Taking a scythe to the Bill of Rights - George Will

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Listening, May 6, 2012.

  1. Listening
    Offline

    Listening Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    14,989
    Thanks Received:
    1,642
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +2,045
    Taking a scythe to the Bill of Rights


    Controversies can be wonderfully clarified when people follow the logic of illogical premises to perverse conclusions. For example, two academics recently wrote in the British Journal of Medical Ethics that “after-birth abortions” — killing newborn babies — are matters of moral indifference because newborns, like fetuses, “do not have the same moral status as actual persons” and “the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant.” So killing them “should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.” This helpfully validates the right-to-life contention that the pro-abortion argument, which already defends third-trimester abortions, contains no standard for why the killing should be stopped by arbitrarily assigning moral significance to the moment of birth.

    Now comes Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) with a comparable contribution to another debate, the one concerning government regulation of political speech. Joined by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), 26 other Democrats and one Republican, he proposes a constitutional amendment to radically contract First Amendment protections. His purpose is to vastly expand government’s power — i.e., the power of incumbent legislators — to write laws regulating, rationing or even proscribing speech in elections that determine the composition of the legislature and the rest of the government. McGovern’s proposal vindicates those who say that most campaign-finance “reforms” are incompatible with the First Amendment.

    Taking a scythe to the Bill of Rights - The Washington Post

    **************************************************

    I am O.K. with their frustrations with corporations. I am frustrated myself.

    But compounding the error seems to be Pelosi's goal in life.
     
  2. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Where was that pencil neck when we were getting DHS, TSA and USAPATRIOT shoved up our asses?

    Out in the tall grass, that's where.
     
  3. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    No problem, the republican proposal to vandalize the 14th Amendment:

    5 Of 7 Republican Candidates Support Federal Marriage Amendment

    Both proposed amendments are idiocy, obviously, but Will, like most conservatives, seems unaware he lives in a glass house.

    It could also be said that republicans have been ‘at war’ with the 14th Amendment:

    House Republicans Introduce Bill to Repeal Birthright Citizenship Amendment | Fox News
     
  4. Clementine
    Offline

    Clementine Platinum Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    10,565
    Thanks Received:
    3,878
    Trophy Points:
    350
    Ratings:
    +8,702
    You're derailing the thread, but I happen to agree with amending the birthright amendment. Illegals have no business being here, so they shouldn't be allowed to drop anchor and receive entitlements.

    This thread is talking about taking away freedom of speech. I am not comfortable with government deciding what people can and can't say. Of course, those in power will deem any negative comments about themselves as against the law. Obama is anything but transparent. The FOIA has been changed and the government is now allowed to lie and not disclose information to the public. No more press conferences where the press can ask the tough questions. We have the Soviet-style AttackWatch, which encourages people to snitch on their neighbors.

    And to top it off, they want to curb freedom of speech. I think Obama is planning on a second term and he doesn't want people telling the truth about his policies. I can envision people being arrested for disclosing what is actually in bills that are passed or the details of Obama's executive orders or the actions of his many czars. This is nothing but an effort to keep information away from the public.
     
  5. Two Thumbs
    Offline

    Two Thumbs Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    33,450
    Thanks Received:
    5,786
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Where ever I go, there I am.
    Ratings:
    +11,589
    Dems have hated the Constitution for decades, since at least the 30's.

    When the religious right took over the gop, they joined the dems in their hate. about the late 80's early 90's.

    All I can do is laugh at how they hate how the other side uses the same tactics they use to take our rights.

    then sigh, and add one more too the list.
     
  6. Two Thumbs
    Offline

    Two Thumbs Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    33,450
    Thanks Received:
    5,786
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Where ever I go, there I am.
    Ratings:
    +11,589
    Free speech is already gone.

    Dems passed hate speech laws over a decade ago.
     
  7. Clementine
    Offline

    Clementine Platinum Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    10,565
    Thanks Received:
    3,878
    Trophy Points:
    350
    Ratings:
    +8,702
    As predicted, they have a loose interpretation of that and seem to apply it only to whites while more egregious incidents are forgiven. All the new laws will be just as selective.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: May 7, 2012
  8. Two Thumbs
    Offline

    Two Thumbs Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    33,450
    Thanks Received:
    5,786
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Where ever I go, there I am.
    Ratings:
    +11,589
    Net "Neutrality" is only about shutting down conservative sites.

    if it wasn't, it would have been headlines on every station
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. Clementine
    Offline

    Clementine Platinum Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    10,565
    Thanks Received:
    3,878
    Trophy Points:
    350
    Ratings:
    +8,702
    Exactly. Some know the only way their ideas will prevail is if they silence the opposition. It's a sign that they know they can't win a debate and have no way to defend their position.

    They had Air America and not even enough liberals listened to keep it going. There is a reason why some succeed and some don't and it has nothing to do with unfairness.
     
  10. Listening
    Offline

    Listening Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    14,989
    Thanks Received:
    1,642
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +2,045
    The proposed amendment is intended to reverse the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which affirmed the right of persons to associate in corporate entities for the purpose of unrestricted collective speech independent of candidates’ campaigns. The court’s decision was foreshadowed when, in oral argument, the government’s lawyer insisted that the government could ban a 500-page book that contained one sentence that said “vote for” a particular candidate. McGovern’s amendment would confer upon Congress the power to ban publishing corporations from producing books containing political advocacy, when Congress considers a ban reasonable — never mind the amendment’s rhetoric about the “inalienable” rights people enjoy until they band together to act in corporate entities.

    A decade ago, then-Rep. Dick Gephardt said of George Soros’s spending in support of liberal causes: “It is not consistent with campaign reform, but it is consistent with what the Constitution says about freedom of speech.”
     

Share This Page