Ted Cruz Warns That Dems Are Moving To 'Repeal' The First Amendment

[DonViejo]

Source: TPM

CATHERINE THOMPSON – MAY 23, 2014, 1:54 PM EDT

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said Thursday that Democrats are making moves to repeal First Amendment rights to free speech and religious liberty.

Cruz was speaking to pastors at a Family Research Council conference when he warned that Democrats were moving to quash political speech and "muzzle" pastors and their communities, according to video of a portion of Cruz's speech posted online by Right Wing Watch.

“I'm telling you, I'm not making this up," he said as the audience offscreen gasped. "Sen. Chuck Schumer [D-N.Y.] has announced the Senate Democrats are scheduling a vote on a constitutional amendment to give Congress the plenary power, the unlimited authority to regulate political speech. Because elected officials have decided they don’t like it when the citizenry has the temerity to criticize what they’ve done."

Cruz was referring to a proposed constitutional amendment from Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) that would reverse recent Supreme Court rulings invalidating campaign finance limits, including Citizens United and McCutcheon. Schumer said the Senate would vote this year on the constitutional amendment, which seeks to capitalize on the unpopularity of the Citizens United decision in an election year.

-snip-

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ted-cruz-democrats-repeal-first-amendment

[Gore1FL]

1. Wow. He really knows how stupid his audience is. I'll give him that. n/t

[Fred Sanders]

9. A Harvard law grad able to dumb himself down to the level of the idiots is a gift.

[Skittles]

73. I don't think he is that far removed from them

not at all

[SoapBox]

2. Stupid fuck speaks to more stupid fucks...

BOO!

[Kablooie]

58. And every one of them has a vote just like you.

Kind of weird, isn't it?

[freshwest]

84. DUzy!!

[Aristus]

3. Why would any of them give a shit?

It's not like any of them read...

[Hosnon]

4. Well, he's not wrong.

But something needs to be done to return our democracy to the people. If it requires federally funded elections and a minimal curtailment of the right to free speech, then so be it.

[leftyohiolib]

7. "minimal curtailment of the right to free speech" huh?

oh never mind i got it

[blueridge3210]

8. I'm sure it's okay as long as it's for the greater good. (nt)

[awoke_in_2003]

12. No matter what this SC says...

campaign finance limits are not a curtailment of free speech- they are a guard against a government that is bought and paid for by the wealthy. Of course, that is exactly what we have had for quite some time now.

[Distant Quasar]

18. Yeah, as soon as you concede that money = speech, you've lost the argument

The point is that money isn't speech, never has been speech, and no amount of legal sophistry will make it so.

[onenote]

26. So if the government forbid DU from spending money to maintain the site

or DUers from contributing money to support the site, you'd be good with that as a Constitutional matter? If the government said that contributions to any one other an incumbent, you'd say its a bad law, but not an unconstitutional one?

The claims that money isn't speech and that money is speech are both used simplistically.

[Distant Quasar]

34. No, of course not

I reject the simplistic idea that money equals speech. It doesn't mean I embrace the equally simplistic view that you're attributing to me.

[Nye Bevan]

33. Money is speech.

Imagine if Congress passed a law saying that nobody could spend money to criticize any member of Congress. So you could yell on a street corner that you hate a congressman; you could meet with your friends and talk about how much you hated a congressman; but you would not be allowed to spend money on a TV or newspaper ad, or to purchase internet bandwidth, to criticize a congressman. So this law would not address "speech" as such, but only "money" that is spent to disseminate speech.

Should such a law be constitutional? Of course not, because it would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Even though it only addresses the spending of money. Like it or not, in the US today, you need money to get your message out.

Money is speech.

[Mz Pip]

39. Money as speech

While it's true that you need money to get your message out, I do have a problem with the push to keep donations to PACs and super PACs secret. If money is speech then we should a least be able to hear who's speaking.

This "dark money" secrecy needs to be stopped. I want to know who is "speaking."

[Nye Bevan]

52. I agree. I have no problem with full disclosure being required.

And for the record while I (along with the ACLU) agree with the Citizens United decision, I do not agree with the McCutcheon decision, as I do not see campaign contributions being equivalent to speech.

[Distant Quasar]

43. So if I hand my congressman a big bag of money

in thanks for coming down on my side of an issue, that's just like sending a handwritten thank-you note, right? No, of course not. The two acts have noticeably different practical impacts. Money can corrupt, and speech can't. That's why money and speech are not the same thing, even if they are related in undeniable ways.

It doesn't follow that the government can pass any restriction it wants on how people can use their money to promote their views - just that some such restrictions, as long as they are narrowly tailored, do not necessarily infringe on freedom of speech per se.

In fact, the Supreme Court has acknowledged this. The Court has consistently said that the government has a compelling interest in preventing the corruption or appearance of corruption (which necessarily entails restricting how people can use their money). The problem is that the conservative majority has denied - on no actual evidence - that independent campaign expenditures could possibly contribute to corruption or even its appearance. That to me is very clearly false.

[salib]

44. Again, all too simplistic

The first amendment is about freedom of speech, not freedom to spend money to control political outcomes.

The actual amendments being proposed (see the one from Move to Amend at https://movetoamend.org/wethepeopleamendment) would have zero bearing on your contrived example. E.g.:
"The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment."

Speech is speech. Money is money. They are neither equivalent nor is one required for the other without really going to extremely twisted and ridiculously contrived examples. E.g., "of course speech is money because we could not have money without communicating and agreeing to value, etc. See! See! See!"

Real clever stuff.

[Nye Bevan]

51. Should it be possible to ban a book from being published during election season

if the book said mean things about a candidate in the election? The amendment that you cite would allow that to happen, as spending money on publishing the book would no longer be deemed to be "speech" under the First Amendment.

I prefer to keep the freedom of speech (and freedom to publish books) but to have better disclosure of contributions.

[baldguy]

78. The corollary to your statement is that people with money should have more influence in govt.

What you describe is not a democracy, but a plutarchy, and is what the GOP have been trying to create.

[Nye Bevan]

79. That has always been the case.

In the early 1800s those who could afford to travel to Washington to make themselves heard had a bigger influence on government than those who could not.

[baldguy]

80. That may have been the case, but it certainly hasn't been the ideal or the objective.

And we've always known that.



In the 1800s, lobbyists were disdained precisely because they were in Washington trying to influence lawmakers instead of doing something productive in the real world.

Money changed that view. Money gave us the idea that corporations are people, and that money is a substitute for & should replace actual speech. Such ideas are a death sentence for democracy and freedom.

[Arkana]

82. Saying "money is speech" effectively renders you and I mute

in the face of big banks and other corporations. They have more money, ergo, they speak louder and more forcefully. How is that just?

[Nye Bevan]

83. Well, lots of people have no money.

So does fairness demand that nobody is allowed to spend any money to get their message out?

[Hosnon]

19. Well, no matter what you say, current jurisprudence is that money equals speech.

Therefore, any limits are a limit on free speech. That is the hurdle that must be overcome. The SCOTUS will listen to a constitutional amendment; it won't listen to "Ignore your precedent, it's not speech".

[Distant Quasar]

29. Unfortunately, a constitutional amendment is not going to happen

The barriers are all but insurmountable. (If I were going to push for an amendment, it would be to make the Constitution easier to amend, because the process we have now is ridiculous.)

A better bet may be a multiple matching system, which would vastly increase the influence of small donors, and wouldn't run afoul of Citizens United. But I have the depressing feeling that no law designed to roll back oligarchy will ever make it past this Supreme Court.

[Hosnon]

32. I agree that it is a high hurdle, but not insurmountable.

If it gets bad enough, things will change (e.g., Congress repeatedly and obviously siding with their donors over the people in ways that seriously affect the lives of ordinary Americans). As for 2014 and the near term, I agree it's not the most feasible option.

What is "multiple matching system"?

[Distant Quasar]

50. It's a type of public financing that enhances the influence of small donors

I think there are different schemes but one goes like this: A candidate agrees to fund his/her campaign entirely by donations of $200 or under. In return, for every $1 in small donations the candidate receives, the government will contribute 5 additional dollars to the candidate's campaign (or whatever multiple you want - it could be $10). The idea is that this would make it much easier for politicians to fund election campaigns without having to have giant donors behind them, and it would presumably be constitutional even under Citizens United.

[Half-Century Man]

54. It isn't all that high.

Circumvent the federal level. From the State level call for a constitutional convention.
www.wolf-pac.com

[sabbat hunter]

63. you don't want a constitutional convention

because once one is called, ANY amendments to the constitution can be brought up, voted on and approved, including things like banning gay marriage, establishing a state religion, etc.

[lordsummerisle]

67. That's always going to be the case

that there are forces out there that will bring up issues we don't like for a vote. There will also be progressive issues that would be brought up. So we should never call for a constitutional convention again because we may not like some of the things that happen??

[sabbat hunter]

75. correct

they are way too dangerous.

There are still too many people out there, in too many states that can make things happen like establishing a state religion via a constitutional convention, banning gay marriage via one.

Most of the advances in gay marriage lately have come via federal courts. A constitutional amendment could wipe all that out, if it is brought up and approved at a constitutional convention. Too many state legislatures would then go ahead and approve them.

[Half-Century Man]

69. And?

Fight for what's right. Fight against what's wrong.
Gay Marriage is here to stay with an 60%+ approval rating( Chris Hay's show yesterday).
State religion is too easy to beat.

And the approval rating to get money out of politics is huge, like 87%.

The odds are good, the cause is just, the time is now, the danger level is acceptable, and the federal level can't act due to the current level of money pollution. I'll fight for it anyway, with or without you.

[YOHABLO]

61. NOT when SCOTUS is stacked with ultra conservative judges 5 to 4. Of course not.

[awoke_in_2003]

36. Yeah, I get what you are saying...

Citizens United is nothing but a big shit sandwich that we all have to bite.

[Hosnon]

16. Free speech is curtailed all the time.

No right is absolute.

If it can be done in a responsible way that returns our democracy to the people, it is a good thing (IMO).

[leftyohiolib]

20. that reminds me of this

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator" g.w.b.

who decides responsible, you ? gwb? potus?

[Hosnon]

21. The drafters of the amendment, and then the federal judiciary. nt.

[leftyohiolib]

23. well who would that be?

[Hosnon]

24. Presumably Sen. Tom Udall and anyone else involved with drafting it.

It's nonsense to argue that it shouldn't be done because words can't be strictly defined. If you didn't notice, the entire Constitution uses... words.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

49. If $=Speech than Speech is not Free.

[Turbineguy]

5. As everybody knows, they've

already repealed the 2nd one. Large Black Men knocking on our doors demanding we surrender our guns.

[Fred Sanders]

6. The teabanger audience gasped?

"I'm telling you, I'm not making this up," he said as the audience offscreen gasped."
____________

Freak Christian extremists can be conned into anything, entire evangelical empires have been built on the same con Cruz, Palin, Huckabee, Carson, so many others, play on and on and on.

The Old Testament is an enduring fairy tale, one of the greatest ever written for people to explain the Dark Ages and prepare for an early death.

And then most of humanity grew up and realized Santa was not real, some people never will grow up, too scared to face a reality where death is just death.

[1StrongBlackMan]

10. Okay, Chuck ..

time to go onto the Sunday circuit and call Cruz a liar.

T amendment Schumer was announcing was related to dark money in politics.

[Kingofalldems]

11. The hallmark of conservatism is dishonesty.

They can and will lie about anything.

[olddad56]

13. Dems warn that Ted Cruz is moving to "repel" human dignity.

[asjr]

14. Ted Cruz is truly an ugly man.

[yuiyoshida]

25. FROM the inside out...

Yes, Indeed.

[shenmue]

15. They discovered my secret plan!

Gadzooks!

[Swede Atlanta]

17. You cannot discuss this with the right wingers......

They truly believe that corporations are people and that money is speech.....

Unless you can dissuade them of these ridiculous notions, rational debate is not possible.

Corporations don't get physical exams, eat food, urinate or defecate or die of cancer. We don't put corporations to death in Texas. Corporations are simply not people. They are legal fictions that are created by and run by people and people work for them but they are not "people".

Speech is certainly broader than just what you speak. But in the context of political speech, especially in a representative democracy, it is a concept of one man/woman, one vote. You certainly cannot limit the amount of effort an individual wants to put in on a campaign, canvassing, calling, etc. Those are clearly "acts" of political speech.

Writing out a check is, at best, passive political speech. If we accept, for a moment, that legal entities such as businesses, unions, etc. are not "people", and focus just on individuals, we might say that contributions are a form of political speech.

But what has to be considered is when some individuals have amassed, inherited, stolen, etc. a large sum of money, their ability to literally extinguish the voice of those who either don't have those means or choose not to spend those sums of money cannot be accepted in a representative democracy.

You can only work so many hours on a campaign, make so many telephone calls, etc. But if you have virtually unlimited amounts of money you can engage in political speech that upends the notion of one man/woman, one vote.

Further I do not think legal entities including corporations, unions, etc. should be allowed to contribute to political campaigns or otherwise engage in political activities.

[freshwest]

85. That should be an OP! Please!

[jwirr]

22. That is hilarious - as the 2nd amendment has always been the interest of the conservatives - the

1st has been ours and he is an idiot if he does not know that.

[freshwest]

27. No, we only want to deny speech to pieces of paper. Go back to making more paper dollies, you idjit!

Carnival Cruz believes that money is speech. The more money you have, the more you get to speak. If you don't have money, STFU, right?

[DJ13]

28. I think he should be arrested for saying something that stupid

Oh, wait........

[EC]

30. How can he play people like that?

Can't "repeal" an amendment without the States ratifying it.

[niyad]

46. this is the same level of ignorance as the person who told me that michelle obama passed a law

about soft drinks. I thought about explaining that flotus has no such power, but decided I would have been wasting my breath, and had a drink instead.

[Blue_Tires]

71. The gun lobby has been getting away with that strategy for years

But since it's looking less and less likely that Obama is going to declare martial law and personally confiscate everyone's guns, the GOP needs another amendment to focus on

[Bernardo de La Paz]

31. The technique: say the biggest lie that strikes the biggest fear in your audience.

Right wing demagogues go there first chance they get, every chance they get.

[freshwest]

86. +1

[Bettie]

35. In other news: Ted Cruz is a certifiable lunatic

And a f#$%ing liar.

[blkmusclmachine]

37. Projection. Always projection with the G O Pee.

[NRaleighLiberal]

38. he is a very special kind of ignorant!

[Kingofalldems]

40. I understand Cruz is King of at least 3 mountains or something.

And God appointed him.

[Iliyah]

41. I've come to the conclusion that whenever the GOP speaks

negative things about the 2nd, 1st Amendments, as well as death panels, et al., and blame it on the Dems, they truly are speaking about themselves. Such democracy is only for themselves and eff anyone else who won't toll the line.

[TRoN33]

42. Doesn't matter...

The damage is already done and his own supporters, these hopelessly inept people, has already believed his vile rhetoric. With crowd voice in unison, ooh Ahhh. These people are absolute gullible from top to bottom and Cruz knows it.

[Enthusiast]

45. He's making this up.

And it is incredible.

[appleannie1]

47. Cruz gives a whole new meaning to the term "Full of shit".

[EEO]

48. Dangerous man right there. He would have rocked as Nazi propaganda minister.

[freshwest]

87. Yes that is exactly what he is. And the gullible will kill for him if he tells them they should...

[livingonearth]

53. It's a dirty trick to equate campaign spending with 1st Amendment rights.

Our First Amendment rights protect the content of speech, not the amount. The first amendment is about "what" is being said, not about protecting those who can speak the loudest or most often. If we as a nation decide to limit spending because it tends to produce "paid for" political leaders, there is nothing in The Constitution that says we can't.

[benld74]

55. Te-mer-i-ty WOW 4 syllables!

[barbtries]

56. he's a demagogue

asshole. who listens to this guy?

[freshwest]

89. I'd say the Koch brothers, but I think it's really the other way around. Just sayin'

[charlives]

57. "If you're saying things that...

government finds inconvenience." Whaaa?

[PumpkinAle]

59. People like Cruz are dangerous because

the whacknuts listen to them, believe the lies and then will try to do something to stop the gub'ment.

[TeamPooka]

60. That man is an idiot. nt

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

62. What the Dems ought really do is

repeal Ted Cruz............

[LynneSin]

64. Why do Republican idiots think Free Speech is a one-way street

People are welcome to say anything they want. They can be as racist as they want to be, as homophobic as they want to be and as offensive to just about anyone and everyone if they like.

But Freedom of speech is a two-way street. If someone makes speech that is offensive to me I have the freedom of speech to react. I may tell that person to 'Shut the Fuck Up' or if they are in my home I may ask them to leave. I can tell them their speech is hateful and warn others that the person is full of vile hatred. And if that person runs a business of some form I can even suggest to others that we boycott it.

And what's great about free speech is others can react to me - they can say I'm wrong or they can boycott my boycott by saying they will support the person I disagree with.

Freedom of Speech is all about reaction to each other's speech.

[ColesCountyDem]

65. Bat. Shit. Crazy. n/t

[NBachers]

66. Soon as Obama wins his third term, he plans to repeal the First and Second Amenements.

I Just. Can't. Wait!

[freshwest]

90. Comrade, I've already voted for it! Did you get your double secret ballot yet?

Of course, I'm really wanting him to repeal the 10th Amendment.

That'll show those Confederate flag wavers!

Third time's a charm!

GoBama!

[struggle4progress]

68. Reinstating meaningful campaign finance laws shouldn't be approached by tinkering

with the First Amendment: it should be approached as the problem of allowing government to regulate the conduct of fictitious persons created by statute

The ability of legislative bodies to allow incorporation shouldn't be another of Dr Frankenstein's crazy uncontrolled experiments

[davidpdx]

70. +1 to the OP and everyone in the thread

Kick & Record

[copperearth]

72. Ted Cruz believes the Republicans OWn the First Amendment

Just look at what the Republicans are doing in North Carolina. You will be arrested if you say one word against fracking. If that isn't destroying the First Amendment I don't know what is!

[XiaomuWave]

74. If money is speech, we SHOULD repeal the 1st amendment

Constitutional scholars have suggested that there is no way to undo rulings like CU without repealing the 1st amendment.
To that I say - we should repeal the 1st amendment.

[freshwest]

88. False. Proponents at Move to Amend want to eliminate corporate personhood, not the First.

[Zambero]

76. Congress can't do this shit Ted

The Constitution says it's a non-no, and the Supreme Court would quickly void it if they tried, which they won't. Only a supermajority of states could pull off something this idiotic, which would never ever happen except in the mind of delirious wingnuts like the ones you preach to. Keep up the fear mongering Ted, you have a reputation to live up to.

[3catwoman3]

77. I am often torn as to whether I should...

...feel sorry for or scornful of people who are so gullible as to swallow hook-line-and-sinker the BS the Cruz and his miscreant buddies spew with such facility.

[Orsino]

81. Also, there are tiny people in his salt shakers.

Or he'll pretend there are to raise money.