May 29, 2014
The Forced Amendment:
Dems Push for Constitutional Re-Do
Senator Chuck Schumer is a lot
of things -- but James Madison, he is not. Don't tell that to the New
York Democrat, who, along with Sen. Mark Udall (D-N.M.), thinks he
understands freedom better than the author of America's Bill of Rights.
Two hundred twenty-three years after the First Amendment went into
effect, Senate liberals are trying to put an expiration date on
political speech. While most Americans were firing up their grills last
weekend, Sen. Udall was lighting a match under Senate Democrats to get a
vote on his Joint Resolution 19. And if it's successful, the National
Archives will need more than bomb-proofing to protect America's founding
documents.
Four years after the Supreme
Court struck down restrictive campaign finance laws, the Left is still
smarting. A summer away from a reelection bloodbath, Democrats know they
can't hide from their records -- but they can try to silence
the people talking about them. That's the aim of S.R. 19, which would
essentially strip political speech out of the First Amendment and put it
in a separate legislative box where Congress (the targets of that
speech) can regulate it.
"The real guarantee," explains the Wall Street Journal
editors, "would be political advantage for all incumbents, since it's
the sitting lawmakers who really benefit from any law limiting
contributions to candidates or on their behalf." Of course, even the
Founding Fathers understood the temptations of putting elected officials
in charge of these basic freedoms, which is why they slipped in this
key phrase: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of
speech..."
Now, Congress -- with the help
of lawless Democrats -- seeks to do exactly that, hoping to keep their
flimsy grip on the Senate majority. Under Udall's bill, Congress would
have the "power to regulate the raising and spending of money" on
campaigns and candidates, undermining voters and minimizing the
influence of their opponents. Super PACs, which have virtually no
limitations for election spending, are the Left's biggest bulls-eye,
followed by other outside groups.
Interestingly enough, the measure goes out of its way to protect the freedom of the press (which is no big surprise, considering whose side they're on). But, as the WSJ points out,
"Why should [liberal] Warren Buffett's company enjoy free speech rights
because he owns a handful of newspapers along with insurance companies,
while Jeffrey Immelt's is muzzled because GE makes jet turbines?"
Democrats insist the debate is about accountability -- when in reality,
it's one of the most transparent plays for job security Harry Reid's
Senate has ever attempted.
Amending the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority in both
chambers and the approval of three-quarters of U.S. states. Even so,
Majority Leader Reid isn't giving up any time soon. The Democrats' top
dog already promised a string of votes on the measure after its first
Judicial Committee hearing next Tuesday. Even after the Left lost its
bid to change the IRS rules
on lobbying groups, the open season on conservatives continues. No
longer content to just ignore the law, the President's party is ready to
blow holes in the Bill of Rights. But if the public outcry is any
indication, they've picked the wrong fight.
No comments:
Post a Comment