S. 1 Section 220 Struck Down!

Well it looks like Uncle Sam was finally putting his legislative foot down in an effort to stamp out internet based dissent. Under the guise of Lobbyist Reform, section 220 of S. 1, would have required anyone who speaks out against American Policies to register with and report quarterly to Congress. That would have been not only an obvious, and serious detriment to first ammendment rights, it also would have changed the legal definitions of a lobbyist to include just about anyone who says just about anything publicly in regards to American Policy.

kurtnimmo.com
it will “require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself,” according to Viguerie.

It actually passed but was Ammended Jan. 18 and Section 220 was struck down. Folks that's how close we came to loosing our rights to free speech.
If it weren't for the public outcry this would have sailed right through Congress.
Please keep a wary eye on your Legislators!

they are getting to full steam ahead.take a look at this post
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

to remove the 22nd amendment ,that would mean bush can get re elected.!
God if things are going like this FREE websites like our beloved ats would be no more.
nwo here we come and we are not gonna go down soo easily.dont under estimate the power of vox populi.

I somehow doubt in a Democrat controlled House and Senate, that this Bill would ever make it to the point of States ratifying it. Even if it did, I seriously doubt Bush could get reelected with his approval numbers. As polarized as our political parties are, you'd have a hard time finding someone populist enough to maintain their approval for more than 2 terms.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
I somehow doubt in a Democrat controlled House and Senate, that this Bill would ever make it to the point of States ratifying it. Even if it did, I seriously doubt Bush could get reelected with his approval numbers. As polarized as our political parties are, you'd have a hard time finding someone populist enough to maintain their approval for more than 2 terms.

I know for a fact that Bush could not be reelected. He will have served his maximum two four year terms come next election day.

So unless GWB some how finds a way to become dictator (which I doubt he will as he is simply a numb skull face man for those truely in charge) it's bye bye Bushy boy.

Raist

Sometimes I wonder how many times we come closer to lose any of our constitutional rights because some clowns in the white house and their brilliant Ideas.

Now I have to give them credit . . . they tried and they tried hard.

But they will try again.

Originally posted by Raist

So unless GWB some how finds a way to become dictator (which I doubt he will as he is simply a numb skull face man for those truely in charge) it's bye bye Bushy boy.

Raist

i never get enough of this...it's quite entertaining. on one hand, bush is a "numb skull face man", and on the other, he is the evil, sadistic tyrant responsible for everything that is wrong with the world. pick one and stick with it for crying out loud.

as for the topic, this subject is being debated worldwide. every country in the world fears for it's security because of what can and does turn up on the internet. i think you will probably see some restrictions in the US (mainly against mainstream lobbyists and whatnot), but nothing like what was proposed here. if the federal government started trying to prosecute every blogger who has ever protested US policy, there would be some very very rich lawyers and ex-bloggers when the lawsuits were all said and done. i just dont see it happening.

i wont even go into the fact that in twitchy's source, four of the seven front page headlines have the word "neocon" in them. not biased in the least.

Originally posted by snafu7700
i wont even go into the fact that in twitchy's source, four of the seven front page headlines have the word "neocon" in them. not biased in the least.

Take your pick...
news.google.com...

Check into their "smack down" amendments, folks.

TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 9. Mr. VITTER (for himself and
Mr. INHOFE) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 3 proposed by Mr. REID (for himself,
Mr. MCCONNELL, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr.
BENNETT, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Ms. COLLINS,
Mr. OBAMA, Mr. SALAZAR, and Mr. DURBIN)
to the bill S. 1, to provide greater
transparency in the legislative process;
as follows.
On page 51, between lines 12 and 13, insert
the following:
SEC. 242. SPOUSE LOBBYING MEMBER.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 207(e) of title 18,
United States Code, as amended by section
241, is further amended by adding at the end
the following:
‘‘(5) SPOUSES.—Any person who is the
spouse of a Member of Congress and who was
not serving as a registered lobbyist at least
1 year prior to the election of that Member
of Congress to office and who, after the election
of such Member, knowingly lobbies on
behalf of a client for compensation any
Member of Congress or is associated with
any such lobbying activity by an employer of
that spouse shall be punished as provided in
section 216 of this title.’’.
(b) GRANDFATHER PROVISION.—The amendment
made by subsection (a) shall not apply
to any spouse of a Member of Congress serving
as a registered lobbyist on the date of enactment
of this Act.
SA 10. Mr. VITTER submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3 proposed by Mr. REID
(for himself, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mrs.
FEINSTEIN, Mr. BENNETT, Mr.
LIEBERMAN, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. OBAMA,
Mr. SALAZAR, and Mr. DURBIN) to the
bill S. 1, to provide greater transparency
in the legislative process; as
follows.
On page 34, line 5, strike ‘‘$100,000’’ and insert
‘‘$200,000’’.
SA 11. Mr. DEMINT (for himself and
Mr. CORNYN) proposed an amendment
to amendment SA 3 proposed by Mr.
REID (for himself, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mrs.
FEINSTEIN, Mr. BENNETT, Mr.
LIEBERMAN, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. OBAMA,
Mr. SALAZAR, and Mr. DURBIN) to the
bill S. 1, to provide greater transparency
in the legislative process; as
follows:
Strike section 103 and insert the following:
SEC. 103. CONGRESSIONAL EARMARK REFORM.
The Standing Rules of the Senate are
amended by adding at the end the following:
RULE XLIV
EARMARKS
‘‘1. It shall not be in order to consider—
‘‘(a) a bill or joint resolution reported by a
committee unless the report includes a list
of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits,
and limited tariff benefits in the bill or
source

Doesn't sound like they made it much better to me. The text mentioned above is the amendments made to S. 1.


I don't know about you, but I fail to see where Section 220 has been stricken.

Anyone else?

youre only looking at a piece of it infoholic. here is the original proposal
as it was when placed on the calendar, and here is the final bill approved as amended. you'll notice that section 220 is a completely different aspect of the bill now, replacing the old 220.

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by Raist

So unless GWB some how finds a way to become dictator (which I doubt he will as he is simply a numb skull face man for those truely in charge) it's bye bye Bushy boy.

Raist

i never get enough of this...it's quite entertaining. on one hand, bush is a "numb skull face man", and on the other, he is the evil, sadistic tyrant responsible for everything that is wrong with the world. pick one and stick with it for crying out loud.

I only choose the one so I'm not sure why I should "pick" one.
You can tell when the man opens his mouth he is nothing more than a puppet sitting on the lap of some one else. Or are you mixing me in with every one else who disagrees with Bush? You know that we are different ppl don't you? Not every one here who dislikes "the Bushmaster" is the same person. I find it equally funny when some one comes along and generalizes every one who is not a supporter of Bush. In fact it does not matter if it's Bush or Clinton or who ever they all are face men. Anyone who thinks the president has that much control needs to take a better look at how our government is run. The pres. does not have abolute power and control so to say he is evil makes no different he just might be but more so he is a rambling moron that does what he is told to do which makes him no less guilty of the crimes against our constitution. Ignorance does not imply innocence.


Now back on topic.
Or better yet how does the saying go? Oh yes. "Nothing to see here move along every thing is just as it should be" What a crock.

Raist

Originally posted by snafu7700
youre only looking at a piece of it infoholic.

You are correct, snafu7700. I'm guessing that when I pulled up the thomas.loc.gov link, my cache hadn't updated. When I looked, it was the same old section.

After looking again at a later time, I did notice that the section had been totally changed.

Nice find!

And which party pushed the bill?

The democrats.....................thanks for electing them into office!

Now suffer the consequences!

This is one of the scariest posts I have seen here on ATS in a long time. "Freedom of Speach" is taken so for granted and when your back is turn for a second you could lose it all. Scary.

Originally posted by manchurian_candidate
to remove the 22nd amendment ,that would mean bush can get re elected.!

An amendment to the constitution has to be passed by a 2/3 majority in both houses of congress and then ratified by 2/3 of the 50 states. Are you old enough to remember how long it took the so-called equal rights amendment for women's right to go through the ratification process (where it ultimately failed)? It was almost a decade, if I'm not mistaken.

Anyway, I don't see this having a snails chance in hell of happening at all, let alone in time for Bush to make use of it. And for sake of argument, let's say by some miracle it did pass before 2008. With the polls showing Bush with a 66% negative rating, just how would he get reelected? He'd most likely lose out to another Republican in the primaries and never make it to the general election.

So, can we finally put this "Bush might get reelected BS" in the garbage where it belongs?