Democratic Senators Want to ‘Repeal the First Amendment’

Ted CruzCNS News – by Penny Starr

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) told attendees at a Family Research Council pastors retreat that Senate Democrats want to limit free speech through amending the Constitution.

“When you think it can’t get any worse, it does,” Cruz said at the FRC’s Watchmen on the Wall 2014 event in Washington, D.C. on Thursday. “This year, I’m sorry to tell you, the United States Senate is going to be voting on a constitutional amendment to repeal the First Amendment.”  

Calling these “perilous, perilous times,” Cruz said Senate Democrats have said they are ready to vote on the amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 19– “an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.”

“Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has announced the Senate Democrats are scheduling a vote on a constitutional amendment to give Congress the authority to regulate political speech, because elected officials have decided they don’t like it when the citizenry has the temerity to criticize what they’ve done,” he said.

“They don’t like it when pastors in their community stand up and speak the truth,” Cruz said to an audience of hundreds of pastors from across the country.

“And I’ll note this amendment, which has 41 Democratic senators as co-sponsors – 41 Democrats have signed on to repealing the First Amendment,” Cruz said. “It explicitly says nothing in this new amendment shall abridge the freedom of the press.

“So the New York Times is protected, but it doesn’t say the same thing about the freedom of speech,” Cruz said. “It doesn’t say the same thing about religious liberty.”

Cruz said Democrats want to limit free speech.

“What it says is that politicians in Washington have unlimited constitutional authority to muzzle each and every one of you if you’re saying things the government finds inconvenient,” Cruz said.

Cruz was not scheduled to speak at the event but showed up to introduce one of the speakers – his father, Rafael Cruz, an ordained minister.

Cruz said his father embodied the American dream, having emigrated from Cuba, landing his first job as a dishwasher and going on to be a successful businessman.

Cruz related his father’s advice on preserving liberty in America.

“When we faced oppression in Cuba, I had a place to flee to,” the senior Cruz said. “If we lose our freedom here, where do we go?”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/ted-cruz-democratic-senators-want-repeal-first-amendment

9 thoughts on “Democratic Senators Want to ‘Repeal the First Amendment’

  1. How does muzzling our freedom of speech benefit the citizens?? Would you vote for this if given the chance?? Of course not, this is for their benefit…aren’t they supposed to do the will of the people?? Instead they use the citizens dime to pass crap like this. How about making laws to benefit the citizens. Friggin’ Losers.

    1. Lovell v. City of Griffin SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 303 U.S. 444 Argued February 4, 1938 Decided March 28, 1938

      The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest. The press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion. What we have had recent occasion to say with respect to the vital importance of protecting this essential liberty from every sort of infringement need not be repeated. Near v. Minnesota, supra; Grosjean v. American Press Co., supra; De Jonge v. Oregon, supra.[note 2]

      Whatever differences may exist about interpretations of the First Amendment, there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs. This of course includes discussions of candidates, structures and forms of government, the manner in which government is operated or should be operated, and all such [384 U.S. 214, 219] matters relating to political processes. The Constitution specifically selected the press, which includes not only newspapers, books, and magazines, but also humble leaflets and circulars, see Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 , to play an important role in the discussion of public affairs.

  2. It is just more fear porn.
    The Government has already effectively
    destroyed the First Amendment.

  3. I’d bet free speech was also forbidden during the holocaust years, but I’ll also bet there were lots of notes passed between like-minded people during that time. Freedom of speech is just not something that can be wiped away.
    . . .

  4. Not one of these “non-reps” is going to change a thing on the US Const..least of all subtract from it……..Taking away from it is extremely difficult, by design. Won’t happen!!!

  5. “Democratic Senators Want to ‘Repeal the First Amendment’”

    Not as badly as we want to hang them, I’ll bet.

  6. If non-profits incorporated as media corporations they would be exempt from campaign laws.

    The 1st Amendment is not a loophole in campaign laws. Campaign laws are abridgements of 1st Amendment rights.

    From 1791 to 1975 speech, press and assembly were the individual rights of flesh and blood citizens. The New York Times had the right to print because it employed people.

    After Watergate, campaign laws were passed:
    • But media corporations were exempted creating a State approved press. Is it any wonder news media are among the biggest promoters of campaign law?
    • Regulations limited citizen’s donations to politicians. This made it unlikely challengers, who would benefit more from large sums from a few, can defeat incumbents.
    • Lawyers have gotten rich defending clients against infractions of myriad, incomprehensible and unconstitutional laws.

    “The love of liberty is so natural to the human heart, that unfeeling tyrants think themselves obliged to accommodate their schemes as much as they can to the appearance of justice and reason, and to deceive those whom they resolve to destroy, or oppress, by presenting to them a miserable picture of freedom, when the inestimable original is lost.” – John Dickinson

    However, freedoms of speech, press and assembly are inalienable rights not privileges. The 1st Amendment does not say unless you assemble as for-profit, non-profit, church, political party, media Corporation or unincorporated group. The 1st Amendment does not limit how much you can spend as an individual or like minded group or require reporting donations and expenditures to the Federal government. The 1st Amendment does not say candidates give up the right to associate with or coordinate with like minded citizens or groups.

    Our focus should be restoring 1st amendment rights rather than defending privileges or equal restrictions.

    Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell had the solution in July 1998 but he did not follow through. Follow the hyperlink to see what Senator Mitch McConnell said to me in his letter http://amendment10.tripod.com/mitch4.htm

    “Section 431(9)(B)(i) makes a distinction where there is no real difference: the media is extremely powerful by any measure, a “special interest” by any definition, and heavily engaged in the “issue advocacy” and “independent expenditure” realms of political persuasion that most editorial boards find so objectionable when anyone other than a media outlet engages in it. To illustrate the absurdity of this special exemption the media enjoys, I frequently cite as an example the fact that if the RNC bought NBC from GE the FEC would regulate the evening news and, under the McCain-Feingold “reform” bill, Tom Brokaw could not mention a candidate 60 days before and election. This is patently absurd

    Had the senate debate on the McCain Feingold bill advanced to the point of amendments, among the first I offered would have been one to delete section 431 (9) (B) (i). Whenever the opportunity presents itself in the future, I look forward to doing just that. I believe that it would be an enlightening discussion.”

    A free press is the right to use a printing press t without a license from government.

    Other than who pays for it, there is no difference between an editorial, slanted news story and a political ad?

    Call Senators and Congressmen and demand they amend the press exemption, 2 U.S.C. 431 (9) (B) (i), to include citizens and groups!

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published.


*