Ted Cruz drops bombshell: Senate Democrats to ‘repeal the First Amendment’ this year

a reply to: neo96

Stop the mega cash flow and see how quickly bureaucracy shrinks.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: crazyewok

But votes don't effing matter to begin with.

US elections are decided by the ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

Very true. The people electing the president in this country is an illusion.

a reply to: olaru12

You have to understand, he is God don't ya know. This according to his father that appears to be as crazy as he is. Is it just me or does your skin crawl too just to see him speak. If anyone is a reptilian it is teddy boy lol....

He looks like something trying to pop out of him lol. He creeps me out and I am a Texas, even though I have not lived there in many years lol.

Republican will lose again if he is their nominee. He sets there on national tv and lies like it is nothing. He is a joke.

I am so sick of republicans and Democrats lol. I am independent and someday we will hopefully get a true third party that takes enough seats from these yahoos to at least make them compromise and work together. This crap is beyond ridiculous.

The Bot

originally posted by: muse7
Sometimes I think Ted Cruz is actively posting here on ATS. Some of the threads are so full of right wing propaganda it's down right embarrassing and the saddest part is that the majority of the members here take them as facts because it exposes the EVIL LIBERAL AGENDA!!

THe majority of the members here??

Weird didnt the ATS poll disprove this thought that most ATSers were repbulicans or right wingers?

Nice blanket statement tho for dramatic effect....

You are conscious of the fact that youre being just as melodramatic as you accuse them of being right...??? RIGHT???

OOO the Irony

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
Pretty sure you need a Constitutional Convention to do any Amendment repealing. Maybe the Senate thinks they have that much power, but they don't.

Michigan just signed on for aConstitutional Convention and was the 34th state required for the correct amount. I don't remember when it will happen but it makes me very nervous. The reason is, it opens the entire constitution to be amended. Never mind what the talking heads in DC have to say this is the real deal. If I understand things it is up to congress at this point because some states have changed their mind. Since this has never been done they don't even know if it possible to change your mind. So it sounds like they are leaving up to the knuckleheads in Congress. Now if that doesn't scare nothing will.

Ted Cruz was really very nice about it.

Here is Orrin Hatch's response to the same deal and rather similar

“How ironic that Senate Democrats are using the platform of the ‘world’s greatest deliberative body’ to seek to undermine the First Amendment free speech rights of other Americans with whom they disagree. As I outlined in a speech on the Senate floor last week, the White House and its Democrat allies in Congress have launched a concerted effort to stifle speech and trample on one of the most fundamental rights that Americans possess. Not only is such an effort offensive to the natural and constitutional rights all Americans cherish, it is also a transparent political ploy. Democrats are simply seeking to distract from their failure to address the real issues facing our country, like our sluggish economy and the President’s disastrous health care law. It is truly a shame that Democrats would attack our most important freedoms in seeking to avoid accountability for their poor leadership.”

www.hatch.senate.gov...

Read through the proposed amendment and the following can be stated:

If this bill passes, it is going to be like prohibition and be short lived. It is badly written, and one where it can be used like a weapon against people. It is one that is written in a way to where it is a law that can be used like a weapon to shut down opponents very quickly. And ultimately, starts to remove the freedom of choice when it comes to the political arena. Here is the logic that follows:

Let’s say that a business decides to give to one particular candidate. And the sitting candidate does not agree with such, they could come in and penalize that business for such. And they could also penalize all of those who work in that business. What would happen if say not one business, but all of the employees in a business contributes, then that business could be penalized as well.

And it could be used against say the unions and other organizations that vote one way or another every election.

This is a door that should not be opened, and will go for as long as the one side that supports it gets any benefits, but the moment it is used against them, they will cry about how unfair it is and demand its repeal.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Weird didnt the ATS poll disprove this thought that most ATSers were repbulicans or right wingers?

If you look at that you've got 39% swinging towards the right and 30% swinging to the left.

If you look at just the American results (as a lot of political posts here are regarding American politics) you get this:



53% to the right and 22% to the left! There is a strong right-wing bias on this website.

a reply to: MarlinGrace

Vermont has already taken steps to do what this senate bill is proposing:
Vermont first state to call for constitutional convention to get money out of politics

a reply to: links234

And Teddy boy is as far into the Tea Party as one can get...where does that get in the poll?

He's such a F-up that even cry at the drop of hat Boehner doesn't dig him.

I know that conspiracies lend themselves to the opposite party, but ... idiot Rerepesentig??

Good god...of your choice, so wrong.

a reply to: dlbott

I think he creeps many people out and I agree, if he is the conservatives pick, then the GOP will lose again. His father is nuts and in this case, I don't think the apple falls far from the tree. There's got to be someone better.

originally posted by: StoutBroux
a reply to: dlbott

I think he creeps many people out and I agree, if he is the conservatives pick, then the GOP will lose again. His father is nuts and in this case, I don't think the apple falls far from the tree. There's got to be someone better.

There are plenty of good Republicans canidates.

www.politico.com...

But the Christian Right has taken over the GOP and T party as well and moderates need not apply. The extreme Republican right is more than happy to play the victim and lose in the process.

originally posted by: StoutBroux
a reply to: dlbott

I think he creeps many people out and I agree, if he is the conservatives pick, then the GOP will lose again. His father is nuts and in this case, I don't think the apple falls far from the tree. There's got to be someone better.

I know I have not lived there in a very long time but still I am a Texan and it's like what were you guys thinking. This guy looks like the antichrist or something lol. That little pasty white vampire kid on the munsters all grown up lol.

And when he opens his mouth you never know what lie, outright lie, is gonna come out of his mouth. I am just flabbergasted how he got elected in the first place. Oh and by the way he does not deny his dad's statement that he is god incarnate either. If that don't scare you i am not sure what does.

As for the constitution change i thought that was something we actually had to vote on. People where I live sure won't lose the right to say what they want. They want to start real revolution start telling people what they can't say and more. Might as well get the camps ready, or should I say body bags ready.

What are we, in Russia lol...

The Bot

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere

So this bills says it's okay for a majority Republican Congress to decide how much a Democrat candidate can spend in an election?

Works both ways, doesn't it? Sen. Cruz is using a bit of metaphor, which literal leftists choose to not understand so they can make fun of it, but he is fundamentally correct. "Free speech" includes my giving my money to whomever I like to promise their election. The left has no problem at all with George Soros setting up a huge PAC to fight the GOP and doesn't blink an eye when Michael Bloomberg announces he's going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on anti-gun issues. If some leftist "green billionaire" announces he's going to spend a fortune against "climate denying anti science Republicans" the left cheers in unison. But let the Koch brothers give $10 grand to anyone at all and a huge hue and cry goes out about the unfairness of it all.

The basic idea here is for the left to stifle the right in any way they can and for the right to stifle the left in the same way. It's a game if one-upmanship with the goal to have "God on your side" in the way of public support and/or outrage.

The left sees the half they want to see. And of the right were behind this, it would be the opposite.

And the sheeple go along with it.

I'm on the left and don't know one other liberal who is ok with the money thrown around in washington.

I don't know anyone on the right who is ok with it either to be honest, only politicians are.

The biggest problem I see with the left right divide and money is people arguing over who spends more, when we should just cut to the chase and agree we all hate it, but that wouldn't fit in the two party system propaganda.

My entire problem with this, partisan crap aside, is a little game that Washington has played for the better part of the last century... it's called incrementalism...

Americans would throw an out and out fit if the first Amendment were to be repealed; they know this. Instead, they start taking our rights away one little bit at a time.

Remember the days when you had to be found guilty of a crime before the government could start confiscating your stuff?

Remember the days when a judge had to issue a legal order/warrant for a wiretap?

Remember the days when a police officer would politely show up at your door and knock to execute a search warrant?

They are killing our Constitutional rights one paragraph at a time...

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: crazyewok

But votes don't effing matter to begin with.

US elections are decided by the ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

Very true. The people electing the president in this country is an illusion.

The bulk of states have state laws that require their electoral college delegates to vote in the same manner the majority of the state voted for. The change essentially removed the purpose of the electoral college our founding fathers established. The concern was the people could elect a person that was absolutely the wrong choice, allowing the electoral to essentially override the people.

The proposal of some Blue states is scary - A popular vote that ignores state outcomes. Electoral delegates for a state would go to the candidate who wins the popular vote. As an example - If the citizens of New York State vote for Candidate B, and Candidate A wins the popular vote, the delegates would go to that person.

a reply to: CB328

Corporations are not people. There is no need for any amendment. Corporations can be simply be regulated. We regulate them already.

Is not regulating commerce congresses job?

Get real.

a reply to: Not Authorized

It is congress's job however when you have specific laws passed restricting campaign finance and you have courts strike those laws down as a 1st amendment violation its going to take something stronger, like a constitutional amendment, to stop the practice.

We are back to this campaign finance argument because Scotus struck down parts of the Feingold-McCain act that restricted donations.

a reply to: Xcathdra

What was the historical legal systems of our nation?

Which worked best?