Posts Tagged ‘first amendment’
You probably thought I was joking! I’m dead serious.
Well they have taken the next illogical step, mainly proposing a constitutional amendment to repeal the First Amendment. The amendment is being cosponsored by Donna Edwards (D-MD) and John Conyers (D-MI) among others.
Jammie has the links and the rest of the story. I told you before – these progressive Democrats really hate our country and our constitution. If you live in either of those states – let both Conyers and Edwards know that if they continue to push this thing – you will exercise your right to free speech and let everyone know what they are up to – and then you’ll exercise your right to vote their asses out next time around.
If this gets any traction – we all need to make sure we get on the horn with our representatives and senators and tell them they better not mess with our most fundamental of all rights – those contained in the First Amendment. You appeal the First Amendment and it opens the doors for the government to take over EVERY aspect of our lives.
For those of you who may have forgotten – here is EVERYTHING that is in The First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
These idiots are treading in some very dangerous waters here.
UPDATE - I’ve decided to go a little further here for my challenged progressive readers. First – here is the Citizens United SCOTUS Decision (opens up a .pdf). I have read the entire 183 page decision – I suggest you do as well. Justice Steven’s Dissenting Opinion is just as long as The Affirmative Decision. Justice Thomas also has a partial dissenting opinion at the tail end. The decision does not reverse 100 years of decided law. It only reversed one section of the entire BCRA of 2002 – all other prior decisions regarding campaign finance laws is still in place. The assumption that everyone is making is that the First Amendment applies ONLY to individuals. Read it again – “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…” Where exactly does it state that this applies only to individuals? The affirmative decision cites several cases where corporate speech has been protected – and – in all of the opinions of those cases – it was only suggested that such speech be carefully monitored – but at no time did it ever say it should be banned or abridged. The BCRA of 2002 did just that – it banned free speech.
As one reader pointed out – what Edwards and Conyers introduced is an Amendment – not a call for a complete repeal of the First Amendment – here is the wording of the introduced Amendment:
‘‘SECTION 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, Congress and the States may regulate the expenditure of funds for political speech by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity.
‘‘SECTION 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.’’
Here are the VERY clear dangers of this Amendment:
1. It does indeed repeal the First Amendment except for the freedom of the press by omission of the remaining First Amendment language. It will be argued as such if this amendment ever gets ratified by the states. If you have ever read previous arguments and decisions coming out of the SCOTUS regarding challenges to any of the amendments – you know what I’m talking about. Omissions are just as important in law interpretation as are submissions.
2. Section 1 allows congress to pick and choose which corporations they want to ban from political speech. The use of “may” is exclusive. For this to be all inclusive of all corporations, LLCs or other corporate entities it NEEDS to say “shall.”
3. This Amendment will be struck down as well because SCOTUS just said Congress cannot pass such a law in the Citizen’s United decision.
4. The Main Stream Media is corporate owned today. At the time the First Amendment was written – it was unheard of or unthinkable that the “press” would become corporate entities. SCOTUS already protected Corporate speech. By specifically stating the corporate owned press is excluded from this amendment – it gives the corporate owned press the ability to become the conduit for those who Congress decides to exclude using section 1. The point I make here is for you liberals and progressives who aren’t thinking this through is this… I know how much you hate Fox. Here is the scenario – Citizen’s United produces a movie called “Obama” this time and gets banned again because of section 1. Now – because of section 2 – Fox news can air the Obama movie because they believe it is newsworthy and worth reporting. They can hide behind freedom of the press. Conversely, MoveOn.org creates a flyer critical of the next GOP candidate. They can’t publish it and distribute it before the election because of section 1. Well, the New York Times decides it is newsworthy and publishes it as an editorial piece. They too are protected because Section 2 excludes them and allows the publication to be protected under the freedom of the press clause.
Wonderful news – someone in SCOTUS decided to grow a pair and actually defend the constitution. That bastardized legislation known as the McCain-Feingold Act that restricted freedom of political speech has been struck down as unconstitutional!
Of course – Gestapo P-BO – the idiot that he is – came out strong against the decision.
With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. … We are going to talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision.
Despite what P-BO and the rest of the liberal Dems have been saying – the fact remains that taxpayer funded abortions are covered under this monstrosity.
Before I get in to some of the details – I will put it on record that I am anti-abortion – as if some of you hadn’t already figured that out. I believe that all life is sacred – and especially the unborn that don’t have a voice.
HOWEVER – it is not my responsibility to tell another individual they can’t have an abortion. My anti-abortion position comes from my religious and moral belief. To me, abortion is outright murder. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has legalized this form of murder. But, God is the real judge. Those who have abortions and kill their unborn children will have to confront Him one day to plea their case.
Having said that – let’s move on – from the link above:
A look at key issues in the health care debate:
THE ISSUE: Would new health care legislation allow abortions to be funded with tax money?
THE POLITICS: Abortion opponents say proposed government-sponsored health insurance plans would change federal policy by paying for abortions in many cases. For years, a restriction in the law that governs Medicaid — health insurance for the poor — has barred federal funding of abortions except in cases of rape, incest and danger to the mother’s life. The proposed legislation would permit government-sponsored health plans, open to non-Medicaid patients, to cover abortions. In seeking a political compromise, a House version would require publicly sponsored plans to pay for abortions with private funds from customers’ premiums, not tax dollars. Critics call the requirement meaningless. They say public and private sources of insurance funding would essentially go into, and come out of, one big pot.
WHAT IT MEANS: Women with private insurance plans that cover abortion might be able to switch to a less-expensive public plan without losing that coverage. Anti-abortion activists would feel they’ve lost an important battle, as taxpayer funds mingle with some insurance plans that, one way or another, pay for abortions.
So – here’s the deal-i-o, this bill has no way of keeping private money from taxpayer money – as stated above – ergo – we taxpayers will be funding abortions. For the 92% of us in this country that are religious – regardless of religious belief – we have a first amendment right to our belief. I know that Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism all believe that abortion is immoral (I can’t say for the others, however, these alone represent a little more than 80% of the population – full breakdown is here). As such, it would be a violation of our first amendment rights for our taxpayer dollars to fund these abortions.
I said earlier that it is not my place to tell someone they can’t have an abortion. However, when MY tax dollars may potentially be funding those abortions – HELL YES I have a right and it is my place to tell you HELL NO you can’t have that abortion. You made the mistake – you either pay for it yourself or you have the child. I won’t pay for it.
Before you libbers jump all over me for that last statement – let’s look at the statistics – of the approximately 1.5 million abortions performed annually in the United States – only 7.2% of those are due to risk to maternal health (2.8%); risk to fetal health (3.3%), or other (includes incest and rape – 2.1%). The remaining 92.8% are mistakes and the woman is using abortion as a form of birth control:
Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5% Wants no (more) children: 7.9% Cannot afford a baby: 21.3% Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%
I’m sorry – but these are not legitimate excuses for having an abortion. In every one of those cases those babies could have been put up for adoption to other families that so frightfully want children but are unable to. Abortions are selfish – and – I’m not going to pay for it. These provisions need to be stripped from any bill that even attempts to reform our health care system.