'Shutup,' they explained Crippling the First Amendment

People who cannot win arguments soon discover that a good tactic is to avoid debate by bullying potential opponents into silence. From imposing campus speech codes to protesting commencement speakers to passing laws that make it harder for others to speak out, this tactic has been deployed with great effectiveness in recent years.

Now, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, with the backing of Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, is taking it to its ultimate end point. He is pushing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would amend the First Amendment to allow the government to curtail citizens' speech.

The amendment, proposed by Sen. Mark Udall and co-sponsored by Shaheen, is almost five times as long as the First Amendment, which it would cripple.

It would give both Congress and the states the "power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents" and "the amount of contributions to candidates" and "the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates" under the broad justification that such restrictions are to "advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes."

Orwell could not have written it better himself. In the name of protecting the people, the government would assume for itself the power to control the people's political participation.

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...." Udall's amendment states: "Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press." Notice the exclusion of the words "freedom of speech." That was not by accident.

Shaheen has signed on to a constitutional amendment designed to give government the power to regulate political speech by regulating the amount of money that can be raised and spent on it. If you think Congress would judiciously use this power only in public-spirited and high-minded ways, and only against the super-wealthy, you have not paid much attention to Congress.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has documented 145 instances since 1987 of college commencement speakers who have been uninvited or protested or who have withdrawn their names from consideration under pressure, The Washington Post reported this week. Nearly 100 of those came in the last five years.

Last week the state Legislature passed a bill (SB 120) that would dramatically expand state power to regulate the activity of people who organize to participate in political campaigns. The impulse to silence other Americans is increasing.

This amendment is the ultimate realization of that impulse. It is the desired end result of everyone who would rather force an opponent to shut up than engage in an open debate.

See more here:

'Shutup,' they explained Crippling the First Amendment

Reid backs campaign spending limit

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wholeheartedly endorsed a constitutional amendment to limit campaign spending on Thursday, putting the Senate on course to vote on the matter as early as July.

Reid said that the Senate Judiciary Committee will take up the amendment on June 3, which allows Congress and the states to limit fundraising and spending on federal campaigns and gives lawmakers the ability to regulate outside groups. From there, the amendment will go to the Senate floor, where it has little chance of passing due to broad GOP opposition to meddling with campaign finance laws.

But Democrats believe the failed vote on the amendment, which needs the backing of 67 senators, will still pay dividends in the run-up to the midterm elections, painting Republicans as supporters of big money in politics and Democrats as on the side of ordinary voters.

(On POLITICO Magazine: Democrats have a Koch problem)

Let me pose a question to everyone, including my friend the Republican Leader [Mitch McConnell]. If this unprecedented spending is free speech, where does that leave our middle-class constituents? The poor? Reid said Thursday morning. It leaves them out in the cold. How could everyday working families afford to make their voices heard if money equals free speech?

Republicans quickly rebutted Reid, accusing him of moving to limit Americans First Amendment rights.

Todays proposal by the Senate Majority Leader represents an all-out assault on the right to free speech, a right which undergirds all others in our democracy. Its also a clear sign of just how desperate elected Washington Democrats have become in their quest to hold onto power, said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Washington Democrats have shown again and again how determined they are to shut down the voices of anyone who disagrees with them, whether its targeting groups through the IRS or looking over the shoulders of reporters at local newspapers and on news radio. But this latest proposal goes beyond everything theyve attempted previously.

(Also on POLITICO: American Bridge starts Koch project)

Even John McCain, a previous supporter of campaign finance reform, said in an interview that he will vote against the amendment, calling it as exercise in hypocrisy for Democrats.

Read the original post:

Reid backs campaign spending limit

Dems threaten Kochs with a constitutional amendment

David Koch (AP Photo/Phelan M. Ebenhack, File)

Congressional Democrats escalated their fight against the Koch Brothers and other megadonors to political campaigns on Thursday, calling anew for a constitutional amendment to reverse recent Supreme Court campaign-finance decisions and setting a date for a hearing.

Majority Leader Harry Reid announced plans Thursday to hold floor votes on legislation that would grant Congress the authority to regulate and limit the raising and spending of money for federal political campaigns.

The idea was blasted immediately by Republicans, underlining how unlikely it is that the proposal could succeed. The amendment idea was first introduced by Sen. TomUdall of New Mexico. After Reids announcement, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont announced there would be a hearing on the legislation on June 3.

The announcements follows the courts recent McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission decision, which declared aggregate limits on campaign contributions in elections to be unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment. Coupled with the Citizens United decisionof 2010, Leahy and Reid said Congress must respond.

The Court has repeatedly used the First Amendment not to protect the voices of all Americans, but as an instrument to amplify the voices of billionaires and corporations, Leahy said in a statement Thursday. Those voices are not the only ones who the Founding Fathers intended the First Amendment to protect. They meant for the First Amendment to protect the voices of all Americans.

The constitutional amendment seems more of a partisan show than a realistic proposal. A hearing on the idea last month revealed how deep the partisan divide has become since the days when a Republican senator, John McCain of Arizona, teamed up with a Democrat, former Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, to propose broad campaign finance reforms.

The reaction to the amendment idea in a recent Senate Rules Committee hearing revealed the depth of the partisan divide.In a statement released Thursday, Senates Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called the Democrats' proposal an all-out assault on the right to free speech, a right which undergirds all others in our democracy.Its also a clear sign of just how desperate elected Washington Democrats have become in their quest to hold onto power.

Link:

Dems threaten Kochs with a constitutional amendment

David Allen Legal Tuesday: Flashing Automobile Lights and the First Amendment – Video


David Allen Legal Tuesday: Flashing Automobile Lights and the First Amendment
Michael Elli drove his vehicle through a speed trap. He warned an oncoming vehicle of the speed trap by flashing his lights. The Missouri town in which this occurred had an ordinance which...

By: David Allen

Originally posted here:

David Allen Legal Tuesday: Flashing Automobile Lights and the First Amendment - Video

City Charter amendment passes 581-556

By Matt Ward

Three new council members were elected and the first amendment to the city charter was passed by 25 votes Saturday in the City of Fredericksburg election held at Fredericksburg Middle School.

Of the citys 7,512 registered voters, only 16 percent (or 1,212 voters) actually cast their ballot in this years election.

I think that this election was more about the incumbents than it was about the amendment, charter amendment organizer Isabel Wertz said. I hope that the city will be more thoughtful in the future of how the revenue of the city is being spent.

Former mayor Linda Langerhans defeated current mayor Jeryl Hoover 687-494, while Jerry Luckenbach and Bobby Watson were elected to replace current council members Tim Dooley and Kathy Sanford.

Luckenbach led the council candidates with 683 votes, with Watson in second with 657 votes and incumbent Dooley in third with 513 votes. Sanford chose not to run for re-election.

Its going to be incumbent on the three new council members to get updated as soon as possible because theyre going to be dealing with these issues in the next several months, City Manager Kent Myers said Monday. There are a lot of things going on and so Im going to have to spend a lot of time with the three new council members bringing them up to date.

Agendas for the next two council meetings slated for May 19 and June 2 will likely be lighter than usual as the new council gets acclimated. The first council retreat with the newly elected officials is tentatively set for June 13.

I think the councils positions on certain issues will change with three new council members. The message Ive sent to staff is that Youll have to be adaptable to that change and understanding of that, Myers said. Whenever you have a majority of the council that turns over, there could be a new direction on some of these issues, whether its lighting standards or property tax collection. We want to try and get a feel for that as soon as possible so we dont go down the path even further if the majority of the council doesnt agree with that direction.

For more on this story, read this weeks print and online editions of the Fredericksburg Standard-Radio Post. If you are a print subscriber, your full online subscription is free. All you need to do is call 830-997-2155 to get a password. If you are not a subscriber, call 997-2155 or click on the Subscribe button on the left side of the home page and sign up today!

View post:

City Charter amendment passes 581-556

The Clash Between the First Amendment and National Security in Times of War Symposium – Video


The Clash Between the First Amendment and National Security in Times of War Symposium
Commemorating the 100th Birthday of alumnus and former Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell participants spoke at a symposium titled "The Clash Between the First Amendment and National Security...

By: Reuben Halper

Follow this link:

The Clash Between the First Amendment and National Security in Times of War Symposium - Video

Their opinion: Disagreeing on the First Amendment

The Providence (R.I.) Journal, May 8, 2014

Reasonable people can disagree vehemently on the meaning of the First Amendment, as demonstrated by the 5-to-4 margin of Monday's Supreme Court ruling on prayer. The court ruled that the First Amendment permits even a Christian prayer at the start of a government board meeting, as long as there is no attempt to proselytize or pressure citizens to go along.

That seems a reasonable interpretation of what the First Amendment actually says. The amendment does not permit the federal government to prohibit the free exercise of religion by Americans, nor does it permit the government to establish a religion.

Does a voluntary prayer before a meeting -- something with a long tradition in America -- establish a state religion and force others to practice that religion? Only by the most extreme interpretation. In the real world, people are perfectly free to ignore the prayer, leave the room or petition their elected representatives to alter or drop the prayer. They may safely join any religious group they wish, or decline to believe altogether.

The First Amendment, in short, is a bulwark of liberty, protecting the right of people to express religious ideas even in public settings. But this guarantee of freedom does not preclude citizens from showing respect for diverse beliefs. Those who seek God's blessings at the start of government meetings may do so in a non-sectarian manner, striving not to exclude or offend any believers. Or they may eschew any prayer at all. Those approaches would be our strong preference to a sectarian prayer, which can hurt people's feelings and sow divisions.

In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan cited George Washington's famous 1790 letter to Newport's Touro Synagogue, in which he embraced America's support for religious liberty. Quoting the Bible's Old Testament, Washington wrote: "every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid." He added: "For happily the Government of the United States gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."

It seems clear, though, that neither Washington nor the other Founders regarded public prayers as giving sanction to bigotry and assistance to persecution. Indeed, in his role as president, Washington issued a proclamation calling for a national day of prayer and fasting in service to "that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be." He stated: "it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor." He did not believe that eradicating any public mention of God was the American way.

While America is markedly more diverse and secular than it was in Washington's day, we should strive to emulate his support for religious liberty, and to give no sanction to bigotry. Surely, as free people of good will, we can do that without eradicating the freedom to express religious ideas and without banishing prayer from public life.

Read the rest here:

Their opinion: Disagreeing on the First Amendment

SUPREME STUPIDITY Kills The First Amendment – RIP Separation of Church & State (1787-2014) – Video


SUPREME STUPIDITY Kills The First Amendment - RIP Separation of Church State (1787-2014)
The Supreme Court rules against the Bible (ironically) and against the Constitution by allowing prayers to be recited before town meetings and other public meetings. MORE: http://en.wikipedia.org...

By: The Amazing Atheist

Originally posted here:

SUPREME STUPIDITY Kills The First Amendment - RIP Separation of Church & State (1787-2014) - Video

A First Amendment attack on Assembly… in George Washington

On May 7 I attended a public hearing on a proposed ordinance in Fairfax County that would limit assembly in private homes. The proposal would limit the size of gatherings at a home to no more than three gatherings of 50 or more people in a 40-day period.

When our Founders wrote the first amendment they included a right to assembly. Though this right is talked about less frequently than others such as speech and press, it is one of the most important. It affects the family, the church, and the people and any attack on it should be opposed with the fervor of those who began our country. The dangers that were foreseen in 1789 regarding limits on peaceable assembly at the national level apply equally to the local level.

At first glance, the average person may not think this new law is such a big deal. Those at the first hearing stated otherwise. One citizen noted that his large Greek family meets regularly for Sunday lunch and that the proposed law would jeopardize their traditional meal together. An attack on the family.

Another citizen mentioned the fact that he is a deacon at his church and that they use an adjacent residential yard for large church activities, particularly for local children. These would be banned. An attack on the church.

Yet another citizen mentioned that numerous human rights organizations around the world recognize freedom of assembly as one of the basic freedoms. After all, if you cant organize against those in power without fear of government intervention how can you expect to fight government tyranny? Grassroots political movements would be hindered. An attack on the people.

Already the county regulates the minutiae of its citizens daily lives. The issue at hand is one of raw government power. In truth, most citizens will not be affected immediately by this ordinance. This makes it no less grievous.

Why the attempt to limit assembly in George Washingtons backyard? Proponents of the ordinance cited only a small number of cases where this issue had come up in the county in recent years. They mentioned in-home restaurants which are already banned in other parts of the zoning code. They consistently ignored the Constitutional and privacy concerns expressed by Fairfax residents.

Prior to the meeting two supervisors mentioned stopping home worship services as the original motive behind the ordinance. When Fairfax County tried to stop home churches previously, Congress stepped in and protected the churches. The countys attorneys recommended going after the places of worship on other grounds and so the county proposed this law. This is unacceptable in a country where religious liberty is listed in the Bill of Rights as our first freedom.

One of the most telling remarks came when the proponents of the law shared why it was needed the code is silent in this area. But our First Amendment rights including the freedom of speech werent written for the codes benefit, but for the peoples.

The code already says too much. A little silence would be golden.

Read the original:

A First Amendment attack on Assembly... in George Washington