Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun. — Patrick Henry


In Leftist America, Some Are More Equal Than Others

June 4, 2014   ·   By   ·   0 Comments

Animal_Farm_More_Equal“This amendment is about power and it’s about politicians silencing the citizens.”

That was Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), speaking out against a proposed constitutional amendment by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.). The bill would for all intents and purposes abolish the freedom of speech under the First Amendment — by directly empowering Congress and the states to regulate the amount of money that may be spent in elections, enabling them to limit speech against incumbent politicians.

With one big exception.

“Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press,” reads Section 3 of the amendment.

What do the proponents of the amendment mean by this?

Not the freedom of individuals to use the printing press, as the framers of the First Amendment most certainly meant when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. Back then, there was no so-called press corps. But there were printing presses. The First Amendment simply meant that individuals could write or print whatever they wanted free of any government restriction.

A view endorsed in 2011 by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who in a paper examined the issue in great detail, asking the question: “Freedom for the Press as an Industry, or the Press as a Technology?”

In it, he found no evidence to support the idea that the freedom of the press only protects journalists or media institutions with big bucks and television stations, writing, “an argument for a press-as-industry interpretation of the Free Press Clause must rely on something other than original meaning, text, purpose, tradition, or precedent.”

Volokh, in his exhaustive study, he could not find a single court decision to endorse the view that press freedom only extends to some elite cadre of reporters.

He adds, “Through-out American history, the dominant understanding of the Free Press Clause (and its state constitutional analogs) has followed the press-as-technology model.”

Yet, clearly, the framers of the so-called campaign finance amendment are most certainly taking on a view that the freedom of the press only applies to certain media outlets. To wit, probably those defined under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971: “The term ‘expenditure’ does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication.”

How do we know Udall favors a view that press freedom only applies to some sort of media establishment defined under law?

Because any other construction of press freedom as an individual right would lead to a direct contradiction in the text of the Constitution itself between the First Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law” and Udall’s “Congress shall have power to regulate.”

Individuals being brought under campaign finance regulation, no longer able to cite the freedom of speech as a valid defense, would inevitably sue for their rights under the press clause as an individual right. So what would courts do?

Your guess is as good as mine. Because what Udall and his 41 Democrat cosponsors in the Senate are doing is bastardizing the First Amendment’s protections that are supposed to apply to everyone, taking an unprecedented view that some media elites are more equal than the rest of us.

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:

Robert Romano is the Senior Editor of Americans for Limited Government (ALG) News Bureau. Americans for Limited Government is a non- partisan, nationwide network committed to advancing free market reforms,private property rights and core American liberties.
Robert Romano
View all articles by Robert Romano
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly

Readers Comments (0)

Sorry, comments are closed on this post.

Featured Articles


Tea Party Express Whores Itself to RINO Establishment

Bob Ellis

We've come to a very sad and pathetic place in America and South Dakota, these days. There once was a time, not too long ago, when you could count on certain people and groups to do the right thing and hold the line against what was wrong. Not anymore.


Multiculturalism: Good or Bad for America?

Michael Peroutka

Is multiculturalism a good thing or a bad thing for our American society? You might not realize it, but this is a very important question. This agenda of multiculturalism is based on the notion that we are a more stable, prosperous society because we embrace diversity, toleration and acceptance of anything and everything. But is this true?

Second Amendment

Serious Warning to Gun Rights Supporters in Alabama

Gina Miller

I don’t know whether conservatives who support Alabama Statewide Amendment 3 are doing so out of a lack of understanding of the danger to their gun rights that amendment poses, or if they are leftist infiltrators posing as conservatives to mislead people into voting away their God-given right to keep and bear arms. Either way, it’s not good.


Liberal Hypocrisy and the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations

Guest Author

Bill Maher has it right. He hit the nail on the head in his conversation with Charlie Rose, when he said that Liberals' reticence to criticize Islam is symptomatic of "the soft bigotry of low expectations." In other words, Liberals are willing to give Muslims a pass on behavior that they would otherwise find condemnable because Liberals view Muslims as a persecuted minority.


Ruining RINO Rounds Run

Bob Ellis

Bloomberg did an interesting article on the only conservative in the South Dakota. U.S. Senate race, conservative independent Gordon Howie. Wouldn't it be cool to have another conservative--like Ted Cruz--in the U.S. Senate who actually wants to promote conservative values, and win?


"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