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

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
a reply to: jrod

the press can print whatever the heck they want, the printing part isn't the issue.\

the issue is Public Relations, anad access to information

Consider the vast majority of the press is controlled by a tiny few, I think otherwise.

That said, is the press free to print confidential material?

originally posted by: jrod


That said, is the press free to print confidential material?

Yes and no.

Contrary to what people think the media can be prosecuted for releasing classified information. The pentagon papers set the standard, where the court ruled the government's argument on prior restrain did not and does not apply to situations where government embarrassment is the argument.

Scotus did NOT extend protections to journalists in its ruling. The 2 reporters involved were actually charged. For whatever reason the prosecuting attorney screwed something up which resulted in the journalists going free with jeopardy attached.

So yes, journalists can print the information however they are not immune from prosecution from that action.

originally posted by: jrod
That said, is the press free to print confidential material?

The protections to print confidental material only extend to poor conduct. If they got the plans the New York Times isn't free to print the specifications for an ICBM. They can only print it when it's information that reveals a crime, like the Snowden docs revealing massive constitutional abuses.

The journalist can still be charged but it's a case that would likely goto the supreme court. If the company that publishes that information is free from prosecution it makes sense that the person who writes it is too. I don't think this has been challenged though. If they ever grab Glenn Greenwald he'll probably be the one that argues the case.

has it really come to this, soon itl be the second amendment. thats why they are trying to find ways to secretly take away our guns and rights. so when they actually come for us we wont be able to fight back. man do i hate america right now

originally posted by: ominousrex
has it really come to this, soon itl be the second amendment. thats why they are trying to find ways to secretly take away our guns and rights. so when they actually come for us we wont be able to fight back. man do i hate america right now

I love America right now, she is family. I was born here, I support her, it's up to us to fix her. I don't hate my family members when they have problems I help them through it, when a family member is down I help them up. Nothing is perfect but it miles ahead of pretty much any other country. I am proud to be American, we need to get back to the constitution, and make sure politicians do the same or they are voted OUT! For me there is no negotiating this. If you don't support the constitution you don't get my vote. This is the primary reason Obama has to go, you can't kill people without a trial.

a reply to: olaru12

Did you read the story you linked? I know you're feeling very smug and superior, but if the bill passes, it is, in fact, a serious infringement on the first amendment.

But never mind reality. Forest if not for the trees.

wow... shocker...

originally posted by: SlightlyAbovePar
a reply to: olaru12

Did you read the story you linked? I know you're feeling very smug and superior, but if the bill passes, it is, in fact, a serious infringement on the first amendment.

But never mind reality. Forest if not for the trees.

Discussing / proposing items in Congress that are essentially illegal is protected under the speech and debate clause of the constitution. Both houses of Congress must agree to the same bill / conditions. Both chambers must pass the legislation and only then can the President sign / veto it.

Its an election year - Does anyone really think Republicans are going to sign onto legislation that will bite them in the ass down the road?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Agreed. People don't understand how many stupid, silly and outright unconstitutional things they waste their time and our money screwing with just for the public relations value of either saying they were for it or saying the other guys were against it....regardless of whether "it" has a snowballs chance in hell of ever passing to see the Supreme Court destroy it.

The best example really is the bill to repeal Presidential term limits. It's been a real life Congressional bill and amendment proposed at least a couple times under Obama and it had reared it's ignorant head before that as well. Even the idiots writing it likely know it's not worth toilet paper in Tierra Del Fuego.

Congress isn't about DOING anymore though...it's about appearing to do and making us feel happy (or at least not militant enough to remove them by force) while they do whatever they please anyway.

a reply to: olaru12

I think there is a difference between your title that they are "going to repeal"...and what the story says that they are going to just VOTE on it. Both are vastly different.

a reply to: olaru12

I've been looking (not very hard) for this thread. I think a book by retired Spreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens called "Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution" is what set off this latest round of insanity from the Right.

And it is an inaccurate and ignorant reading of what Justice Stevens has written:

About the 1st Amendment:

To start, he proposes changing the First Amendment, the protection of free speech, so that it allows "reasonable limits" on the amount of money candidates for public office or their supporters can spend on election campaigns.

www.npr.org...

Proposes CHANGE not getting rid of the First Amendment.

If this isn't what is being howled about, then what FACTUAL act or statement by any 'democrat' is he talking about? He just makes this crap up as he goes along - or believes the crap his 'handlers' tell him?

Where is his basis for this rant? That's what interests me - how people (left or right) distort they actual intent, meaning of others actions without ever listening (which includes understand the others point of view) to what is actually said.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Actually repealing the 22nd amendment on Presidential terms has been suggested every year since 1985, regardless of what party is in the White House.

As for Democrats and what they think they want if it occurred. If its repealed I don't see Obama benefitting from it. I do see Bill Clinton benefitting from it though.

The other issue is the political argument each side make on the topic shows their true colors while demonstrating ignorance. The moment a President is elected that is very popular you are going to have the opposing political parties pitching a fit the moment a third term occurs.

Like the nuclear option in the Senate. Both sides have threatened its use and now that the Democrats pulled the trigger on it, they are faced with the problem of Republicans gaining control of the Senate.

in both scenarios above a change was proposed based on the here and now and not down the road.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Actually repealing the 22nd amendment on Presidential terms has been suggested every year since 1985, regardless of what party is in the White House.

Indeed.. Which was the only point I was making, and we seem to agree on.

The political animals we elect into that swamp in Washington, party totally aside as the difference is stupid anymore, propose whatever crosses their mind as a brainfart on a regular basis..and 99% of it fails before ever seeing the stage of having a chance.

a reply to: FyreByrd

A valid position from Stevens.

The problem -
Currently there are standards in place that allow courts to decide on a case by case basis regarding incidents from free speech.

Currently their are standards in place that guides journalism on a case by case basis.

The moment you start defining terms, you are limiting the intent of the amendment. Currently Democrats in Congress are pushing for legislation that would define who a journalist is. It also determines who would be protected by the 1st amendment and who would not be protected in terms of journalism.

On the surface a argument could be made about the merits of the idea. The issue then becomes, once passed, how the legislation can be used against political opponents in the media. If a journalist is researching a story that will result in scandal once exposed, what happens when he is arrested and charged for his actions because he does not meet the criteria to be considered a journalist.

I find it disgusting our elected officials will sue to allow unlimited campaign contributions, term limits - arguing the restrictions are a violation of the Constitution, while at the same time proposing legislation to restrict the rights of the citizens.

Congress - its unconstitutional to apply standards to Congress that are not specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

President - Its unconstitutional to apply standards to the President that are not specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

Citizens - certain rights should be restricted based solely on the above groups wanting to use the do as I say and not as I do doctrine.

In other words they think they are above the law and by extension, above the people.

originally posted by: luciddream

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: muse7

So are you going to pretend like the left isn't guilty of the same things?

Both are guilty, but ATS majority leans heavily on one side, that is a given. tho it is probably due to actions of current political party in the white house.

You should have seen ATS when Bush was in power. 99% of the site hated him.

ATS hates authority. It's not necessarily based on political party.

a reply to: cetaphobic

I was checking the archive, you seem to be right. It doesn't matter who's in power, ATS just doesn't like them.

I think the addition of political subforums only managed to enhance the ideologies that people already possessed here.

The real interesting posts I found were the economic topics leading up to the recession. Nothing specific but a lot of 'things are probably worse than they seem.' It's just generalizing but it's neat to read now.

A little history. Senator McCarthy and Gay Edgar Hoover with a little help screwed over the Nation with similar bull**** messages. Unfortunately, we do not have an Edward R. Morrow to show the "masses" how inane the rantings are, and the damage blindly believing such things is to the U.S.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: FyreByrd

A valid position from Stevens.

The problem -


The moment you start defining terms, you are limiting the intent of the amendment. Currently Democrats in Congress are pushing for legislation that would define who a journalist is. It also determines who would be protected by the 1st amendment and who would not be protected in terms of journalism.

A serious question for you and, keep in mind that I'm not being specific about journalists and/or money=speech issues.

My question is simple - if you do not define words how can you 'divine' the intent behind an amendment as in this case. Language is a very fluid medium. And our usage changes over time. I think clear definintions would enhance understanding of intent.

Try speaking to an Englishman - I hear the words, I understand the words - but often they are saying something completely different then what I am hearing (Brits have a knack for being obtuse, IMHO, and I've known or conversed with many and always have to ask them WTF they are talking about).

After reading a bit on Justice Stevens' recommendations - I think that we should consider adding the Supreme Cour'ts duties - to continually update and codify the intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It would be of greater utility to clarify the intent rather then this piecemeal approach of individual cases.

Back to my actual question for you:


if you do not define words how can you 'divine' the intent behind an amendment as in this case.


Remember these documents were written in times where things we take for granted would be seen as magic and the Framers could not have forseen the material and legal quiremire we live in.

a reply to: FyreByrd

The constitution is written vaguely on purpose so that it can be interpreted in different ways at different times. Furthermore, one of the basics in politics is to use broad open ended statements. Giving specifics simply isn't how the process works as much as it would be nice at times if that's how it did.

a reply to: FyreByrd

ok - let me ask you this then -

What is a journalist?
Who is a journalist?

Can you point out in the 1st amendment where it defines free press, what / who a journalist is, and who free speech applies to?

If the government passes a law defining what a journalist is, and a person speaks out against the government who does not meet the criteria, he/she can have action taken against them.

Now, if we look at the person who is speaking out as a non journalist, then he is being punished for freely expressing his opinion about the government, which is protected speech.

Defining something allows for that something to be manipulated. As an example a person in one of the northeast states, I forget which one, went onto their own Facebook account and compared one of the politicians running for a local office as using the same style propaganda that Hitler used.

The politician got pissed, demanded the post be removed an started legal actions against the person.

The first amendment should be treated in the same manner as diplomacy - which is to say diplomacy needs all the words it can get its hands on.

We have laws that govern the release of classified information.
We have laws that allow a media outlet / private person to be sued for libel / slander.
We have restrictions on a case by case basis that deals with certain types of speech that can incite a response or cause a panic.

There is no reason to try and define the 1st amendment and what a journalist is. The ONLY reason to go down this road is to protect politicians by allowing them to be above the law by restricting an individuals rights to criticize them.

All we need to do is look at the Bush administration and the Obama administration.

8 years of one scandal after the other. If the laws they propose happen, we would most likely never hear about Benghazi, the IRs scandal, Fast and Furious, (insert more examples for Bush / Obama here).

'Government must be restricted - not the people.

To answer your question -
Nothing needs to be divined when the intent behind the action is clear. Research this topic and see what is being discussed / used as examples as to why they want to define portions of the 1st amendment.

Keep in mind Congress has special protections built into the constitution - The Speech and debate clause, which allows them to speak in a manner in Congress that would not be allowed to be spoken in public without running afoul of the law changes being proposed.

Why does a government need to define who can report on their actions?
why does a government need to define who can say what where and when?
why does the government need a law to punish a person for simply disagreeing with a politician?

While we are all thinking about those questions, I would suggest people research Joseph Goebbels and how he stage managed the Nazi rise to power by controlling what can be said and by whom.