It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

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

page: 9
61
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

They can try to repeal the First Amendment, sure. My best guess is that any proposed bill of that type would probably fail in the current political climate.




posted on May, 26 2014 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Sounds to me like you guys are scared of ole Teddy boy, and you should be because he's gonna wax the floor with Hillary's brain dead self.



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75
Sounds to me like you guys are scared of ole Teddy boy, and you should be because he's gonna wax the floor with Hillary's brain dead self.


Teddy boy doesn't stand a chance of getting the gop nomination.



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 10:42 PM
link   
I agree, little at a time. What is far scarier to me is how legislators have been using wars and disaster toIraq. s laws and take away our rights. Especially the manufactured ones like nine eleven, Iraq etc.

Many are going to slam me but we are seeing one gun massacre after another. I could see some of these being events in of themselves, but I see an agenda at work. If nothing else they are using tragedy to try and take away more rights.

This appears to be a pattern that most people don't see. I think it is sick. I am so sick of all of other our politicians.

Let's please just throw them all out. Lol

The Bot



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Meteoritic
a reply to: olaru12

They can try to repeal the First Amendment, sure. My best guess is that any proposed bill of that type would probably fail in the current political climate.


I keep coming to constitutional change has to be ratified and voted on by you and me. So not sure what the hub bub is.

As for ted, if you think anyone in their right mind is worried about the self anointed one, you sadly mistaken. The only ones worried about him are the Republicans lol. They are petrified at what the next crazy lie might come out of his mouth.

Oh and Hillary would wax the floor with him. We better hope the Republicans have someone else in my mind.

The Bot



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 03:00 AM
link   
a reply to: dlbott

I would rather hope it's neither Hillary or Ted Cruz. I want good choices for president.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   
With wackos like Cruz, Rubio and Christie we can be sure that HIllary has a open path to the White House. I for one will be glad. I believe she will be one of the best Presidents our nation will have ever had.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   

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


NO...He is not using a "Metaphor"...nor did he speak metaphorically? ...reality matters.


originally posted by: schuyler
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.


How tired is this logic of corruption? People speak, not dollar bills. The top 1% in the USA own 40% of the countries wealth.

In a democracy it is 1 person, one voice, 1 vote..."Speech" is not "Money"

And limiting ALL contributions without discern for political leanings is a fair way to limit corruption.



originally posted by: schuyler
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.


And...You do realize this isn't what is being discussed? This doesn't limit the NRA from being pro-gun? This is about campaign contributions??


originally posted by: schuyler
If some leftist "green billionaire" announces he's going to spend a fortune against "climate denying anti science Republicans" the left cheers in unison.


Right...cuz the energy industry funds propaganda to deny climate change...and? What does this have to do with giving money directly to politicians?


originally posted by: schuylerBut 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 Koch brothers can fund BS all they like and do just that. But when they start buying politicians outright as if they are purchasing happy meals at McDonalds...that should be limited in a democracy...

You seem to be confused about what free speech actually is...Much like Ted Cruz.


originally posted by: schuyler
The basic idea here is for the left to stifle the right in any way they can


Only to the extent to which politicians on the right (and left) sell themselves to the highest bidder.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75
Sounds to me like you guys are scared of ole Teddy boy, and you should be because he's gonna wax the floor with Hillary's brain dead self.


He of course has his long form birth certificate proving he is a natural born American citizen right? We have had to listen to that nonsense from the birthers about Obama so it's only fair that they do the same thing to Cruz who was born in Canada. Somebody get Orly Taitz and get her on the case.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5


And limiting ALL contributions without discern for political leanings is a fair way to limit corruption.


Except of course the millions that will go underground, under the radar, and back up front via the Lobbyists.

I bet they will love the concept.




posted on May, 27 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Ted Cruz CANT be President. He was not born in America.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

The Constitution MUST be a living document that is able to adapt to the ebb and flow of societal change. A plain text reading of the Constitution would roll back women's suffrage, civil rights etc etc.

If the Constitution was designed to be specific and unalterable, then the Supreme Court never would have been included as a branch of government and the founders never would have introduced methods to change the constitution.

Its like the argument people make about the separation of church and state.

No where in the Constitution does it state separation of church and state. What it does say is the government cannot "enact" a national religion.

The Constitution was never applied to the states. That came in the 14th amendment and even today there is still an amendment that has never been applied to the stats - The 7th Amendment - Right to jury trials in civil proceedings.

I believe the concepts introduced in the Constitution are Iron clad.

By that I mean as an example -
The 1st amendment - I don't think the government should have the ability to determine who a person thinks or feels about any topic. With that said I am in favor of the courts ability to review certain instances case by case.

why?

Because the Constitution was never intended to be used by one person to undermine the rights of another person.

People are free to gather and protest. However, they cannot block a public right of way, which restricts the ability of people who are not protesting from going about their daily lives.

People have a right to talk loud during a movie in the theatre. They can be ejected by management for disrupting the viewing experience of others.

Broad definitions and case by case review to me is acceptable and does not undermine the constitution or its intent.
However, when the government suggests trying to define amendments that exist solely to protect the individual from the government, I take strong exception to it.

The Constitution states anything not specifically spelled out for the government is reserved to the people. As I stated before, the Constitution restricts the government, not the people. To suggest changes to the first amendment in the manner suggested is contrary to the basis of the 1st amendment.

Like Law Enforcement, the courts have stated public figures must have a thicker skin due to the public eye always watching. If a person running for office wants to sue a person who exercised her opinion then that political person should be booted from office.

Restricting the first amendment is just as dangerous as trying to restrict the 2nd amendment.

Without the first we have no voice and without the second, we have no means of protecting ourselves from the government.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Leonidas

If he has dual citizenship he can. I don't know if he has that and frankly don't care because even if he can run he's not someone I would ever vote for. A man who nearly brought about another financial collapse just to score some political points is not a man that should have final say over WMD's.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: Aazadan

Ted Cruz CANT be President. He was not born in America.



His mother is a US citizen.


a reply to: Aazadan
Under US law a person must choose which citizenship they want to go with since the US does not recognize dual citizenship for our own citizens.

The Walter - McCarran Act and the Immigration reforms completed in the 1950's set the criteria.
edit on 27-5-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234

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.


Once again proving that the adage "Lies, damn lies and statistics".

Any survey's results can be manipulated to make a particular point, as you have just proven.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: Aazadan

Ted Cruz CANT be President. He was not born in America.



His mother is a US citizen.


a reply to: Aazadan
Under US law a person must choose which citizenship they want to go with since the US does not recognize dual citizenship for our own citizens.

The Walter - McCarran Act and the Immigration reforms completed in the 1950's set the criteria.


No one is saying he is not a US citizen. He is not born in the United States as is one of the requirements to become President.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Leonidas

This board is very far to the right when you talk about just those of us in the US. Furthermore, our left in the US is more right than the right in the majority of other countries around the world. When someone from England identifies as right they have more in common with our Democrats than our Republicans.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: thisguyrighthere No its saying that that congress will decide. Congress is the house and senate. Republicans in the house and democrats in the senate.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Leonidas
No one is saying he is not a US citizen. He is not born in the United States as is one of the requirements to become President.


The constitution says someone must be a natural born citizen. Natural born is never defined so it's wide open to interpretation. My stance is to let him run then hope he loses.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: LibertyPD32
a reply to: thisguyrighthere No its saying that that congress will decide. Congress is the house and senate. Republicans in the house and democrats in the senate.



Right. And if Congress happens to be a majority one or the other..........

Not to mention nothing in the bill says any restrictions or cap has to applied equally.

As it reads currently if a majority decides to deny one candidate in one race in one district funds that one candidate is screwed.




top topics



 
61
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join