Not a joke: Democrats to try to limit free speech by amending the Constitution

[AirFlacco]

Much a due about nothing.

It's a toothless bill that needs 67 votes. Ain't happening.

It's a rally cry for both parties, as evidenced by the reactions here. Us Libertarians will sit back and munch popcorn, watching y'all fall for the party dogma.

Right but it's the principle of the thing. it's bad to even get this far of changing it and the next time they have control of congress they will win just like they did with O BUMMER CARE.

[darb72]

Much a due about nothing.

It's a toothless bill that needs 67 votes. Ain't happening.

It's a rally cry for both parties, as evidenced by the reactions here. Us Libertarians will sit back and munch popcorn, watching y'all fall for the party dogma.

I'm as libertarian as you are, and this sends chills down my spine.

We've known for a while that democrats want to strip away personal freedoms. This is just the most openly they've gone about it. No, there is no chance of this amendment passing, but the fact they even bring it up shows just how far they are willing to go to force their ideas on everybody else.

[Dade]

I'm as libertarian as you are, and this sends chills down my spine.

We've known for a while that democrats want to strip away personal freedoms. This is just the most openly they've gone about it. No, there is no chance of this amendment passing, but the fact they even bring it up shows just how far they are willing to go to force their ideas on everybody else.

Don't Republicans take away our freedoms as well...Patriotic Act.

[AirFlacco]

Don't Republicans take away our freedoms as well...Patriotic Act.

Just Osama Bin Laden's when they killed him and your guy odered the
hit. He finally did something good.

And don't forget your Nazi Pelosi's attack on the 1st amendment.
All this was called out in advance.


http://www.prisonplanet.com/nancy-pe...k-on-the-first... Cached
Related posts: Nancy Pelosi Wants to Amend the First Amendment; Obama Plans Attack On First Amendment if Re-elected; Democrats Push for Constitutional ...

[darb72]

Don't Republicans take away our freedoms as well...Patriotic Act.

No, not really. If you'll look up the Patriot Act, what it does at the core is gives law enforcement broader surveillance capabilities. That much isn't in doubt. However, they still must obtain a search warrant. Title V of the Patriot Act does allow and strengthen NSLs (National Security Letters). If a person is already under investigation, then a warrant does not need to be obtained under Title V.

The Constitution of the United States of America was not affected in anyway by the Patriot Act. No freedoms were taken.

[HoustonRaven]

I'm as libertarian as you are, and this sends chills down my spine.

We've known for a while that democrats want to strip away personal freedoms. This is just the most openly they've gone about it. No, there is no chance of this amendment passing, but the fact they even bring it up shows just how far they are willing to go to force their ideas on everybody else.

What Dade said.

They can see the Senate make up just as easily as you and I. They knew they didn't have the numbers when the bill was introduced.

Nothing more than a rally cry.

[HoustonRaven]

There is only one side a true libertarian could possibly support here, so I am not sure what you mean about "party dogma."

I'd think Libertarians would expect their law makers to follow the letter of the Constitution and not rely on the courts.

Since this isn't a free speech issue (in spite of the dogma from the GOP declaring it such) and more of campaign finance limits, I'd assume Libertarians like me are fine that lawmakers are at least following the Constitution and attempting (though it's a fools errand) to use the amendment process and not judicial fiat.

[HoustonRaven]

No, not really. If you'll look up the Patriot Act, what it does at the core is gives law enforcement broader surveillance capabilities. That much isn't in doubt. However, they still must obtain a search warrant. Title V of the Patriot Act does allow and strengthen NSLs (National Security Letters). If a person is already under investigation, then a warrant does not need to be obtained under Title V.

The Constitution of the United States of America was not affected in anyway by the Patriot Act. No freedoms were taken.

Bull to the shit.

There's a slew of warrentless searches that were forbidden that are now "legal" under the Act. Already being under investigation has nothing to do with some of the warrentless searches either.

[NCRAVEN]

The article was decent enough. I will agree there are always unintended consequences with any legislation. What about the unintended consequences of Citizens United and McCutcheon. It doesn't sit well with me that people can spend millions of dollars to influence elections/politicians, be they GOP or Democrat. Most of us don't have those type of resources. IMO it unfairly gives more power to those with the means and money. Their "free speech" is greater than ours. This proposal seeks to limit that.

At the end of the day, I don't think the amount of money spent really matters. At least not in the bigger elections.

[Dade]

I'd think Libertarians would expect their law makers to follow the letter of the Constitution and not rely on the courts.

Since this isn't a free speech issue (in spite of the dogma from the GOP declaring it such) and more of campaign finance limits, I'd assume Libertarians like me are fine that lawmakers are at least following the Constitution and attempting (though it's a fools errand) to use the amendment process and not judicial fiat.

+1

[Dade]

At the end of the day, I don't think the amount of money spent really matters. At least not in the bigger elections.

Maybe, maybe not. In the smaller state and local elections I think it most definitely matters and makes a difference. But the larger National elections (i.e. President)...IDK. Regardless, it does give the perception of something shady going on. I don't like that corporations give so much money to a politician, that politician in turn passes favorable legislation for that company, and when they leave office becomes an executive in that company. It's a process that has been going on for decades for both the GOP and Democrats. How and when is our voice going to be heard in that circle? It needs to change.

[NCRAVEN]

Maybe, maybe not. In the smaller state and local elections I think it most definitely matters and makes a difference. But the larger National elections (i.e. President)...IDK. Regardless, it does give the perception of something shady going on. I don't like that corporations give so much money to a politician, that politician in turn passes favorable legislation for that company, and when they leave office becomes an executive in that company. It's a process that has been going on for decades for both the GOP and Democrats.

I don't disagree at all.

How and when is our voice going to be heard in that circle? It needs to change.

However, I don't see how this would change anything. Changing limitations on campaigns isn't going to stop the backroom deals that make guys like Harry Reid a millionaire yet has never had a real job.