuomo. It is hard to believe that such an ill-considered and myopically partisan effort will be greeted with enthusiasm by the rest of the country.
Passing an AMENDMENT?
She’s getting weak. The way to go is USSC, as every liberal knows.
Messing with the Constitution to restrict this fundamental right enshrined in our Bill of Rights would bring on the shot heard around the world.
Hillary’s also pandering to Muslims, who want Sharia-authorized limits on speech in America.
Hillary’s like a sh!t-mine. Take anything she says, and start digging, and you’ll find layer after layer after layer of sh!t. It’s incredible how utterly corrupt she is, like a strange-attractor for corruption out of the chaos of the world, a sinkhole of every denser levels of rot, a collapsed building of sordid trash compacting underneath itself, an intergalactic transdimensional... LOL!
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie
Hillary will say anything and then flip flop ,LOL
If they want to intervene with hate speech then why don’t they complain about the Westboro Baptist Church.
Scalia and Kennedy both turn 80 next year. Hillary will get to rewrite the Constitution if she replaces either one of them. If she replaces both then far left wing liberals will be legislating from the bench for the next 30 years.
The Muslims only want free speech as long as they can spew their rhetoric and the rest of us have to shut up and accept it. No thanks!
Jesus Christ.
Can she get any more pathetic and insignificant?
She won't get any such Constitutional amendment ratified, ever, and she knows it. That part's nothing but dog chew thrown to her progressive poodles. And yes, the fringe activist base has been in control for some time now - we never would have seen issues such as transgender liberation were it not for a noisy, self-important crowd of activists.
What Hillary and the rest are banking on is that the issues may not matter, and the more complex they are, the less they may matter because they're hard to think about. They're after the Stupid Vote that got 0bama into office and they must might get it.
Leave the First Amendment alone.
This issue is actually another 17th Amendment-related problem imo.
More specifically, I wouldn’t be surprised if rich people target corrupt senators who pass unconstitutional appropriations bills from the House, rich people making lucrative government contracts through these senators.
Patriots need to work with state lawmakers to repeal the 17th Amendment to put an end to corrupt senators passing unconstitutional appropriations bills. Then, since it would probably be much easier for individual states to recall corrupt state lawmakers, rich people can work with corrupt state lawmakers to steal from individual states instead of robbing the whole nation.
And if a state’s voters just sit on their hands and don’t do anything about corruption then state can go bankrupt and nation can remove a star from the flag. That’s better than having the whole country go down the drain.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear, along with a bunch of corrupt senators.
The one in the middle has an AWESOME BOD.
Hillary, baby, the Bill of Rights didn’t come to us from the government. It came from We The People when we chartered you to serve us. Those are the rules you must obey. Have a nice day.
Bookmark
I’ll do anything...anything. Just get me back in the WH!!!!!
IOW, if a Dim gets in (probably any Dim) we will see an increase of the lawlessness because it hasn't been 'nipped in the bud', with Obama.
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.