Charles Schumer vows to rewrite 1st Amendment

Senator Charles “Upchuck” Schumer, (D-NY), is angry. Why is he angry? The Supreme Court keeps upholding that pesky 1^st Amendment and allowing the Koch Brothers, Tea Party and other conservative groups to get out their message.

Upchuck, who rivals your average Nazi, Communist or Fascist in his loathing of individual rights and freedom, has never hidden the fact that he wants a one party state and that the Constitution means nothing. Now, this scholar of the Constitution, which I doubt he has ever actually read, is furious with the USSC ((United States Supreme Court)) making these decisions upholding freedom of speech. He intends to do something about it. Here are the details from Fox News:

Senate Democrats said Wednesday that the Supreme Court has stretched the First Amendment too far when it comes to campaign finances, and vowed to hold a vote to amend the Constitution and undo a number of landmark decisions.

Limiting freedom, a typical response from the Progressive Liberal Fascist Democrats.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat and chairman of the Rules Committee, said he will push a constitutional amendment to the full floor later this year that would give Congress the power to impose strict limits on campaign finance.

And of course, those limits will only apply to those who the Democrats oppose. Unions, George Soros, Tom Stayer and all the other members of the PLFD Moonbat club.

“It will draw to a fine point where we are at — and that is, the First Amendment is sacred, but that the First Amendment is not absolute, and by making it absolute you actually make it less sacred to most Americans,” Mr. Schumer said.

Upchuck Schumer’s contempt for any dissent is well known. He hates the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, basically the entire bill of rights. So what does decisions does he want to overturn?

The decisions he said he wants to overturn include two recent ones, this year’s McCutcheon ruling ((McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission)) and the 2010 Citizens United ((Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission)) decision, and then the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo ((Buckley v. Valeo)) decision that has served as the basis of modern campaign finance jurisprudence.

Read the footnotes for links to wikipedia for the details of the decisions. Long story short, while PLFD donors will also benefit from this, it really opens the money floodgates for the conservative groups, and we know that Upchuck and the rest of the washouts from the Hitler Youth summer camp can’t allow that.

Mr. Schumer’s vow to hold a vote seemed designed as much a message to Supreme Court justices as it was a promise to colleagues.

And that message is “Submit to MY WILL!” The last thing Comrade Upchuck wants is to allow conservative and constitutionalists groups any way to get their message out. Why, he has demanded that the Internal Revenue Service do all they can to oppress these groups ((Chuck Schumer Calls For The IRS To Stop The Tea Party)). (Which they were happy to do as we are now seeing)

Campaign finance has been touchy for decades, but has taken on a more pointed tone in recent years.

Probably because people are tired of getting screwed over by the Political Class in Washington and the states, so they have started to organize and speak out. That means they are trying to raise money. Who has the money? Like minded companies and rich people of course.

In his 2010 State of the Union address President Obama even scolded the justices, sitting directly in front of him in the House chamber, for their Citizens United decision, issued just days before.

That was the famous scene where Justice Alito mouthed the words “That’s not true.” To King Putt’s decree.

In that case, a divided Supreme Court ruled that outside interest groups could raise and spend money freely to run ads defending their positions in elections. That struck down key parts of the campaign finance laws Congress had passed — including parts of the 2002 McCain-Feingold ((Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act)) campaign finance law.

That law became known as the “Incumbent full employment and protection act” since it pretty much rigged the system to keep anyone from opposing people like Russ Feingold and John McCain.

Democrats argue that the court has unleashed a spree of big-spending billionaires intent on distorting democracy. They regularly single out the Koch brothers, who support conservative causes, as key targets that need to be reeled in.

Never mind the Unions and George Soros. They support the PLFD’s after all so they are good.

But the Supreme Court has ruled that campaign spending is free speech, and thus entitled to strong First Amendment protections — particularly in cases where members of Congress disagree with what is being said.

“Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said in his majority opinion in this year’s McCutcheon case. “If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades — despite the profound offense such spectacles cause — it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”

Now the Republicans have talked about an amendment to the constitution banning flag burning, but it hasn’t gone anywhere and for good reason. It would limit the right to say, or in this case do something to show what you think. I don’t support burning the flag as a means of protest, but I won’t support an amendment outlawing it.

But Republicans said it’s a dangerous path.

“Campaign finance reform restrictions are always pitched as ‘Let’s prevent corruption, let’s hold politicians accountable,’ and they do exactly the opposite,” said Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican. “Every single restriction this body puts in place is designed to do one thing — protect incumbent politicians.”

Of course, and McCain-Feingold was the cherry on top of that Sundae. The political class, made up of PLFD’s and their RINO ((Republican In Name Only)) counterparts have only one true goal. Keeping and increasing their perks and their power. Anything that interferes with that has to be crushed. Now the good news is that passing an amendment is not easy to do.

Amending the Constitution is a very difficult bar. It would take approval by two-thirds of each house of Congress — something that’s unlikely in either chamber right now — and then would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states.

The last successful proposed amendment came more than 40 years ago, when the 26th Amendment was ratified, granting those 18 and older the right to vote. A 27th Amendment, restricting Congress’s ability to change its own salary, was ratified in 1992 — but that amendment was proposed as part of the original package in 1789 that became the Bill of Rights.

Getting this through Congress isn’t going to happen. I suspect not even all the PLFD’s will sign on to this since they will understand that it will backfire. Currently there is a move afoot to call a Constitutional Convention to bypass congress and pass a number of amendments designed to strip power away from the Federal Government and restore it to the states and individuals. Even if the states succeed in calling a “ConCon” and pass what have become known as the “Liberty Amendments,” they still have to go to the states. The same thing with Upchuck’s repeal of the First Amendment. Even if it got past the Congress and sent to the states, there is no way they can get it ratified. At best, only those states controlled by the PLFD’s would pass it and probably not even them.

If, by some miracle, they got this through, the odds of people accepting, especially in view of how the PLFD’s have used the Internal Revenue Service and other government agencies to go after people and groups they don’t like, is very low. In all probability, ramming this through and starting the repression Upchuck Schumer and the rest of the Political Class want will announce to the American People that it is “Game On!” and the time will have come to fertilize the Tree of Liberty.

Charles “Upchuck” Schumer is a disgrace to the State of New York and to the United States of America. He, along with Dingy Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, Peter King and John McCain are the reasons we are in such trouble as a nation. They all need to go.

Thatisall

~The Angry Webmaster~

(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

Loading...