Harry Reid wants to REMOVE our First Amendment from the Bill of Rights

Harry Reid LG

Harry Reid = short eyes.

I never thought I’d see this in my lifetime.

I never envisioned having to actually write about the topic.

I never thought that there would be even one American politician that would want, in any way, to reduce Our American Freedoms.

Until now.  Until today.

Someone in American politics actually wants to amend the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights.  The actual United States of America Bill of Rights.

Which states, beautifully and succinctly:

Amendment I

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.

I don’t suspect that there could be a more plain directive than that.

Who is the person who wishes to amend such a simple and beautiful foundational precept?

Demorat Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid.

In my opinion, the Wall Street Journal nails the problem and the issue:

Harry Reid Rewrites the First Amendment

When politicians seek to restrict speech, they are invariably trying to protect their own incumbency.

by Theodore B. Olson

Liberals often deplore efforts to amend the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights and especially when the outcome would narrow individual liberties. Well, now we know they don’t really mean it.

Forty-six Senate Democrats have concluded that the First Amendment is an impediment to re-election that a little tinkering can cure.

Yes.  Tinkering can cure that aged and so-“yesterday’s news” tragic document.

Because, after all, the US Constitution and its concomitant Bill of Rights need to be “living documents.”  Read: documents that need to be changed when it is convenient to the purpose and agenda of Leftists.

They are proposing a constitutional amendment that would give Congress and state legislatures the authority to regulate the degree to which citizens can devote their resources to advocating the election or defeat of candidates. Voters, whatever their political views, should rise up against politicians who want to dilute the Bill of Rights to perpetuate their tenure in office.

And oh yes, oh they should.  And that rising up should include black powder and brass and torches and pitchforks.

Led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, these Senate Democrats claim that they are merely interested in good government to “restore democracy to the American people” by reducing the amount of money in politics. Do not believe it. When politicians seek to restrict political speech, it is invariably to protect their own incumbency and avoid having to defend their policies in the marketplace of ideas.

And let us examine, fundamentally, the foundational precepts of the Constitution and what it protects and what it doesn’t.

This scheme is doomed to fail when it comes to a vote in the Senate, perhaps as soon as Monday. The Constitution’s Framers had the wisdom to make amending the Constitution difficult, and Mr. Reid’s gambit won’t survive a filibuster. But Senate Democrats know their proposal is a loser. They merely want another excuse to rail against “money in politics” and Supreme Court justices they don’t like.

But there’s a point here.  What’s the point?

The rhetoric of these would-be constitutional reformers is focused on two Supreme Court decisions: Citizens United v. FEC (2010) and McCutcheon v. FEC (2014). In Citizens United, the court struck down a law prohibiting unions and corporations from using their resources to speak for or against a candidate within a certain time period before an election.

In other words, money can find itself supporting what it will, and — with teeth-gritting enamel flecks populating the various keyboards of Leftists — corporations are still considered as “people.”

The Obama administration conceded during oral argument that the law would permit the government to ban the publication of political books or pamphlets. Pamphlets and books ignited the revolution that created this country and the Bill of Rights. In pushing to overturn the court’s decision, Mr. Reid and his Democratic colleagues apparently wish they had the power to stop books, pamphlets—as well as broadcasting—that threaten their hold on their government jobs. 

Ban the publication of books and pamphlets.  That translates, these days, to BANNING MY BLOG and blogs of a like mind.

Under this proposal, I would have to face jail if I continued writing.

Let me quote a so-called “lion” of the Demorat Left:

“In the entire history of the Constitution,” the late Ted Kennedy once stated on the Senate floor, “we have never amended the Bill of Rights, and now is not the time to start. It would be wrong to carve an exception in the First Amendment. Campaign finance reform is a serious problem, but it does not require that we twist the meaning of the Constitution.”

One important notation: Saturday Night Live, look out.

You’d best not poke fun ever again.

And let me quite plainly make — as I wrote earlier — the argument regarding Positive vs Negative Rights.

Our current Constitution frames much of what we value in terms of what we cannot do.

The government cannot engage in unreasonable searches and seizures.

It cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment.

By our current Constitution, it does NOT “guarantee” so-called “rights” to such things as housing, clothing, food, jobs — rights that place upon the state to obtain the resources from other citizens to pay for them.

Let me make this abundantly clear: “RIGHTS THAT PLACE UPON THE STATE TO OBTAIN THE RESOURCES FROM OTHER CITIZENS TO PAY FOR THEM.”

The First Amendment should NEVER be touched.  EVER.

Have I made myself sufficiently plain?

BZ

 

Ted Cruz spoke the truth, Monday, 9/23/2013 — and too few listened

Except me, and a handful of others.

First, the video; and if you don’t wish to plow through Harry Reid at the outset, read the transcript below — which took me more than two hours to transcribe myself.

From Senator Ted Cruz (R, Texas):

I’m going to suggest to you, Mr President, that the senate has not faced a more important debate in the short time that you and I have served in this institution.

No American wants a government shutdown.  I don’t want a government shutdown, no one on this side of the aisle wants a government shutdown.  The House of Representatives doesn’t want a government shutdown.

Mr President, five minutes ago the Senate could have acted to prevent a government shutdown.

The request that I promulgated to the majority leader was to pass the continuing resolution that the House of Representatives passed and if that had happened there would be no government shutdown.  A government shutdown would be taken off the table.

The specter that you and I see on the television screen every day, the countdown clock that is starting to appear (snaps fingers), would disappear.

But unfortunately the majority leader chose to object.

To object and to say no.  He would rather risk a government shutdown than act to prevent it.

Now why, again, the majority leader was quite candid.  Because he supports the law called Obamacare.

Now I would note a component of that also — one of the pieces that the House of Representatives passed was a law that has been called the Default Prevention Act.

The President of the United States has been dealing a fair amount of public speaking raising the prospect of a default on our debt.

And the House of Representatives acted boldly to include in their continuing resolution language that would say that the United States would never, ever, ever, default on its debt.  In the event that the debt ceiling is not raised, we will always pay our debt first.

I suspect every member of this body has spoken publicly about the calamity that would come from a default on the debt.  I think it is quite revealing that the majority leader explicitly referenced and objected to by name — taking a default off the table.

I think that’s unfortunate.  There is a tendency, in this town, towards brinksmanship.

Towards pointing to events that can cause instability and uncertainty and using them to try to get your way.

I wish the majority leader had been willing to step forward and say “I agree, number one, that the government should be funded.  We should not have a government shutdown.  And number two, that we should never ever ever even discuss a default on the debt.”

Had the majority leader simply said “I consent,” a default on the debt would have been taken permanently off the table.

Now why didn’t he?

We all know why he did not.

Because the majority leader embraces Obamacare.  I’m going to suggest to you, Mr President, that this body a little over three years passed Obamacare.  It passed it on a straight party line vote and in the time since it’s passed America has learned that it’s not working.

Americans all over this country are suffering because of Obamacare.  It’s the single biggest job-killer in America.  Every day we’re seeing more and more evidence that Obamacare is killing jobs, that it is hurting American workers who are struggling, that it is causing people to be forcibly put into part time work 29 hours a week, and it is jacking up premiums and it is causing more and more people who are struggling to lose their health insurance altogether.

Just today the New York Times reported that, because of Obamacare, quote, “insurers are significantly limiting the choices of doctors and hospitals available to consumers.”  That’s today in the newspaper.  USA Today reported on a new, quote, “family glitch,” that could cause up to a half million children to go without insurance coverage.  A headline in the Washington Post today read, quote, “one week away, Obamacare small business insurance exchanges not all ready for launch.”

And even the labor unions, that once championed Obamacare, are now publicly decrying it is a threat to the 40-hour work week which is the backbone of the American middle class.  That is the word of organized labor.

This law is hurting the American people.  And it’s why there is bi-partisan consensus outside of Washington DC, that we need to step up and stop it.

That would be the responsible thing for senators on both sides of the aisle to do.  To say: the same rules should apply to hard working American families that apply to big corporations and that apply to members of Congress.

We’ve seen the president unilaterally put in place exceptions for giant corporations and members of Congress.  Mr President, I would submit: hard working American families deserve that same exception.

So I think that it is unfortunate that the majority leader chose to object to continuing government, to preventing a shutdown, to taking a default off the table.  But I do think it is clarified to make clear, as the majority leader just did, that he is willing to risk a government shutdown.  He is willing to force, even, a government shutdown in order to insist that Obamacare is funded.

And Mr President, that leads to the second unanimous consent request that I put forward.  A simple request that every amendment on this Continuing Resolution be subject to 60 votes.

Now Mr President, everyone in this body knows that is not an unusual request in the United States Senate.  Amendments in this body are routinely subjected to 60 vote thresholds.  Indeed you and will both recall a few months ago, when this body was debating the issue of guns, a contentious issue, an emotional issue, an issue of great moment to this country, the majority leader agreed with the minority that every single amendment on the floor would be subject to a 60 vote threshold.

Those were the terms under which every aspect of the gun debate was debated.  I would note that one amendment that was submitted during that gun debate was the Grassley-Cruz Amendment.  It was the law enforcement amendment that put real teeth in going after felons and fugitives who try to illegally buy guns and put real teeth into forcing states to report mental health records so that we can prevent those with serious mental illnesses from illegally purchasing firearms.

I would note, Mr President, that the Grassley-Cruz bill received a majority vote in this institution.  A majority of senators voted for it including 9 Democrats.  It was the most comprehensive, it was the most bipartisan of the comprehensive legislation voted on in this body.

And yet it did not pass into law because the majority leader set a 60 vote threshold for every amendment.

I would suggest that Obamacare is no less important.

Obamacare is no less controversial, and Obamacare likewise should be subject to the same threshold.  If the majority leader believes Obamacare is good for America, if the Democrats in this body believe Obamacare is good for America, then I would encourage this body, let’s debate.

Not in the artificial sense in which we debate, one or two senators talking to an empty hall.  But in the real sense of making a case to each other and the American people, about whether this law is working or whether it is not.

Because everywhere I travel in the state of Texas and across the country, Americans come to me and raise the single biggest challenge they’re facing as Obamacare — it’s killing their jobs, it’s taking away their health care, it isn’t working.

Now we all know that three and a half years ago Obamacare was forced into law on a strict party line vote.

By straight brute force.

But it shouldn’t be funded that way.

That’s not the way a government should proceed.  That’s not the way this institution should proceed.  A 60 vote threshold does not require that the majority leader get a great many Republican votes.  But it does require that he get a few.  That he simply cannot do it with only the Democrats in this body.

This country will be better off if we work together to restore economic growth and to stop the incredible job loss that is coming from Obamacare.

In fact, regarding a 60 vote threshold, here’s what the learned majority leader has had to say.

Quote, “for more than 200 years the rules of the senate have protected the American people and rightfully so.  The need to muster 60 votes in order to terminate senate debate naturally frustrates the majority and often times the minority.  I am sure it will frustrate me when I assume the office of majority leader in a few weeks.  But I recognize this requirement as a tool that serves the long term interests of the senate and the American people in our country.”

I agree with Majority Leader Reid.  I agree that 60 vote thresholds ensure that we behave not just on a partisan matter but in a way that brings us together and given the challenges coming from Obamacare.

I believe that nothing is hurting the American people more.  Nothing is hurting the economy more.  Nothing is damaging jobs more — than Obamacare.

Given the majority leader’s objection raised today, the path the majority intends to go is now clear.  It is clear for Democrats, it is clear for Republicans.  It is clear for the world to see.

The majority leader has stated that it is his intention to force a vote to fund Obamacare.  And to do so using just 51 votes.  To do so on what could be a straight party line vote and in all likelihood would be a straight party line vote.

Mr President, I would suggest that is not a responsible course of action.

And it’s not a course of action that I think Republicans should acquiesce to.

If it is the majority leader’s intent to fund Obamacare using just 51 votes, then I would submit to every Republican in this body, it is our obligation to our constituents to do everything we can to prevent the majority leader from funding Obamacare, with just 51 votes.

Any member of this body that votes for cloture on this bill will be voting to allow the majority leader to fund Obamacare on 51 votes.

I think that vote’s a mistake.  I think that vote dis-serves our constituents.  I think that vote hurts the people of America.

Frankly, ladies and gentlemen, I do not disagree with a word of Senator Ted Cruz.

I’ll submit that those were three hours well-spent in transcription from a Samsung Galaxy Note II phone.

BZ

 

 

House Republicans pass test vote to defund Obamacare; shutdown edges closer

Cruz ObamacareFrom the WashingtonTimes.com:

By Tom Howell Jr., The Washington Times

House Republicans survived a key test vote Thursday on their plan to keep the government running while trying to halt the health care law, defying a veto threat from President Obama and inching closer to a shutdown showdown with Senate Democrats.

Top Republicans say their party’s strategy is unlikely to succeed and not worth shutting down the government, but some rank-and-file lawmakers said they have to draw a line now and use the leverage of the spending bill to end the president’s signature achievement.

Ted Cruz hit the nail on the head during an interview with Hugh Hewitt.  In one reply, Senator Cruz stated:

TC:    .  .  . every day it becomes clearer and clearer that this thing isn’t working, that more and more Americans are losing their jobs, are not getting hired in the first place. More and more Americans are finding themselves forcibly reduced to 29 hours a week. More and more Americans are seeing skyrocketing health insurance premiums. And more and more Americans are losing their health insurance altogether. And as you noted, the fact that the unions are jumping ship, I mean, there is bipartisan agreement that it isn’t working, and President Obama has already lawlessly granted exemptions for big corporations and for members of Congress. And this fight over defunding Obamacare in one sentence is about if President Obama will grant waivers to big corporations and members of Congress, why would President Obama threaten to shut down the federal government in order to deny those same waivers to hard-working American families?

Correct: if Obamacare is so wonderful, why are there any exemptions whatsoever, to either corporations who donated to Mr Obama’s campaign, or any DC politician and their staffs?  If Obamacare is so wonderful, inclusive, less expensive and more efficient, why would there be any exemptions at all?

I think you know that answer.

And finally: a filibuster?

BZ

P.S.
This just in:

Democratic Official Allan Brauer Wishes Death on Ted Cruz Aide’s Children

BY:

Allan Brauer, the communications chair for the Democratic Party of Sacramento, Calif., told an aide to Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Tex.) on Friday that he hoped her children “die from debilitating, painful and incurable diseases.”

He followed up the attack with a series of vicious tweets:

Ah, those loving, understanding, compassionate, sensitive, tender, kind and all-inclusive Demorats and Leftists, embracing and considerate of all persons’ feelings and opinions.