First amedment being repealled?

[Professor Buzzkill]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1jsU9hQH84

Don't know what to make of this. Seems just as likely to happen under a republican regime as well.

[HappyMonkey]

And if you believe this, I've a bridge to sell you.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Cruz is just afraid his war chest is gonna go empty cause somebody wants to regulate campaign finance.

He's just pandering the the fears of the uniformed, as always.

1st Session

S. J. RES. 19

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

June 18, 2013

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

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.

• 
  Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
  

`Article--

• 
  `Section 1. To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes, Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on--
  

• 
  
  • 
    `(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and
    

• 
  
  • 
    `(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.
    

• 
  `Section 2. To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes, each State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to State elections, including through setting limits on--
  

• 
  
  • 
    `(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and
    

• 
  
  • 
    `(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.
    

• 
  `Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.
  

`Section 4. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'.

• 
  

[Professor Buzzkill]

Cruz is just afraid his war chest is gonna go empty cause somebody wants to regulate campaign finance.

He's just pandering the the fears of the uniformed, as always.

So is this about "money = free speech" and therefore "less money = less free speech". If so, then i am not worried. Seems Ted Cruz is really reaching on this one

[DeWitz]

Well said, and with brevity! This is more Ted Cruz being, well, Ted Cruz.

Edited May 26, 2014 by DeWitz

[Imaginarynumber1]

So is this about "money = free speech" and therefore "less money = less free speech". If so, then i am not worried. Seems Ted Cruz is really reaching on this one

Yup. Cruz is mad cause if this passes he can't spend all that sweet, sweet corporate money.

[acidhead]

[+and-then]

So is this about "money = free speech" and therefore "less money = less free speech". If so, then i am not worried. Seems Ted Cruz is really reaching on this one

I disagree. Can you think of any more crucial connection these days? And did the Supremes not just rule specifically in the opposite of this? As I recall they made the ruling that any amounts are okay. This is a work around for the Dems who seem to be enjoying superior funding under the status quo ante of that decision. Don't mistake me - I think the corrosive effect of $$ on elections is indisputable - but at least the SC made it a fair game between all the Parties.

[Imaginarynumber1]

I disagree. Can you think of any more crucial connection these days? And did the Supremes not just rule specifically in the opposite of this? As I recall they made the ruling that any amounts are okay. This is a work around for the Dems who seem to be enjoying superior funding under the status quo ante of that decision. Don't mistake me - I think the corrosive effect of $$ on elections is indisputable - but at least the SC made it a fair game between all the Parties.

I don't care what the supreme court says. I'm broke as **** and i'll say whatever the hell I want!

Edited May 26, 2014 by Imaginarynumber1

[+DieChecker]

I'm chalking this up to "campaign talk". This actually is pretty stupid, it could hurt him more then it helps.

[Frank Merton]

The US Constitution is way outdated and needs complete rewrite. The only thing that keeps it going is that the Supreme Court is made up of lawyers and they can always find a way to make a given text mean whatever they want it to mean.

[Beany]

As a democrat & a liberal, I'm crossing my fingers that Ted will get some traction along party lines. He may be the best hope Hilary has of winning, now that the Tea Party seems to have run its course and Republicans are starting to realize that their stance on immigration may win or lose them the next election. I'm actually pleased that they are re-considering the immigration issue, because it's going to take both parties working together to find some solutions.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Beany

[aztek]

[media=]

[/media]

i can totaly see some of the posters here sign this.

Edited May 26, 2014 by aztek

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

The US Constitution is way outdated and needs complete rewrite. The only thing that keeps it going is that the Supreme Court is made up of lawyers and they can always find a way to make a given text mean whatever they want it to mean.

Would you trust American "Political Science Majors" and lawyers to rewrite the Constitution?

I sure as hell wouldn't.

If there's something outdated in it, you Amend it, not chuck it out.

[029b10]

I'm actually pleased that they are re-considering the immigration issue, because it's going to take both parties working together to find some solutions.

One might argue that the Congress does not have the legislative authority to restrict or encumber the migration of Latin Americans into the United States in accordance with provisions set forth in

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That would include the jurisdiction of Canada as well since all States are required to comply with the UN resolution adopted,

including the obligation of compliance with the resolution .http://www.un.org/es...ts/DRIPS_en.pdf

The basis of this premise is the Treaty signed on behalf of the People of the United States by President Harry S. Truman in November in 1945, [1] who assumed office following the unexpected death of Franklin D. Roosevelt

months earlier, and being duly made in accordance with Section 2, Article 2 which provides the Presidential power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds

of the Senators present concur. [2]

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be

the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States,

shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

While part of the agreement with the UN cited in footnote [1] stated, SEC. 6. Nothing in the agreement shall be construed as *in any way diminishing, abridging, or weakening the right of the United States to safeguard its own security and completely to control the entrance of aliens into any territory of the United States other than the headquarters district and its immediate vicinity, as to be defined and fixed in a supplementary agreement between the Government of the United States and the United Nations in pursuance of section 13 (3) (e) of the agreement, and such areas as it is reasonably necessary to traverse in transit between the same and foreign countries. Moreover, nothing in section 14 of the agreement with respect to facilitating entrance into the United States by persons who wish to visit the headquarters district and do not enjoy the right of entry provided in section 11 of the agreement shall be construed to amend or suspend in any way the immigration laws of the United States or to commit the United States m any way to effect any amendment or suspension of such laws.

Edited May 26, 2014 by 029b10

[Frank Merton]

Would you trust American "Political Science Majors" and lawyers to rewrite the Constitution?

I sure as hell wouldn't.

If there's something outdated in it, you Amend it, not chuck it out.

For some strange reason the original authors provided for Constitutional Conventions to periodically rewrite the document. I wonder why if they are to be ignored.

Who would do the rewrite, I admit, is problematical. People of the caliber of the Founders are in short supply. I suppose this is because democracy has that effect and competent honest people go into other fields.

[andy4]

Take away the first amendment and you have a true 2nd revolution on your hands. Seems to just be political rhetoric, perhaps just to draw some attention and exposure.

[The Silver Thong]

As a democrat & a liberal, I'm crossing my fingers that Ted will get some traction along party lines. He may be the best hope Hilary has of winning, now that the Tea Party seems to have run its course and Republicans are starting to realize that their stance on immigration may win or lose them the next election. I'm actually pleased that they are re-considering the immigration issue, because it's going to take both parties working together to find some solutions.

Ted Cruz is Canadian, born in my home town. He can`t run.

[Yamato]

Seems just as likely to happen under a republican regime as well.

Clearly a contender for Understatement of the Year Award.

But if I have to give you a serious response, all I can really say is yes, yes, and yes.

[Yamato]

I'm getting tired of Congress voting on bills that give Congress more power.

They should stay within the confines of the power they have been bestowed with by the Constitution. These illegal power grabs shouldn't only become an issue when the First Amendment is involved. It's too important for that.

[Babe Ruth]

I'm getting tired of Congress voting on bills that give Congress more power.

They should stay within the confines of the power they have been bestowed with by the Constitution. These illegal power grabs shouldn't only become an issue when the First Amendment is involved. It's too important for that.

The founders were well aware of the tendency of governments to usurp power not lawfully theirs, and tried to compensate for it be writing a pretty specific founding document.

Alas, their best efforts failed in the long run, as humans controlling the government simply disregarded the founding document and its rules. We don't need a new document or even to amend it, we need to hold the government to the documents restrictions and demands.

[seeder]

Maybe if all Americans emailed the constitution to each other, the NSA will finally read it.

[Babe Ruth]

Well Congress paid lip service to the Constitution a few years ago by opening their session by having different members read portions of the document.

Lip Service only, as they soon passed the NDAA amendment repealing Habeas Corpus.