Taking a scythe to the Bill of Rights - George Will

[Listening]

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.

 

[Oddball]

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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

By proposing his amendment, McGovern helpfully illuminates the lengths to which some liberals want to go. So when next you hear histrionic warnings about tea party or other conservative “extremism,” try to think of anything on the right comparable to McGovern’s proposed vandalism of the Bill of Rights.

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

 

[Clementine]

By proposing his amendment, McGovern helpfully illuminates the lengths to which some liberals want to go. So when next you hear histrionic warnings about tea party or other conservative “extremism,” try to think of anything on the right comparable to McGovern’s proposed vandalism of the Bill of Rights.

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

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.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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.

 

[Two Thumbs]

By proposing his amendment, McGovern helpfully illuminates the lengths to which some liberals want to go. So when next you hear histrionic warnings about tea party or other conservative “extremism,” try to think of anything on the right comparable to McGovern’s proposed vandalism of the Bill of Rights.

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

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.

Free speech is already gone.

Dems passed hate speech laws over a decade ago.

 

[Clementine]

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

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.

Free speech is already gone.

Dems passed hate speech laws over a decade ago.

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.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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.

Free speech is already gone.

Dems passed hate speech laws over a decade ago.

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 news laws will be just as selective.

Net "Neutrality" is only about shutting down conservative sites.

if it wasn't, it would have been headlines on every station

 

[Clementine]

Free speech is already gone.

Dems passed hate speech laws over a decade ago.

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 news laws will be just as selective.

Net "Neutrality" is only about shutting down conservative sites.

if it wasn't, it would have been headlines on every station

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.

 

[Listening]

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.”

 

[onecut39]

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.”

Show me a couple of things and I will be convinced. First where in the constitution are corporations given the status of "people"?

Second Where, prior to this court's monstrous overreach in the case of Citizen's United, had the Supreme Court ever ruled that corporations are people?

 

[Oddball]

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.”

Show me a couple of things and I will be convinced. First where in the constitution are corporations given the status of "people"?

Second Where, prior to this court's monstrous overreach in the case of Citizen's United, had the Supreme Court ever ruled that corporations are people?

What Is The Basis For Corporate Personhood? : NPR

 

[SniperFire]

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.”

Show me a couple of things and I will be convinced. First where in the constitution are corporations given the status of "people"?

Show us , first, where Congress can pass laws abridging free speech - regardless of source.