You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 09, 2016, 03:54:46 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: First Amendment nullified?  (Read 1054 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ZakharraTopic starter

First Amendment nullified?
« on: June 23, 2014, 04:22:54 PM »
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXr2WPR_k0

 I ran across this on another site and thought you all should know. This is something that's damned dangerous to have passed. I am against it and give Sen Cruz kudos for stepping up against it and informing the people and giving a good idea of who is for it.

  I don't know how to link a video, so I included just the link.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2014, 06:46:22 PM by Zakharra »

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: First Amendment repealled?
« Reply #1 on: June 23, 2014, 06:07:30 PM »
The title is somewhat misleading - it takes something like 2/3 of the states voting in favor to get a Constitutional Amendment repealed.  So far, it's only happened once - Amendment 18 (The Prohibition of Alcohol) and Amendment 21 (Repealing Amendment 18).

Online gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: First Amendment repealled?
« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2014, 06:15:28 PM »
I looked around a bit for the background. Isn't the Dem motion he's opposing about improving the chances to seek quick legal action, and perhaps injunctions not to repeat a fake or incendiary statement? - legal action over "smear speech", campaign methods that rely heavily on wholesale character assassination of a candidate for public office or someone who has been connected to them rather than any kind of discussion about the politics that said candidate is advancing. (I think "swiftboating" is another word for roughly the same thing - not that this is unique to the U.S. in any way!)
« Last Edit: June 23, 2014, 06:57:58 PM by gaggedLouise »

Offline ZakharraTopic starter

Re: First Amendment repealled?
« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2014, 06:39:21 PM »
The title is somewhat misleading - it takes something like 2/3 of the states voting in favor to get a Constitutional Amendment repealed.  So far, it's only happened once - Amendment 18 (The Prohibition of Alcohol) and Amendment 21 (Repealing Amendment 18).

 That's true, but if the vid is right, it's an effective repealing of the First Amendment without actually going through the official process of repealing it when Congress gives itself the authority to decide what is free speech and what isn't. I changed the thread title anyways though.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2014, 06:46:46 PM by Zakharra »

Offline ThePrince

Re: First Amendment repealled?
« Reply #4 on: June 23, 2014, 08:02:59 PM »
That's true, but if the vid is right, it's an effective repealing of the First Amendment without actually going through the official process of repealing it when Congress gives itself the authority to decide what is free speech and what isn't. I changed the thread title anyways though.

Congress has as much ability to repeal the First Amendment as I have the ability to make Senator Ted Cruz go away, both procedurally and practically. Even if such a fairy tale scenario was to accrue it would quickly be challenged in the courts and the supreme court would throw it out.

That being said, the video is a sub committee meeting and both sides where just grandstanding knowing full well that the amendment would not go any where. So congress acting as usual.

It's a good idea not to listen to Senator Cruz.

Offline Valthazar

  • Writer ͏͏● Educator ● Gamer ● Roleplayer ● Debater ● Tech Connoisseur ● Gym Rat ● Procrastinator ● As they say, "A simple PM may lead to lifelong friendship" ▬▬▬▬
  • Suspended
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Location: United States
  • Gender: Male
  • Proceed and be bold. Embrace your insecurities.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: First Amendment repealled?
« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2014, 09:11:16 PM »
I agree with Zakharra and give credit to Ted Cruz.

It is not a given that the Supreme Court would automatically throw this type of proposal out.  While I wish it were a given, based on my understanding of the First Amendment, the fact that this proposal is even being seriously discussed suggests that many individuals have a looser interpretation of free speech.

For example, some Europeans would see this proposal as a positive to a free society.  Several European countries limit 'hate speech,' and only now are they realizing how the establishment party is using this clause to mute the voices and political representation of smaller, fringe parties - which are gaining force in the EU.

That's the scenario that Senator Cruz is warning against.

Offline Orange Marmalade

Re: First Amendment nullified?
« Reply #6 on: June 23, 2014, 10:17:15 PM »
Ted Cruz is a nutjob, shouldn't really pay too much attention to anything he says.

Offline ZakharraTopic starter

Re: First Amendment nullified?
« Reply #7 on: June 23, 2014, 11:11:29 PM »
Ted Cruz is a nutjob, shouldn't really pay too much attention to anything he says.

 If Sen Cruz is right and 42 Democrat Senators have signed off on trying to pass this bill, it IS something to worry about,. Just because you don't like the messenger, doesn't mean the messenger is always wrong or a crackpot. You should, if you haven't, listen to what he's saying. That doesn't sound like a crackpot or a nut job speaking, but a well articulated man speaking about trying to preserve the First Amendment.  And if you are dismissing what he's saying just because you dislike him, shame on you. There are many politicians I dislike, but I do admit sometimes they do make good points and sometimes give out good ideas. I don't automatically dismiss what they are saying because they are <insert person>. I listen to what they say, then make up my mind on what they are saying. If Sen Cruz is right, this bill is a direct assault on the freedom of speech in the US and there is no way I would trust -anyone- in Congress to have the power to determine that is reasonable speech. If that bill and the amendments to it are passed, it -will- be abused because it's specifically designed to be abused by the party in power in Congress.

 This:
I agree with Zakharra and give credit to Ted Cruz.

It is not a given that the Supreme Court would automatically throw this type of proposal out.  While I wish it were a given, based on my understanding of the First Amendment, the fact that this proposal is even being seriously discussed suggests that many individuals have a looser interpretation of free speech.

For example, some Europeans would see this proposal as a positive to a free society.  Several European countries limit 'hate speech,' and only now are they realizing how the establishment party is using this clause to mute the voices and political representation of smaller, fringe parties - which are gaining force in the EU.

That's the scenario that Senator Cruz is warning against.

 .. is right. It's an infringement on the public freedom of speech, any speech, especially during election times. It's dangerous and damned scary that Congressmen, those who are supposed to be protecting the Constitution, are instead looking to rip it apart.

 
Quote
Congress has as much ability to repeal the First Amendment as I have the ability to make Senator Ted Cruz go away, both procedurally and practically. Even if such a fairy tale scenario was to accrue it would quickly be challenged in the courts and the supreme court would throw it out.

That being said, the video is a sub committee meeting and both sides where just grandstanding knowing full well that the amendment would not go any where. So congress acting as usual.

It's a good idea not to listen to Senator Cruz.

 It's an active bill in the Senate that is being debated. It's not grandstanding, but a bill that 42 Democrat senators have put their name to and are willing to vote for. To limit -your- freedom of speech.

 And yes Congress could basically write out the First Amendment if no one stops them as they put in all sorts of conditions and limitations. That's the danger. If no one challenges bills like this that seek to limit the First Amendment, or other Amendments (dare I say the Second Amendment many Democrats would absolutely love to get rid of), then the bills will be voted into law and signed and basically carve away entire portions of your rights. Ignoring it is dangerous and saying one of the people sounding the alarm shouldn't be listened too because you don't like him or her is foolish on your part.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2014, 11:17:27 PM by Zakharra »

Offline ThePrince

Re: First Amendment repealled?
« Reply #8 on: June 23, 2014, 11:38:38 PM »
I agree with Zakharra and give credit to Ted Cruz.

It is not a given that the Supreme Court would automatically throw this type of proposal out.  While I wish it were a given, based on my understanding of the First Amendment, the fact that this proposal is even being seriously discussed suggests that many individuals have a looser interpretation of free speech.

The courts have a long standing tradition of striking down laws that circumvent constitutional amendments. From moving Harry Potter books to a permission slip section, to banning hand guns in Washington D.C. and banning gay straight alliance clubs in high schools. There is mountains of percipient that courts (not just the Supreme Court) will not allow you to go around constitutional amendments. This is why you see the ACLU piratically parachutes into small towns when ever they create some law that bans something. They already know that it will get stricken down in court and they will automatically win.

Again this was a committee hearing, there is no reason to believe that it is a serious issue. This is political grandstanding and nothing else. Have it argued on the senate floor and maybe I'll care.



 It's an active bill in the Senate that is being debated. It's not grandstanding, but a bill that 42 Democrat senators have put their name to and are willing to vote for. To limit -your- freedom of speech.

I am not trying to sound mean to you people, but it sounds like you don't have a firm understanding of how our government currently works. 42 Democrat Senators is not enough to get it passed in the senate, it is a dead bill unless it has at lest 51 senators and then their are a bunch of byzantine proceedings that could railroad it. But even if it where to pass the senate, it would have to pass the house, who are controlled by the republicans. This is the same congress that was barely able to keep the nation paying it's bills because they could not agree with one another seven months ago. I have a better chance of getting a virgin slave girl harem than this bill does of getting 70% of congress to agree on that bill.

The only way this seems like it could actually happen is in an Alex Jones fever dream.

And yes Congress could basically write out the First Amendment if no one stops them as they put in all sorts of conditions and limitations. That's the danger. If no one challenges bills like this that seek to limit the First Amendment, or other Amendments (dare I say the Second Amendment many Democrats would absolutely love to get rid of), then the bills will be voted into law and signed and basically carve away entire portions of your rights. Ignoring it is dangerous and saying one of the people sounding the alarm shouldn't be listened too because you don't like him or her is foolish on your part.

That's what our Judicial body of government is for, it's there to strike down laws that violate our constitutional rights.

EDIT: How about a compromise. If you can find me the amendment that Senator Ted Cruz is talking about and which committee it's been in so we can verify it is what Ted Cruz is warning about. I will concede that it is a serious issue. Because right now we are just arguing about some amendment that we don't even know what it is besides vague notions that it harms the first amendment. You should be able to find this through Congressional government websites, it just requires some leg work on your end.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2014, 11:56:08 PM by ThePrince »

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: First Amendment nullified?
« Reply #9 on: June 24, 2014, 12:05:34 AM »
I saw the reference number 'SD-226' at the bottom of the video.  On a whim, I did a search on 'Judiciary committee SD-226' and came up with the following:

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/committees/one_item_and_teasers/committee_hearings.htm

On that, I found the only reference to SD-226 to be:

10:15 AM
       Judiciary
              Hearings to examine the nominations of Pamela Harris, of Maryland, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit, Pamela Pepper, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Brenda K. Sannes, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of New York, and Patricia M. McCarthy, of Maryland, and Jeri Kaylene Somers, of Virginia, both to be a Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims.
SD-226   

I'm at a loss as to what that has to do with anything Senator Cruz is talking about in the video.

I also went to Govtrack, and did a search on bills relating to 'speech' and found this:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hres621/text
« Last Edit: June 24, 2014, 12:06:47 AM by Oniya »

Offline Valthazar

  • Writer ͏͏● Educator ● Gamer ● Roleplayer ● Debater ● Tech Connoisseur ● Gym Rat ● Procrastinator ● As they say, "A simple PM may lead to lifelong friendship" ▬▬▬▬
  • Suspended
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Location: United States
  • Gender: Male
  • Proceed and be bold. Embrace your insecurities.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: First Amendment nullified?
« Reply #10 on: June 24, 2014, 12:11:47 AM »
EDIT: How about a compromise. If you can find me the amendment that Senator Ted Cruz is talking about and which committee it's been in so we can verify it is what Ted Cruz is warning about. I will concede that it is a serious issue. Because right now we are just arguing about some amendment that we don't even know what it is besides vague notions that it harms the first amendment. You should be able to find this through Congressional government websites, it just requires some leg work on your end.

This is the proposal that Senator Cruz is criticizing:

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

It basically is a proposed amendment to override recent Supreme Court decisions that removed certain limits on campaign contributions.  It basically restores Congress' power to regulate federal political spending.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2014, 12:13:31 AM by Valthazar »

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: First Amendment nullified?
« Reply #11 on: June 24, 2014, 12:18:58 AM »
Thanks for that, Valthazar.  One of those decisions would be Citizens United, am I right? 

Money does not equal speech, no matter what the plutocrats would say.

Offline ThePrince

Re: First Amendment nullified?
« Reply #12 on: June 24, 2014, 12:27:35 AM »
Thank you Valthazar, if some on can prove that Senator Cruz was in that committee I will up hold my end. Again that should not be a difficult task.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: First Amendment nullified?
« Reply #13 on: June 24, 2014, 12:52:53 AM »
Thank you Valthazar, if some on can prove that Senator Cruz was in that committee I will up hold my end. Again that should not be a difficult task.

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/members

Offline ThePrince

Re: First Amendment nullified?
« Reply #14 on: June 24, 2014, 08:48:58 AM »
Thank you Oniya, and yes it does concern the Citizens United case. I will concede that this is a serious piece of legislation. But I still do not believe it has a chance of being ratified by the current congress, for reasons I've outlined earlier.

Nor am I inclined to believe that this amendments will lessen the first. Specifically if it restores an ability congress previously had a few years ago.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: First Amendment nullified?
« Reply #15 on: June 24, 2014, 08:52:09 AM »
It only goes to confirm a previous opinion I've had of Senator Cruz - not that he's a 'nutjob', but if he tells me it's raining, I'm taking my umbrella in for a urinalysis. 

Offline ZakharraTopic starter

Re: First Amendment nullified?
« Reply #16 on: June 24, 2014, 09:49:28 AM »
Thanks for that, Valthazar.  One of those decisions would be Citizens United, am I right? 

Money does not equal speech, no matter what the plutocrats would say.

  But money helps people express their free speech, especially in election years. It's one thing to say you have the freedom to say whatever you want, but are severely restricted in how you can say it, whether by pamphlets, newspapers, radio ads, visual media (TV, cable) and internet. Like it or not, money is required to pay for all of that, and that was the gist of Citizen's United. In terms of elections and such, money is freedom of speech because you need money to be able to pay for the speech you want to say (pamphlets, newspapers, radio ads, visual media (TV, cable) and internet ). Without money no one's voice would be heard unless they got free coverage/press or ignored the voting laws.  I do with there was total transparency in money donors though. That should be open, and only US citizens and corporations/groups could donate, and they have to show some sort of money trail to verify it's money they earned, not money handed to them by bundlers.

The courts have a long standing tradition of striking down laws that circumvent constitutional amendments. From moving Harry Potter books to a permission slip section, to banning hand guns in Washington D.C. and banning gay straight alliance clubs in high schools. There is mountains of percipient that courts (not just the Supreme Court) will not allow you to go around constitutional amendments. This is why you see the ACLU piratically parachutes into small towns when ever they create some law that bans something. They already know that it will get stricken down in court and they will automatically win.

Again this was a committee hearing, there is no reason to believe that it is a serious issue. This is political grandstanding and nothing else. Have it argued on the senate floor and maybe I'll care.


I am not trying to sound mean to you people, but it sounds like you don't have a firm understanding of how our government currently works. 42 Democrat Senators is not enough to get it passed in the senate, it is a dead bill unless it has at lest 51 senators and then their are a bunch of byzantine proceedings that could railroad it. But even if it where to pass the senate, it would have to pass the house, who are controlled by the republicans. This is the same congress that was barely able to keep the nation paying it's bills because they could not agree with one another seven months ago. I have a better chance of getting a virgin slave girl harem than this bill does of getting 70% of congress to agree on that bill.

The only way this seems like it could actually happen is in an Alex Jones fever dream.

That's what our Judicial body of government is for, it's there to strike down laws that violate our constitutional rights.

  There's no guarantee that the SC will or would strike it down. how long did the DC gun ban stand before it was struck down? How many other laws are out there restricting rights that either took a long time to strike down or are still standing? The fact those 41 Democrats (and yes I do know how or government works, no need to be patronizing) -did- put their names to this legislation, is disturbing.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2014, 10:06:58 AM by Zakharra »

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: First Amendment nullified?
« Reply #17 on: June 24, 2014, 10:37:56 AM »
          I thought the Citizens' United outcome was more about doing away with limits to the total quantity of campaigning sponsored by corporations and other groups.  The limits that existed before, kept any single outfit from simply dishing out more money until it could dominate the airwaves or the best ad board spaces and push everyone else out (or perhaps, keep going on and on after most others were far outspent). 

          That's saying there was some limit before to how much one outfit could circulate its message, particularly within a limited universe of popular mass media slots.  It's not saying they shouldn't be allowed to speak at all, or less than others of the same category of speaker.   

           Basically, in Citizens' United and in McCutcheon vs. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court said entities should have as much right to speak, as they have potential ability to buy media to speak in.  Whereas back in 1976, the Court had felt that individual spending on campaigning should be limited because without limits, there is too much potential for corruption.

           As far as I can see, that's not even about what people say.  Totally despite Cruz spinning off with all sorts of vague rants about how he doesn't like Democrats having opinions and supporters who should somehow feel they might suffer turnabout...  It's just about whether anyone should have the opportunity to buy up all the prime air time or whatever is considered a grossly disproportionate advantage in broadcasting.

           More money is freedom to speak more and to push others out?  Maybe if you want to live in the land of Boss Tweed.  But I have been to a few state government hearings at least, where if you could get in the room early enough, anyone at all could sign up to speak and get their couple minutes at the podium.  It still works in favor of people who can afford to take the day off...  But it seems a shade more democratic to me than simply letting the guy with the biggest wallet buy up that spot for the whole meeting. 

Offline mia h

Re: First Amendment nullified?
« Reply #18 on: June 24, 2014, 02:36:45 PM »
Between Citizens' United and Super PAC's it's less about spending money but the lack of transparency. If the Sierra Club or the NRA want to take out an advert supporting a candidate or policy then there's nothing wrong with that, as long as it's clear that's where the money is coming from. If the Koch brothers want to back every Republician candidate who's running for office for whether it's for President or local dog catcher, it's thier money so thier choice.

That's not to say that outspending your rival automatically means electoral victory, I can't remember where it was but there was either a mayoral or state congress election in the last 6 months or so, where one side was bankrolled by the Koch brothers and they outspent the opposition by a huge amount but it backfired because people didn't like where the money was coming from.

The knowledge of who was funding the campaign made a difference, but with Super PAC's who donated and what they donated is hidden. There's is always going to be a question when it comes to large scale backers, have the backers given money because they agree with the candidate or has the candidate agreed with the backer to get the funding? If you know where the money is coming from then you can make a more informed decision, Citizens' United basically legalised bribery.

Online Hades

  • Master of Explosions, Keeper of Useless Trivia, Hopeless Minecraft Addict
  • Knight
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: The shadows of your heart's desires.
  • Gender: Male
  • Prepare for Doom and...oh, shiny object!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: First Amendment nullified?
« Reply #19 on: June 24, 2014, 02:59:42 PM »
Senator Cruz has been playing up the idea of "Zomg, the Democrats are out to kill freedom of religion and silence preachers!  Send me moar of your monies nao!" and it has as much basis in truth as pretty much anything else he has said in the past.

The amendment being floated around (which I have little hope will actually pass because both parties are financed by the same sorts of people) would put a constitutional amendment in place to essentially undo the Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions from the Supreme Court that opened the floodgates for unlimited campaign donations to SuperPACs with almost zero oversight or transpareny.

It has nothing to do with limiting anyone's speech or limiting anyone's religious liberties either.  It's simply a means of using the years of fear and paranoia that the right has built up since Obama took office (and to a lesser extent back in Clinton's years but I don't recall the irrational fear that Clinton was going to send agents to break into someone's house to take their guns and then cart them off to a FEMA internment camp), coupled with the echo-chamber that is the right-wing media outlets.

Offline Cycle

Re: First Amendment repealled?
« Reply #20 on: June 24, 2014, 03:37:12 PM »
The First Amendment is not being repealed.  I recommend that if you want to form an opinion on the effect of the proposed law, you read the text of the Bill itself which Valthazar has helpfully provided us:

S.J.Res.19 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)


                   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.''.



What S.J.Res.19 will do, if it passes, is give Congress the power to set limits on how much money anyone can (a) give to a candidate, and (b) spend on behalf of a candidate in a Federal election.  States will be given the same power for their own State level elections.

Compare that against the text of the First Amendment:

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.


To me, S.J.Res.19 repeals nothing.  It doesn't even impose limits.  Rather, it gives Congress and States the power to set limits.  Actually setting those limits is a going to take at least one more step (and likely far more than one more step). 

Senator Cruz exaggerated.


Offline Valthazar

  • Writer ͏͏● Educator ● Gamer ● Roleplayer ● Debater ● Tech Connoisseur ● Gym Rat ● Procrastinator ● As they say, "A simple PM may lead to lifelong friendship" ▬▬▬▬
  • Suspended
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Location: United States
  • Gender: Male
  • Proceed and be bold. Embrace your insecurities.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: First Amendment nullified?
« Reply #21 on: June 24, 2014, 04:12:09 PM »
While I agree that Cruz's remarks and criticisms regarding S.J.Res.19 are quite over the top and outlandish, I believe he is speaking more about the potential long-term abuses that may come as a result of such a proposed amendment.

Excerpt of Ted Cruz's Remarks
"Congress could prohibit the National Rifle Association from distributing voter guides letting citizens know politicians’ records on the Second Amendment. Congress could prohibit the Sierra Club from running political ads criticizing politicians for their environmental policies. Congress could penalize pro-life (or pro-choice) groups for spending money to urge their views of abortion. Congress could prohibit labor unions from organizing workers (an in-kind expenditure) to go door to door urging voters to turn out. Congress could criminalize pastors making efforts to get their parishioners to vote. Congress could punish bloggers expending any resources to criticize the president. Congress could ban books, movies (watch out Michael Moore) and radio programs."

Senator Tom Udall rightly suggested much of this as pure fear-mongering and gave a nice response, citing decades worth of modest Congressional modifications in campaign finance reform.  If you read the link below, he makes some valid points, and provides some good historical precedent as well.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/229209002/Testimony-to-Senate-Judiciary-Committee-on-Campaign-Finance-Constitutional-Amendment-SJ-Res-19

Excerpt of Tom Udall's Remarks
These reforms were not radical – they were narrowly tailored responses to restore Americans’ faith in the political system after a lack of regulations led to scandals or corruption. While conservatives will present a list of far-reaching laws that Congress “could” pass, a long history demonstrates that Congress will use its authority to enact modest reforms. And let’s not forget, any law must pass both houses of Congress and get signed by the president – that is a significant check against any radical legislation getting passed.

However, as Cycle posted, S.J.Res.19 is very broad in nature, and future legislation is required to determine the limits/parameters.  As I stated earlier, my concern is that over time (as public opinion changes), this opens the door for Congress to play an ever larger role in determining limits (though perhaps not of the 'extreme' nature Cruz mentions).  In some European countries, campaigning financing restrictions are placed regarding parties espousing 'racist' views.  While I'm confident none of us here are racist, I would not want a scenario in the US where Congress may potentially be able to place limits and caveats on their funding, among a litany of other types of classes as Cruz mentions, due to popular opinions at the time.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: First Amendment nullified?
« Reply #22 on: June 25, 2014, 12:41:53 AM »
If Congress were to begin discussing legislation of financing based on such things, I would expect that the people actually concerned with the First Amendment (as opposed to merely lining their own pockets) would be as vocal as Senator Cruz is now.  There are already outcries against the 'Voter ID' bills that appear to target certain demographics more harshly than others.

Offline ThePrince

Re: First Amendment nullified?
« Reply #23 on: June 25, 2014, 06:25:57 AM »
  There's no guarantee that the SC will or would strike it down. how long did the DC gun ban stand before it was struck down? How many other laws are out there restricting rights that either took a long time to strike down or are still standing? The fact those 41 Democrats (and yes I do know how or government works, no need to be patronizing) -did- put their names to this legislation, is disturbing.

The Judicial branch of our government has been the most active and working branch of our government in the past 8 years. If you believe that for some reason it will stop working, I can't really convince you otherwise.

I wasn't suggesting that you or anyone else doesn't know how our government works. What I was saying is that some of you do not seem to realize how our current congress functions. They are unable to pass even the most rational legislation unless there is the looming threat of economic destruction. No one has yet to speculate how this amendment can be ratified by 70% of congress with the Republican's controlling the House who will not bring any Democratic led legislation to the floor, not to mention that the Senate is only able to pass bills with around 55%  of votes. Even if by some miracle it was ratified through congress will there be 38 states willing to ratify this amendment.

I refuse to be afraid of an amendment that has no possibility of passing congress.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: First Amendment nullified?
« Reply #24 on: June 25, 2014, 09:47:55 AM »
I mentioned the bit earlier about how much support an actual Amendment needs to be ratified (although this one has a hell of a lot of support on the state level.)  I was honestly more concerned with correcting the misinformation about what this one is about.  Campaign financing.  Something that is not a 'right' given anywhere in the Constitution.