| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| Senate Democrats vote to repeal 1st Amendment |
| 2014-09-16 |
| Posted by:Procopius2k |
| #10 I called Pelosi's office once to complain about her stand on an issue. A couple of hours later the capital police called my number. I told them to rot in hell. |
| Posted by: Ebbomosh Hupemp2664 2014-09-16 21:55 |
| #9 If you remove the right of people to band together and pool their resources as a group in order to communicate a message, then just the richest individuals will have the funds to pay to broadcast their ideas. More exactly: only your betters. The leftists then will persuade the rich (speciallay those who inherited their richness) funding them is being cool and tolerant and smart. |
| Posted by: JFM 2014-09-16 14:27 |
| #8 ....you missed that this was a vote on an amendment to the Constitution. Once passed, it would be the "Constitutional". Didn't get the 2/3rds needed in the Senate let alone the House (and 3/4 of the states), but it does show the hand of totalitarianism. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2014-09-16 10:49 |
| #7 I read the article. Am I missing something? How can Congress pass (try to) a law that is unconstitutional--Once such a law is passed it is, by definition, unconstitutional? However, if such a law were passed, there would most likely be lawsuits that would take the issue to SCOTUS. SCOTUS would decide the issue. And if SCOTUS' membership were "stacked" towards liberals, would they protect the Constitution? The culprits are on the record for those who vote (if they understand or care). |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2014-09-16 09:38 |
| #6 If you remove the right of people to band together and pool their resources as a group in order to communicate a message, then just the richest individuals will have the funds to pay to broadcast their ideas. That's the plan. It's all about incumbent protection. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2014-09-16 09:37 |
| #5 Just to play the Captain Obvious role, as is my tendency ... If you remove the right of people to band together and pool their resources as a group in order to communicate a message, then just the richest individuals will have the funds to pay to broadcast their ideas. And this is coming from the community-organizing-friendly crowd, right? Seems ... mmmmm ... contradictory, no? Kinda like how higher level of regulations always benefits the larger, currently-winning corporations over the smaller start-ups. Again, usually pushed by the "we're for the small guy" people. That's a stealthy little trend there. I think a lot of good folks simply catch on to the easily-accessible "look at all of the money they have/make and money is bad" message from those pushing these ideas. To hear and understand how things are truly backwards takes some time, good faith, and strength on the part of the listener. It means those arguing on the true behalf of grassroots efforts to make a difference start out way behind in the game. |
| Posted by: ExtremeModerate 2014-09-16 08:47 |
| #4 Because what's the point of being a blustering bag of gas if just anybody gets a turn at talking. |
| Posted by: ed in texas 2014-09-16 07:42 |
| #3 Because what's the point of being a blustering bag of gas if just anybody gets a turn at talking. |
| Posted by: ed in texas 2014-09-16 07:42 |
| #2 Such dramatic outcasting bores the peoples these days. Have the DC park police bring out a Radio Flyer full of Zip Loc bags of cremains instead. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2014-09-16 07:20 |
| #1 Because when you hate your own Nation, you send the very best to lead it. Rails. Bring them out on rails. Pieces of shit. |
| Posted by: newc 2014-09-16 04:46 |