Hat Tip: Conservative Tribune
Read more at http://conservativetribune.com/senate-dems-change-1a/#MjQ2J4wqL79X9FhS.99
We the People have been endowed with certain unalienable rights. These rights were not given to us by the government and cannot be taken away by the government, without due process. Rather, such rights are inherent and natural and exist regardless of the government.
The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution guarantees some of these rights and protects them from the government. The First Amendment reads, in part, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.”
Unfortunately, some Democrats in Congress have forgotten the first part of that amendment, and are seeking to make laws that would deliberately abridge the freedom of speech of their political enemies.
In what appears to be a direct assault on the freedom of speech, and the Supreme Court decisions protecting it, Senate Democrats are promising to push a vote on a symbolic constitutional amendment that would grant Congress the authority to make laws limiting political speech in the form of limiting donations and campaign spending.
(H/T: Washington Times)
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat driving the effort, said the justices have taken the First Amendment too far and need to be reeled in by Congress.
“The First Amendment is not absolute,” Mr. Schumer said. “The only way that we can save American democracy, so that people still believe it’s one person, one vote and there’s a semblance of fairness, is a constitutional amendment.”
The move will most likely spark a debate over the fundamentals of free speech, the limits of congressional authority and the nature of political campaigns.
Opponents said they were shocked that Democrats would attempt to amend the Constitution to limit something that the Supreme Court has called a fundamental right and that the move was another way to try to insulate lawmakers from having to hear from voters.
“Campaign finance reform restrictions are always pitched as ‘Let’s prevent corruption, let’s hold politicians accountable,’ and they do exactly the opposite,” said Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican. “Every single restriction this body puts in place is designed to do one thing — protect incumbent politicians.”
This move by the Democrats is in direct response to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which Democrats hate, as evidenced by President Obama publicly scolding the Justices during his 2010 State of the Union, along with the IRS targeting scandal that sought to harass, intimidate and silence conservative nonprofit groups that arose after the decision.
In that case, a divided Supreme Court ruled that interest groups could raise and spend money freely to run ads defending their positions in elections. That struck down key parts of the campaign finance laws Congress enacted, including parts of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
Democrats argue that the court has unleashed a spree of big-spending billionaires intent on distorting democracy. On Wednesday, they again singled out the Koch brothers, who support conservative causes.
But the Supreme Court has ruled that campaign spending is free speech and thus entitled to strong First Amendment protections, particularly in cases in which members of Congress disagree with what is being said.
“Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said in his majority opinion in this year’s McCutcheon v. FEC case. “If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades — despite the profound offense such spectacles cause — it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”
Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens supports the Democrats proposed amendment, believing Congress has a right to limit the playing field in elections, telling the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, “While money is used to finance speech, money is not speech.”
[The] Democrats’ amendment, sponsored by Sen. Tom Udall, New Mexico Democrat, would overturn the landmark 1976 Buckley v. Valeo case that set the outlines of modern campaign finance jurisprudence, as well as the Citizens United decision and the McCutcheon ruling from just a few weeks ago that overturned limits that prevented individuals from giving to as many campaigns as they want.
The amendment would give Congress explicit powers to put a total limit on how much campaigns could raise or spend, and how much outsiders could spend to support or oppose federal candidates. It also would allow states to impose their own restrictions.
As stated before, this move is largely symbolic and has little chance of becoming law. A proposed amendment to the Constitution must be approved by two-thirds of each house of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the states, which is highly unlikely.
Senate Democrats would be wise to reread the First Amendment (really, the entire Constitution) and understand exactly what “Congress shall make no law” means. They are just upset that conservatives have figured out a way to compete with them in raising big money for elections, something the Democrats have dominated for years.
Democrats sure like Supreme Court decisions when they reaffirm or support an issue dear to Democrats, like when the Court upheld Obamacare, but refuse to accept and actively work against decisions that conflict with their agenda
Read more at http://conservativetribune.com/senate-dems-change-1a/#MjQ2J4wqL79X9FhS.99
No comments:
Post a Comment