Ted Cruz, US senator, TX says Democrats have 41 co-sponsors on a Constitutional amendment to change the First Amendment.
While the State exists there can be no freedom; when there is freedom there will
be no State.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
The vote will be held this summer. They are losing the debate and trying to shut down bloggers and radio talk shows. It gives congress the right to regulate political speech.
CNS NEWS – “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.”
“Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has announced the Senate Democrats are scheduling a vote on a constitutional amendment to give Congress the authority to regulate political speech, because elected officials have decided they don’t like it when the citizenry has the temerity to criticize what they’ve done,” he said.
“They don’t like it when pastors in their community stand up and speak the truth,” Cruz said to an audience of hundreds of pastors from across the country.
“And I’ll note this amendment, which has 41 Democratic senators as co-sponsors – 41 Democrats have signed on to repealing the First Amendment,” Cruz said. “It explicitly says nothing in this new amendment shall abridge the freedom of the press.
“So the New York Times is protected, but it doesn’t say the same thing about the freedom of speech,” Cruz said. “It doesn’t say the same thing about religious liberty.”
"They are...trying to shut down bloggers and radio talk shows."
ReplyDeleteIncorrect, insofar as those venues are part of "the Press". The text of the proposed amendment (here) specifically exempts freedom of the press from any restrictions pursuant to this amendment. You can blog away all you want.
"It gives congress the right to regulate political speech."
To a limited extent, yes -- where there's money (or equivalent) involved, and then only when it's spent on candidates (versus issues). This is similar to (though actually less restrictive than) McCain-Feingold, but on a constitutional level so it can also be passed down to the States if they choose (and it negates arguments such that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional legislation by specifically making the changes to the Constitution, instead).
You still retain your right to say whatever you want as an individual; the limits come in as financial restrictions against how you say it if you wish to promote or attack a political candidate via advertising.
Which is still more than enough to oppose the entire thing, IMO. But the usual political partisan bullshit is trying to blow it up into something it's not. Take for instance this:
Cruz: "41 Democrats have signed on to repealing the First Amendment"
This is flat out bullshit. This amendment would no more repeal the First Amendment than the National Firearms Act repealed the Second Amendment. Restrictions are unconstitutionally wrong, but they are not the same thing as repealing.
and this:
“So the New York Times is protected, but it doesn’t say the same thing about the freedom of speech,” Cruz said. “It doesn’t say the same thing about religious liberty.”
That's because it was intended to partially restrict freedom of speech, as noted above -- why would they try to cover something and then exempt it? And it has nothing to do with religious liberty at all, unless your practice of religion extends to buying television airtime on behalf of a political candidate. You can still buy airtime to condemn abortion, or oppose a race track being built next to your church, or whatever.
I think the thing is silly and will not be ratified anyway. But the partisan rhetoric just makes politicians like this look like they haven't a clue what they're talking about, and don't deserve to be in office.
Now all they have to do is to define the press. They are already saying that Bloggers aren't the press. This gives the NY Times the power to say any negative thing about any politician and the reserve the editorial decision to say what is and is not printed. You can't see the danger in this?
ReplyDeleteSo if say the Tea Party raises 100,000 dollars to have a rally in support of or against a certain candidate, congress can outlaw it.
3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant
ReplyDeleteCongress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.
That's just bullshit. Pretty damn bland, "Nothing in this article"
Why not "This article shall not be construed to grant
Congress the power to make any law regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"This gives the NY Times the power to say any negative thing about any politician and the reserve the editorial decision to say what is and is not printed. You can't see the danger in this?"
ReplyDeleteThe NYT already has the ability to endorse any candidate and to determine what they print. The provision in the proposed amendment doesn't add to this -- it prevents Congress from taking it away.
As for bloggers not being "press" -- all one need do is cover a local event and voila! Instant press.
"So if say the Tea Party raises 100,000 dollars to have a rally in support of or against a certain candidate, congress can outlaw it."
Yes, and that's why it's a bad idea. That's what McCain-Feingold did,too. But making it an amendment makes it that much more difficult to undo in the future.