It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in


posted on May, 26 2014 @ 04:33 AM
There is another issue involved with attempting to pass an amendment to change or alter the first amendment that has not been raised here.

To do so would be an act of treason against the US and the Constitution.

See the first amendment was intentionally worded in a specific manner that would make it impossible to do so without committing such an act.

Only Congress is allowed to amend the Constitution, even if a constitutional convention votes for such an amendment the amendment still has to go through Congress to be documented into law and enacted.

The first amendment states that :

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Since only Congress is legally allowed to amend the Constitution, and the First Amendment expressly prohibits Congress from amending the First Amendment, any attempt to do so would violate their oath to uphold and protect the Constitution and effectively overthrow the foundations of our government.

These rights and ideals contained in the First Amendment where held as being of the highest importance by the people who risked everything they had to attempt to create a country of freedom, liberty and equality. The Bill of Rights was created because although the Declaration of Independence expressed these deeply held values, once the Constitution was written it was noted that there were no provisions included within the document that protected those rights and freedoms of the people from being lost at the hands of some future greedy power hungry government. As such the First Amendment was specifically worded in such a way that any action on the part of Congress or any other arm of our government to diminish, abridge or abolish those rights protected by the First Amendment would be a gross violation of the central tenets this country was founded upon and an act of outright aggression and grievous harm against to the citizens and way of life they vowed to protect. A criminal act, an impeachable act, and an act of High Treason.

posted on May, 26 2014 @ 04:39 AM
a reply to: Pixiefyre

Not treason.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

posted on May, 26 2014 @ 10:50 AM
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

First off screw the Democrats, the Democrats are going to lose no worse yet they are going to get there rears end kicked with Obama care and the veterans affairs scandal, it's so bad Obama took off to a foreign country.

The Democrats are gone and gone, they are way out there on the left and can't aknowledge the fact they want to flush the country down a toilet bowl, more regulations, taxes, freedom of speech only if it agrees with their view points, certainly a police state.


posted on May, 26 2014 @ 11:47 AM
a reply to: warren408

is this an attempt to troll?

or are you just repeating what talk-radio and fox-news tells you?

posted on May, 26 2014 @ 02:37 PM
a reply to: Pixiefyre

Regardless of constitutional conventions / amendments it still requires 2/3 ratification by the states to be adopted. Pay raises for Congress took a bit over 200 years to become an amendment.

I will wager all the money in the world that state representatives will fail any vote on adopting changes for the 1st amendment. What we are seeing now is states telling the feds to screw off with their overreach.

I don't see this being much different. Actually one of the results I could see occurring from this plan is for the person to lose his seat either in a recall or by being fired by the voters.

edit on 26-5-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-5-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 26 2014 @ 04:41 PM

originally posted by: Aazadan
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.

Can you give me a reference for that?

posted on May, 26 2014 @ 04:45 PM

originally posted by: Xcathdra
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.

It is considered polite to answer a question before asking another - it's called conversation.

As to a definition of who/what is a journalist. I can't give you an answer without extended thought and consultations with people who are WISER then I.

That sure is my point.

posted on May, 26 2014 @ 05:01 PM
a reply to: olaru12

Amend the constitution, the First amendment to be precise... Mr. Cruz, you are without a doubt, an idiot of the first order...

The other idiots are the ones who think this could/will actually happen.

I'd facepalm, but this is beyond merely facepalming stupid...

posted on May, 26 2014 @ 05:20 PM
a reply to: FyreByrd

I suggest a reading of Constitutional Interpretation. I'm sure you realize that there are people who don't agree with your worldview. The same goes for the constitution, not everyone interprets it the same way.

An example is given in the link above; What does 'due process' mean? There's no definition in the constitution, just that 'due process' should exist. Other issues have been the placement of comma's as deliberate, separate statements or a continuation of thought or just a typo.

posted on May, 26 2014 @ 05:32 PM
a reply to: links234

Due process is the guarantee that all rights and remedies under the Constitution are applied equally and fairly, regardless of nationality, to any persons on US territory and that those persons have equal access under the law.

A due process violation is when a persons rights are breached - whether from failing to mirandize a person, failing to obtain a warrant / search warrant prior to a search that requires it, denying a person access to legal assistance, continuing to interrogate an individual who invoked their rights and asked for a lawyer, etc etc etc. The term also applies to the judicial system in terms of witnesses, allowed testimony, hearsay, etc etc etc.

The term encompasses everything dealing with our legal system and the people in it.

A Due Process violation is the basis people use to appeal rulings / convictions.

edit on 26-5-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 26 2014 @ 05:36 PM
Teddie Cruz is not even Ameircan he is Canadian. So are the radical right wing now going to support Canada just like they worship Putin?

Citizen's United allows foreign powers such as China, Russia to fund political candidates.

Does Cruz's Cuban and Canadian heritage and loyalty make him feel that he needs to shred our Constitution and allow foreign powers to run America?

posted on May, 26 2014 @ 05:50 PM
a reply to: FyreByrd

Had you read my entire post you would have seen the part where I specifically answered your question.

My questions to you at the start are actually appropriate since you made the claim of divining something. If you cannot define what a journalist is then there is no way of answering your question.

In case its been missed the Constitution does a good job of defining the role of government / branches. The restrictions the Constitution spells out apply to government actions and not the individual.

The government has no business trying to define what a journalist is because the Constitution already has done that with the 1st amendment.

Case in point - This is also the reason its contained in the same amendment.
The government can try to define what a journalist is. The government CANNOT define a persons opinion / political beliefs / feelings / etc etc etc.

If a person spouts off about the government, and the government says you are not a journalist then what? Even if they are not considered a "journalist", they are still a citizen of this country and their freedom of speech, especially political speech, cannot be denied.

So again - explain how defining what a journalist is changes anything? Its a continued erosion of our rights and the government pushing this mess is hoping people are ignorant when it comes to the Constitution.

Why should the government be able to define "press" and "speech" while at the same time suing to gain the ability to raise massive amounts of cash, which has been ruled as free speech?

Do you not see the inherent flaw in the Governments position?
Do you not see the government, by trying to push this garbage, are laying a framework to control the news, hows its reported and what is reported.

The purpose of a free press is to act as a counter balance to government over reach by minding the peoples business and reporting on what the government does so the people know.

I cant stress this enough -
The government, per the constitution, is restricted.
The sections that apply to the people are not.

There is a reason for that.

Any attempt by the government to restrict what a citizen can say is a 1st amendment violation.

edit on 26-5-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 26 2014 @ 05:58 PM
a reply to: 300RYA

Cruz holds dual citizenship and last I saw I thought he kept his American and gave up his Canadian citizenship.

The position of President is the only area that requires a person to be a natural born citizen. There is no citizenship requirement to be a member of the US Supreme Court and one must be a citizen for at least 7 years for Congress.

Arnold Schwarzenegger.... Republican Governor of California
Jennifer Granholm .... Democrat Governor of Michigan.

posted on May, 26 2014 @ 06:31 PM
a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks? I know what due process is. It was an example to get the reader to think. Nowhere in the constitution does it lay out a definition of due process. It's up to interpretation. You've specified what we, as a society, through our laws, have defined as due process.

We used the constitution to lay a framework for the law to establish the meaning of the term.

posted on May, 26 2014 @ 06:38 PM
a reply to: links234

"Due Process" might be in the 5th Amendment and the 14th...

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution contain a due process clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law. The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the clauses however more broadly because these clauses provide four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings), substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Due Process Clause

posted on May, 26 2014 @ 06:50 PM

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks? I know what due process is. It was an example to get the reader to think. Nowhere in the constitution does it lay out a definition of due process. It's up to interpretation. You've specified what we, as a society, through our laws, have defined as due process.

We used the constitution to lay a framework for the law to establish the meaning of the term.

The Constitution does spell it out / lay it out. Very loudly might I add in the amendments section.

posted on May, 26 2014 @ 07:14 PM
a reply to: xuenchen

Yes...the phrase is there but nowhere in the constitution is there a definition of what 'due process' is. Please, please, please provide me the exact wording from the constitution itself that says what due process means.

The point is, you can't. That's part of the 'vagueness' of the constitution. The lack of specificity of the term 'due process' is left to interpretation by the courts.

posted on May, 26 2014 @ 08:10 PM
a reply to: links234

Due Process is spelled out in the 6th amendment - specifying what a person can expect in criminal legal proceedings. The 6th was applied to the states via the 14th amendment and the 5th amendment applied it to the federal government. The 4th amendment does not apply to the individual. It only applied to the government.

The text of the 6th amendment is then reinforced by the relevant amendments - namely the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, *6th, 8th etc etc.

There was o need to duplicate / specify exacting language as it would cause issues with the entire legal system where one action could be covered while another action would be invalid, creating a conflict among amendments. That issue undermines the Supremacy Clause.

As a side note if you don't want me chiming in let me know. I am not sure if you are wanting just a one on one with him or if its open to others.

posted on May, 26 2014 @ 08:18 PM

originally posted by: FyreByrd
Can you give me a reference for that?

It's from the founders themselves. They did not agree on the constitution and what protections should/shouldn't be written in. The whole thing comes from a world of compromise and lack of commitment to certain points. This way different groups could get what they want out of it over time. When it was signed NO ONE thought it would work, everyone felt that their viewpoints needed to be written in stone and other points were to be dismissed.

To actually clarify the constitution is to repeat the same error that has lead to revolution in many other countries, and to remove the greatest strength from the constitution as it currently stands.

Note that this is also why I feel legal precedent should be challenged periodically.

The reference you want is the constitution itself being signed into law, each founder has their own writings and thoughts on the subject as well.

posted on May, 26 2014 @ 08:42 PM
a reply to: Xcathdra

I try to make a point, mentally, that if I say something in the thread that it's for everyone to consider.

Given that, I want to know if you consider the constitution to be iron-clad in its meaning or do you believe that there are any examples that can be left to some interpretation. I mean...why would we still need Supreme Court rulings if the constitution was as simple as some claim it to be? That's the whole point I was trying to get at. I mean, we can look at the 9th:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

There are other rights retained by the people not listed in the constitution! What other rights could there be? There's that vagueness I've been talking about. We have a right to travel, to vote, to an expectation of privacy, we have a right to unionize! All of this is encoded in our laws without amending the constitution because it's stated...without being stated.

I can envision some interpretation that the 6th amendment would be a definition of due process. The whole idea is that there is still some room for the government to carry out its constitutionally obligated objectives through the laws which it writes.

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in