History will also afford the frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion, from its usefulness to the public; the advantage of a religious character among private persons; the mischiefs of superstition, and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern. — Benjamin Franklin, Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, 1749), p. 22.

No_Mike_Rounds_bn

Democrats’ Latest Assault on the Constitution

May 30, 2014   ·   By   ·   0 Comments

First Amendment inscription, in front of Independence Hall (Photo credit: Robin Klein)

First Amendment inscription, in front of Independence Hall (Photo credit: Robin Klein)

By Tony Perkins
Washington Update

Senator Chuck Schumer is a lot of things — but James Madison, he is not. Don’t tell that to the New York Democrat, who, along with Sen. Mark Udall (D-N.M.), thinks he understands freedom better than the author of America’s Bill of Rights. Two hundred twenty-three years after the First Amendment went into effect, Senate liberals are trying to put an expiration date on political speech. While most Americans were firing up their grills last weekend, Sen. Udall was lighting a match under Senate Democrats to get a vote on his Joint Resolution 19. And if it’s successful, the National Archives will need more than bomb-proofing to protect America’s founding documents.

Four years after the Supreme Court struck down restrictive campaign finance laws, the Left is still smarting. A summer away from a reelection bloodbath, Democrats know they can’t hide from their records — but they can try to silence the people talking about them. That’s the aim of S.R. 19, which would essentially strip political speech out of the First Amendment and put it in a separate legislative box where Congress (the targets of that speech) can regulate it.

“The real guarantee,” explains the Wall Street Journal editors, “would be political advantage for all incumbents, since it’s the sitting lawmakers who really benefit from any law limiting contributions to candidates or on their behalf.” Of course, even the Founding Fathers understood the temptations of putting elected officials in charge of these basic freedoms, which is why they slipped in this key phrase: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…”

Now, Congress — with the help of lawless Democrats — seeks to do exactly that, hoping to keep their flimsy grip on the Senate majority. Under Udall’s bill, Congress would have the “power to regulate the raising and spending of money” on campaigns and candidates, undermining voters and minimizing the influence of their opponents. Super PACs, which have virtually no limitations for election spending, are the Left’s biggest bulls-eye, followed by other outside groups.

Interestingly enough, the measure goes out of its way to protect the freedom of the press(which is no big surprise, considering whose side they’re on). But, as the WSJ points out, “Why should [liberal] Warren Buffett’s company enjoy free speech rights because he owns a handful of newspapers along with insurance companies, while Jeffrey Immelt’s is muzzled because GE makes jet turbines?” Democrats insist the debate is about accountability — when in reality, it’s one of the most transparent plays for job security Harry Reid’s Senate has ever attempted.

And a difficult one at that. Amending the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority in both chambers and the approval of three-quarters of U.S. states. Even so, Majority Leader Reid isn’t giving up any time soon. The Democrats’ top dog already promised a string of votes on the measure after its first Judicial Committee hearing next Tuesday. Even after the Left lost its bid to change the IRS rules on lobbying groups, the open season on conservatives continues. No longer content to just ignore the law, the President’s party is ready to blow holes in the Bill of Rights. But if the public outcry is any indication, they’ve picked the wrong fight.



This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.


Similar Posts:

Guest authors at American Clarion hail from a variety of sources and backgrounds. Their work is featured because we believe they have something important to say that our readers will appreciate. If you'd like to see a guest author become a regular here, please let us know!
Guest Author
View all articles by Guest Author
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly

Readers Comments (0)


Sorry, comments are closed on this post.

Featured Articles

Jesus_on_Trial

Limbaugh’s ‘Jesus on Trial:’ The Verdict is in

J. Matt Barber

With his latest book, “Jesus on Trial: A Lawyer Affirms the Truth of the Gospel,” David Limbaugh remains true to form. In fact, having read nearly every manuscript he’s penned, I believe this to be, hands down, David’s best and most important work to date. While managing to make each sentence of each chapter in this page-turner fascinating, Limbaugh also provides proof beyond any reasonable doubt that Jesus Christ, in both His historical and spiritual respects, was, and is, exactly who He said He is: God incarnate, the living, physically resurrected Savior of the world and the only, yes, that means the exclusive, path to God the Father.

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Republicans shouldn’t pander to Hispanic voters

Star Parker

The immigration issue is now a political football because of the political baggage it carries. Both parties want the votes of the Hispanic population, the most rapidly growing demographic in the country. And this is the same population most sensitive to the immigration issue because most of the illegals within our borders are from Latin American countries.

turtle

SOS: Speaking of Seniors - Government and Turtles

Woodrow Wilcox

What do the federal government and turtles have in common? Speed! One of our senior citizen clients got married in October 2013. After her honeymoon, she did the responsible thing and asked the Social Security Administration to change the name on her social security card to her new, married name. A few weeks later, she got a new card with her married name. But, Medicare never sent her a new Medicare ID card with her new last name.

plan_blueprints

The Perfect Plan

A.J. Castellitto

159 House Republicans (including my district rep) and 33 Senate Republicans voted for arming Syrian rebels against the will of their constituents. In the meantime, our borders are a mess and our own government has been enabling (or simply ignoring) a multitude of illegal entries via land and air. Not only are we arming those who hate us (and will eventually come for us) but we are ignoring (and/or supporting) those who are planning and plotting something against us on our own soil.

Barack Obama and Ted Kennedy (Photo credit: Sage Ross)

EB-5 Program a Ted Kennedy Brainchild

Bob Ellis

The EB-5 "cash-for-visas" program has generated a lot of controversy and discussion in South Dakota over the past couple of years. Did you know the EB-5 program that some "Republicans" have embraced was created by a Democrat Ted Kennedy bill?

Archives




"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all." - Ronald Reagan, Nov. 10, 1964