Progressives are ready to edit the Constitution, are conservatives ready to answer?

As I've asked before in other threads, who else remembers when those on the Left were free speech absolutists? This could be a disaster. Who decides what the restrictions would be:

 

so, you are ready to criticize all progressives based on the opinion of one law professor?

If I did that to republicans, you wouldn't mind?

 

As though your frequent screeds do not?

 

I think there are a lot of Liberals that want to rewrite the First and Second Amendments.

 

DEMOCRATS VOTED TO REPEAL FIRST AMENDMENT
By Phil Kerpen

With House Republicans focused on legislation to boost job creation, the Senate is spending its time on an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would repeal the First Amendment with respect to political speech. Democratic Whip Dick Durbin said before the debate even officially began: “I expect a fully partisan vote,” and he was right. So what exactly are all the Senate Democrats for and Republicans against?

Section 1 of the proposed amendment (S. J. Res. 19) says: “Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.”

The key words here are “and others,” meaning anybody Congress chooses to regulate and “to influence elections,” meaning not just express advocacy that calls on voters to support or oppose a candidate, but any communication politicians think might influence an election.

It gives Congress – and the states – the power to restrict paid communications – political speech – about any significant public policy issue with respect to incumbent politicians. Vast swaths of core political speech – much of it wholly unrelated to elections – would be restricted. Politicians would advance controversial policies knowing that any criticism of them could be prohibited.

In 1976, the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo found there was no compelling governmental interest that would justify regulating speech that mentions candidates without calling for their election or defeat.

The Judiciary Committee report accompanying the new proposed constitutional amendment is clear on the purpose of Section 1: “It expressly overturns Buckley v. Valeo.”

Got that? No more First Amendment protections for any political speech that Congress or your state legislature decides might “influence elections” – regardless of its specific content. Any criticism of an elected official’s record or communication about an upcoming vote could be restricted.

Section 2 of the proposed amendment says: “Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.”

This is an open-ended grant of power to outright prohibit speech not just by corporations, but other “entities created by law,” including non-profit groups. The movie “Hillary” that was at the heart of the Citizens United case could be banned under this amendment, and if Congress – and the states – can ban movies they can surely also ban books, pamphlets, videos and any other vehicle for political speech paid for by a group.

No wonder the amendment expressly overturns Buckley, which correctly reasoned: “The First Amendment protects political association as well as political expression. The constitutional right of association explicated in NAACP v. Alabama stemmed from the Court's recognition that [e]ffective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association.”

By implication, then, the proposed amendment also overturns the landmark civil rights case NAACP v. Alabama, which protected the privacy of the members of associations to allow them to engage in anonymous political speech. Congress – and the states, including Alabama – would now have the power to compel disclosure for any criticism of an elected official, and to outright ban speech by groups.

The only exception? The media. Section 3 of the proposed amendment gives them an express carve-out: “Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.” So if you own a newspaper, radio station, or TV station it’s free speech as usual. If you don’t, tough.

This amendment would give Congress and the states the power to regulate, restrict, and even ban political speech. The First Amendment would be effectively repealed, limited to protecting political speech only for the media.

I don’t think supporters of this amendment deserve to be reelected. Does saying so mean they should be allowed to ban this column?

Democrats Voted to Repeal First Amendment | American Commitment

 

The only problem with the 1st is we need to get rid of the stuff about religion.

 

And why is that do you want the government to regulate religion?

Part of the reason this country was founded were people who are fleeing the government regulating what religion they could practice.

 

This professor doesn't really correctly understand the Constitution.
That is probably one of the main issues here.

 

Jefferson thought every generation should start over. We barely amend the document anymore.

It absolutely needs revisiting, but now is probably the wrong time.

 

No, I want religion erased as a protected class.

 

Are you looking to open an atheist only store?

 

Just what part of that do you want to change as to religion? It's already been misunderstood.

 

Im ready to answer. Lets change it to 'All US citizens have the right to own and carry any loaded firearm in any public property within the jurisdiction of the US.'

TBC, I'm cool with leaving it the way it is. But if we're to change it, this is what I will accept.

 

it being a protected class.

 

Nope.

 

Whataboutism..but great word "screed". (A bit shorter then the definition implies though).

See a couple posts down for a great example of screed.

Thanks for that.

 

Why?

 

Now this is screed.

Great example.

Thanks.

 

Here is where I'd like to take the opportunity to remind you of the second post that you posted in the thread about sand man a few hours ago.

You should probably go back and read it and think about the irony.

 

Doesn't deserve to be.

 

We know what the restrictions would be. The same ones Buckley v. Valeo overturned. This isn’t a mystery.

The issue within the dissenting opinion(s) has come to pass. This opinion also has fostered monstrosities like Citizen United.

We are talking about campaign finance and how we have gone to great lengths to protect and shield monied interests.

If ,for instance, money is speech than we should have the right to know expressly who the hell is speaking. Our current campaign finance system is nonsensical. Congress should act to correct it and some are trying but getting around the loud mouth ghosts the SC created is difficult. With every right there is responsibility unless, of course, you’ve got a lot money.

Since I’m getting stuff off my chest the changes made to the filibuster decades ago act in the same way. It shields action from responsibility.

Seriously these responsibility free zones have got to end. My goodness say what you’ve got to say and take responsibility for it. Evidently that is too much to ask of a particular class of Americans.

 

Lol. Touche.

I guess most on this forum are guilty of whataboutism sometimes.

 

Well what the hell at least we can have a sense of humor about it!

 

Sounds like an attack on plutocracy. I know republicans love plutocracy, so no way that's getting ratified.

 

What protection do you imagine that the constitution affords to religion?

It simply prohibits the government from telling you what religion you can or cannot be do you see that as a bad thing?