Amending the First Amendment?

[BoogyMan]

So the world is crumbling around us and what does the American Socialist Party (AKA: Democrats) do? Lets change the 1st amendment!!!


On Aug. 1, shortly before the Senate shut down for a five-week recess, Sen. Reid scheduled a Sept. 8 procedural vote — the first order of business the upper chamber will tackle when it returns from its break — on a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to cap the amount of money that can be spent on political speech. Senate Joint Resolution 19 would reverse the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United and 2014 McCutcheon rulings, which overturned hard caps on total direct contributions to candidates in any one election and said the federal government cannot limit issue advocacy spending by nonprofits, super PACs, unions and corporations. The proposed amendment to an amendment, authored by Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., would not only give Congress the authority to limit political advocacy spending — core protected expression — but prohibit judges from overturning any other campaign finance laws the legislative branch proposes in the future. (http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorial-amending-first-amendment)

The government that uses the IRS to politically target dissent is now going to try and modify the foundation of free speech in our country?

[Gunny]

So the world is crumbling around us and what does the American Socialist Party (AKA: Democrats) do? Lets change the 1st amendment!!!



The government that uses the IRS to politically target dissent is now going to try and modify the foundation of free speech in our country?

Trying to make it even harder for 3rd parties to compete. Nice.

This is what gets me: " -but prohibit judges from overturning any other campaign finance laws the legislative branch proposes in the future." Sound a bit unconstitutional?

[BoogyMan]

This is truly chilling. Not only is it unconstitutional but it is a boldly and unashamedly unconstitutional effort that the left is touting as good for the country. These clowns are doing this out in the open without fear of the people and without any concern for the absolute fundamental shift of power from the populace to the central government.

As a country we are in trouble. There are 42 benthic morons that have signed onto this effort with Reid.

[Gunny]

This is truly chilling. Not only is it unconstitutional but it is a boldly and unashamedly unconstitutional effort that the left is touting as good for the country. These clowns are doing this out in the open without fear of the people and without any concern for the absolute fundamental shift of power from the populace to the central government.

As a country we are in trouble. There are 42 benthic morons that have signed onto this effort with Reid.

What always gets me is that THIS is what those morons are doing. We've got military spread all over the Middle East. We can't secure our own borders. We can't secure our damned economy. Yet THIS is what they spend our tax dollars that pay them coming up with?

Yeah, I'd say we are in trouble.

[Kathianne]

Seems this has been kicking around for more than a year. From the OP, I didn't think it would get anywhere, interestingly enough the ACLU is strongly against it, going so far as to chastise partisans within their ranks:

http://www.nationallawjournal.com/legaltimes/home/id=1202669239195/Former-ACLU-Leaders-Quarrel-With-Current-Leadership-Over-Campaign-Finance?mcode=1202615432600&curindex=0&back=NLJ&slreturn=20140808205249

[fj1200]

This is truly chilling. Not only is it unconstitutional but it is a boldly and unashamedly unconstitutional effort that the left is touting as good for the country. These clowns are doing this out in the open without fear of the people and without any concern for the absolute fundamental shift of power from the populace to the central government.

As a country we are in trouble. There are 42 benthic morons that have signed onto this effort with Reid.

Meh, won't go anywhere but it will raise massive amounts of campaign funding which is rather ironic... don't you think?

[gabosaurus]

While we're at it, let's amend or abolish the second amendment. What was relevant in late 18th century is not so in the modern era.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

While we're at it, let's amend or abolish the second amendment. What was relevant in late 18th century is not so in the modern era.

Lets just abolish the abolishers..:laugh:--Tyr

[gabosaurus]

Lets just abolish the abolishers..:laugh:--Tyr

I'm in favor of amending your abolishing.

[jimnyc]

While we're at it, let's amend or abolish the second amendment. What was relevant in late 18th century is not so in the modern era.

PLEASE let you and your nitwit friends continue down this path. ALL you're doing is making the right stronger and stronger, and bringing others over who don't want to see the stinking government continually overreaching.

[Gunny]

What I find hard to swallow is that this even got traction. They want to sign into law legislation that basically says courts cannot overturn their laws? A DIRECT violation of the Constitution and the make up of government. I mean, no attempt to disguise it or anything.

[fj1200]

What I find hard to swallow is that this even got traction. They want to sign into law legislation that basically says courts cannot overturn their laws? A DIRECT violation of the Constitution and the make up of government. I mean, no attempt to disguise it or anything.

Well... to be fair even bad Constitutional Amendments are by definition Constitutional. See the 16th, 17th, 18th...

:scared:

[tailfins]

While we're at it, let's amend or abolish the second amendment. What was relevant in late 18th century is not so in the modern era.

If we're in the business of abolishing amendments, let's make it the nineteenth amendment.

[Gunny]

Well... to be fair even bad Constitutional Amendments are by definition Constitutional. See the 16th, 17th, 18th...

:scared:

Why the 17th?

[fj1200]

Why the 17th?

Because the State legislatures are no longer represented in the Federal government. The people are represented twice while the states not at all. I would repeal it and require the legislatures appoint their Senators and not defer to the people as some had before the 17th. :)

[Gunny]

Because the State legislatures are no longer represented in the Federal government. The people are represented twice while the states not at all. I would repeal it and require the legislatures appoint their Senators and not defer to the people as some had before the 17th. :)

Okay. Makes sense.

[fj1200]

Okay. Makes sense.

I would also mandate that all Federal elections, including POTUS electors, be subject to a runoff if no one achieves 50% +1. If only in some small way to encourage third party candidates.

[Gaffer]

I would also mandate that all Federal elections, including POTUS electors, be subject to a runoff if no one achieves 50% +1. If only in some small way to encourage third party candidates.

Good luck with that. Both party's will fight that tooth and nail. They like their monopoly.

"we don't need no steenking third party" :laugh:

[fj1200]

Good luck with that. Both party's will fight that tooth and nail. They like their monopoly.

"we don't need no steenking third party" :laugh:

I never said it would work. But at least my Amendment isn't based on hating the country like Reid, et al. :scared:

[NightTrain]

I would also mandate that all Federal elections, including POTUS electors, be subject to a runoff if no one achieves 50% +1. If only in some small way to encourage third party candidates.

I've always liked that idea. A lot.

Sure, you don't always get who you want as final contenders... but usually you'll have one of them a hell of a lot closer to your line of thinking than the other guy.

[BoogyMan]

Seems this has been kicking around for more than a year. From the OP, I didn't think it would get anywhere, interestingly enough the ACLU is strongly against it, going so far as to chastise partisans within their ranks:

http://www.nationallawjournal.com/legaltimes/home/id=1202669239195/Former-ACLU-Leaders-Quarrel-With-Current-Leadership-Over-Campaign-Finance?mcode=1202615432600&curindex=0&back=NLJ&slreturn=20140808205249

I agree that the left will not get this out of the starting gate. what concerns me most is that they are unashamedly pushing to destroy the foundation of our republic and that they have been able to get people to cheer them on as if this is a good thing.