1st amendment to be banned

[Bitter Clinger]

On May 15, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on June 3 on amending the U.S. Constitution to limit political speech. If ultimately adopted, it would mark the first time in American history that a constitutional amendment rescinded a freedom listed as among the fundamental rights of the American people.
The proposed amendment was introduced by Sen. Tom Udall (D-CO) as S.J.R. 19 and if ratified would become the Twenty-Eighth Amendment. It provides in part that “Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect [to] the Federal elections … [and] State elections.”
The proposed amendment includes a provision that “Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.” So Breitbart News, The New York Times, and the mainstream media would be able to say whatever they want, but citizens and citizen groups such as the National Rifle Association could not.

As if I needed another reason to hate that roosterfish reid and "Tom" udall

http://www.rightwingnews.com/uncategorized/change-harry-reid-plans-a-vote-to-amend-constitution-to-limit-political-speech/

http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/19

it would appear this isnt OUR favorite moonbat udall but New Mexicos Tom Udall

[Zundfolge]

This is wonderful news.

Do you realize how incredibly difficult it is to amend the constitution?

It will never make it but it will be a constantly open sore reminding people that the Democrats are anything but democratic and hate the basic concepts of liberty. It could also end up lighting a fire under Mark Levin's Liberty Amendments plan.

[Big E3]

Tom Udall is a New Mexico senator. But he is a Udall and related to Mark Udick here in CO, who I dislike very much, and must be defeated.

[rbeau30]

They don't need a Constitutional Amendment to pass/enforce/uphold judicially Constitutionally Illegal laws.

[BPTactical]

They don't need a Constitutional Amendment to pass/enforce/uphold judicially Constitutionally Illegal laws.

What's stopping them?

[HoneyBadger]

What's stopping them?
You and me, brother. [Beer]

[sniper7]

I question when the time has come, if it will be here soon, or if it passed and we missed it.

[hatidua]

For all intents/purposes, the 1st Amendment is already gone. Political Correctness gets people fired for speaking their minds, gets people banned from web forums for airing their thoughts, and causes social/occupational banishment should you speak outside the currently acceptable lines. While some will simply deem those actions as 'consequences' of offensive speech, the pressure to conform is, in effect, ruling out free speech.

[kidicarus13]

For all intents/purposes, the 1st Amendment is already gone. Political Correctness gets people fired for speaking their minds, gets people banned from web forums for airing their thoughts, and causes social/occupational banishment should you speak outside the currently acceptable lines. While some will simply deem those actions as 'consequences' of offensive speech, the pressure to conform is, in effect, ruling out free speech.

Donald Sterling who?

[theGinsue]

For all intents/purposes, the 1st Amendment is already gone. Political Correctness gets people fired for speaking their minds, gets people banned from web forums for airing their thoughts, and causes social/occupational banishment should you speak outside the currently acceptable lines. While some will simply deem those actions as 'consequences' of offensive speech, the pressure to conform is, in effect, ruling out free speech.

This is a tired argument.

The First Amendment applies to limitations of the government on restricting citizens; it has nothing to do with anything outside of government limitations. This is as true for entities such as web forums as it is in your home. You say Political Correctness has killed the 1st. While I'll agree that the PC movement has done more harm than good, it has nothing to do with limitations on THIS site. Suppose I were to come into your home where other guests were present and I started spouting obscenities or perhaps things that you agreed with in principle, yet totally disagreed with in my execution - and many of your other guests were offended by my words. Would you not instruct me to curb my speech? What if I failed to do so? Would you send me packing? Likely. Consider this forum Marlin's home and the Staff here his family members entrusted with ensuring all of the guests behave themselves. Unlike our actual homes, this venue does its best to publish our rules and limitations on speech up front. No one is coerced into visiting this site; all are free to leave and not return if our limitations are unacceptable. You want to call it Political Correctness, but we prefer to see it as maintaining good order and ensuring an environment were the bulk of our members and visitors can feel comfortable.

[HoneyBadger]

This is a tired argument.

...Political Correctness, but we prefer to see it as maintaining good order and ensuring an environment were the bulk of our members and visitors can feel comfortable.
...Which I honestly appreciated about this forum. Thank you for keeping it relatively clean. [Beer]

And that behavior is totally acceptable for a private institution such as this, or even the NBA, but no court or government organization should be involved.

[Hound]

Here is what your supposed free speach BUYS ya.


http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/congressman-bankrolled-by-isps-tries-to-halt-internet-regulation/


Limiting contributions does not limit free speech, it allows it. Do you think they listen to you or I compared to the Koch Bros or Bloominidiot unless we pull off a miracle (only AFTER having our rights taken away) like we did last year? No, Bloomy bought taking our rights away, Comcast and Verizon are buying taking the Internet away (which is a REAL threat to free speech) and so much more. If EVERYBODY were limited to say $100, it makes our Speech (as you put it) equal. What is being espoused here is what Orwell warned about when he said that "Every animal is equal.... Some are just more equal than others."

[Eric P]

I so love being un-pc at work. Always spokesman instead of spokeswoman/person, no undocumented laborers but illegal aliens, every document is written in the masculine form, I don't tippy toeing around some ones feelings when something goes wrong and I have no problem bluntly pointing out flaws in proposals. Most don't seem to mind except a few feminized men.

Anyone who is against pc-ness should not use pc made-up words.

[ANADRILL]

For all intents/purposes, the 1st Amendment is already gone. Political Correctness gets people fired for speaking their minds, gets people banned from web forums for airing their thoughts, and causes social/occupational banishment should you speak outside the currently acceptable lines. While some will simply deem those actions as 'consequences' of offensive speech, the pressure to conform is, in effect, ruling out free speech.


Yep who needs an amendment, when you have liberal trolls....