Senate Democrats Are Trying to Repeal the Freedom of Speech


TBSchemer's avatar
Senator Bernie Sanders has introduced a Constitutional Amendment that would effectively repeal the 1st Amendment protections of political speech for everyone, and put the phrase "except for people organized as corporations" after every clause in the US Constitution that secures our basic human and political rights. The amendment as proposed is here: www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/med…

The Senate Democrats, led by Harry Reid, have voted to move this Amendment forward for debate, and plan to spend the few weeks between their Summer vacation and the November elections trying to push this Amendment through. A few dozen trolling Republicans have also voted to bring the Amendment to the floor so that they can hammer the Democrats for supporting overt totalitarianism. hotair.com/archives/2014/09/09…

This just goes to show that the complete insanity in the Democratic Party doesn't end at the California borders. Is this the dawn of a new era of Big Brother-style speech controls and fascist corporate nationalization? Or will the Democrats' open embrace of totalitarianism incur a high enough political cost to send them scurrying back to the dark corners of the country whence they came?
Comments229
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
VorpalPen's avatar
Remember when that loser Mutt Rimjob got booed for telling a bunch of hillbillys that corporations are people, lol...

"HAY MAN...they're MADE UP of people!" Bwaahahaha.
LateForTheShow's avatar
I don't think we're at a place yet where there are enough ignorant Americans to go through with this, but if it's even being considered, I think that's a call for worry.
ScottaHemi's avatar
eh... it'll be shot down in the house and Reid will be kicked off his high horse when the senate goes red in november.
Doc-Skitz's avatar
What do you expect from the founder of The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), a self-identified socialist/communist.

This is an alphabetical list of all members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus(CPC) as of April 2011:

Tammy Baldwin, Karen Bass, Xavier Becerra, Earl Blumenauer, Robert Brady,Corrine Brown, Michael Capuano, Andre Carson, Donna Christensen, Judy Chu, David Cicilline, Yvette Clarke, William “Lacy” Clay, Emanuel Cleaver, Steve Cohen, John Conyers, Elijah Cummings, Danny Davis, Peter DeFazio, Rosa DeLauro, Donna Edwards, Keith Ellison (co-chair), Sam Farr, Chaka Fattah, Bob Filner, Barney Frank, Marcia Fudge, Raúl Grijalva (co-chair), Luis Gutierrez,Maurice Hinchey, Mazie Hirono, Michael Honda, Jesse Jackson Jr., Sheila Jackson-Lee, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Hank Johnson (whip), Marcy Kaptur,Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, John Lewis, David Loebsack, Ben Ray Lujan, Carolyn Maloney, Ed Markey, Jim McDermott, James McGovern, George Miller, Gwen Moore, Jim Moran, Jerrold Nadler, Eleanor Holmes Norton, John Olver, Frank Pallone, Ed Pastor, Donald Payne, Chellie Pingree, Jared Polis, Charles Rangel, Laura Richardson, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Bobby Rush, Linda Sanchez,Bernie Sanders (CPC’s lone Senator), Jan Schakowsky, Jose Serrano, Louise Slaughter, Pete Stark, Bennie Thompson, John Tierney, Nydia Velazquez, Maxine Waters, Mel Watt, Henry Waxman, Peter Welch, Frederica Wilson, and Lynn Woolsey.
Hopesick's avatar
I'm not a corporation or a private business entity, so I'm not worried. 
TBSchemer's avatar
Do you work for one? If so, you would not have any habeas corpus rights to anything you use or create for your business.

Also, the limits on political speech apply to everyone, not just to corporations. The incumbents would have total control over all political advertisement. This is always the first step wannabe-dictators use to establish a one-party state.
Hopesick's avatar
Are we reading the same document?
TBSchemer's avatar
Elimination of habeas corpus and all other Constitutionally-guaranteed rights in corporations:
The rights protected by the Constitution
7
of the United States are the rights of natural persons and
8
do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability
9
companies, or other private entities established for busi-
10
ness purposes or to promote business interests under the
11
laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.

Infringement on everyone's freedom of political speech:
Congress and the States shall have the
23
power to regulate and set limits on all election contribu-
24
tions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spend-
ing, and to authorize the establishment of political com-
1
mittees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources
2
of those contributions and expenditures.’’.

JamieAgathaRose's avatar
Bernie Sanders is not a democrat. He's too crazy, even for them.

I expect this bill has a 0.0% chance of being voted on, let alone passing the senate, and is just a way for bored senators to pass the time while they avoid talking about real issues like ISIS, Illegal Immigration or Obamacare.
TBSchemer's avatar
I know Harry Reid for sure will be voting yes on this bill. Plenty of other Democrats wanted to bring this forward to debate. If most of them didn't want it to pass, wouldn't they be trying to avoid debate on it to spare their party the embarrassment of having a few of their top dogs actually go for it?
JamieAgathaRose's avatar
Reid is jerking off while waiting for the lame duck session and he probably will get nothing done then either. If they even vote on this and I doubt they will, they won't vote on it until after Election Day. Even then, they'll bring it up for debate but they won't vote on it just because it's a nightmare and the sane Dems don't want that kind of a vote on their records. Bills like this usually die in committee, the fact that it's reaching the floor for debate shows how little the Senate has to do right now with Reid shielding them from taking votes at all.

Trust me when I say the more you learn about politics the more you despise politicians.
ZaGstrike's avatar
"A few dozen trolling Republicans have also voted to bring the Amendment to the floor so that they can hammer the Democrats for supporting overt totalitarianism."

Evidence?

I looked in the link you provided and saw no statements from any Republicans saying that that was their intention. Schemer, were you lying again?
TBSchemer's avatar
No, I'm just not oblivious enough to miss such an obvious strategy.
ZaGstrike's avatar
So you have no evidence but you're stating your guess as though it were a fact.
TBSchemer's avatar
Do let me know if it turns out the Republicans are actually planning to vote for this left-wing totalitarianism. Such a possibility is pretty absurd, but do let me know if you ever have reason to believe it's going to happen.
ZaGstrike's avatar
I wouldn't, because i don't pretend that my baseless guesses are fact. I'm not an egotist.

But like i said, you have no evidence that what you said was right, you just "Believe" in it, so you're going to state it as a fact anyway.
TBSchemer's avatar
Anyone who knows anything about the Republicans knows that they could not possibly vote for a bill that removes all bill of rights protections from corporations. It would violate everything each and every one of them believes in. It's a nonsensical scenario.
CommanderGordon's avatar
Never let the government near a right which you wish to retain.

There are a collection of terribly naive people here who seem to be taking the government at their word on this issue. If they say it will only be used against corporations, it will only be used against corporations. Of course they wont abuse this newly granted authority in any way, the same way the tax rate would never rise above 10% and the 1965 immigration act would never radically change the demographics of the nation.

I am no fan of corporate money in elections, but fiddling with the Bill of Rights is exactly the wrong way to fix that, especially when one considers the frighteningly vague language of this legislation.
TBSchemer's avatar
For the most part, the Dems here are trying to defend this bill with shockingly half-baked reasoning, even for them. Seriously, I can't get a coherent thought out of any of them this time. Very simple questions are short-circuiting their simple minds.

It's amazing the depths of irrationality to which they are willing to plunge in order to defend their beloved talking points, even when they know they sound ridiculous.
CommanderGordon's avatar
They're blinded by the emotion of expectations overcoming logic. Most people, I think, want corporate money out of elections. But very few people seem to realize that the cure can often times be worse than the disease -- especially where government is concerned.
Ragerancher's avatar
You know according to the arguments from people here, the government can also be classed as a person and therefore the government has full voting rights and the right to fund it's own campaigns?
CommanderGordon's avatar
The government already has the right to fund its own campaign by providing kickbacks in the form of government money to those who do fund its campaign. 
Ragerancher's avatar
I'm talking about directly funding itself but I guess if you support groups of people counting as a person, the government is perfectly right in funding who it wants (ie itself) with indefinite amounts and is also eligible to vote and marry? hmm who would the US government marry? Rothchild corporation?