“…Clinton and her liberal supporters believe the First Amendment to the Constitution must be curtailed to eliminate protections on certain speech.”
This is what Betty Tamposi now believes in. Curtailment of one of the bedrock freedoms we have here in America. This is the price she is willing to bear for defeating Trump? Once again, let me remind our readers that Republican scion, Betty Tamposi, has gone all in on the idea that the only way to save the Republican Party (from The Donald) is to embrace, fawn over, and to become a bootlicker to a person that would wipe out the entire Republican Party if her broomstick wasn’t already in the pawn shop to pay for all the political favors she’s promised (c’mon Bill, ya gotta start giving those half million $$ speeches again!):
So, a few more words to Ms Clueless in her existential war to the US Constitution (and make NO mistake, supporting Hillary is endorsing the third (and,, gulp) and perhaps fourth term of the worst Constitutional President in history):
Democrats are fond of calling their Republican counterparts “extremists.” They’ve been deploying the charge since 2010 but, having lost control of the House, Senate, over 30 governorships, and 900 legislative seats in that period, they don’t seem inclined to revise this strategy. Rarely do Republicans reply in kind. When they do, it’s even rarer that the political press uncritically echoes the charge that Democrats have become too extreme for middle America. That is no boon for Democrats, though. The party that quite nearly chose a self-described socialist to lead it has lost all perspective. There may be no better example of that inclination than Hillary Clinton’s latest campaign promise—one that has been applauded by her fellow liberals: a constitutional amendment to restrict free speech.
That is the only way to characterize what Clinton has proposed, but it’s a description that is so self-evidently damning you’ll rarely see it in the press. “I will propose a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United,” Clinton pledged in a video her campaign released on Saturday. Clinton told progressive attendees of the annual “Netroots Nation” conference that, within one month of taking office, she planned to propose and advance an amendment that would re-impose the McCain-Feingold campaign finance restrictions, which were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2010.
Responsible political observers dismiss this plan as simple pandering to an activist base of the Democratic Party, but that gives pundits and the press license to decline to dissect this anti-democratic proposal and its appeal to millions of liberals. Clinton and her liberal supporters believe the First Amendment to the Constitution must be curtailed to eliminate protections on certain speech.
Remember, Citizens’ United was all about a film that was to be released shortly before the election in 2008 that was highly critical of Hillary; it was accused of violating McCain-Feingold campaign laws (another travesty against Free Speech). I do remember that at some point during oral arguments, that the topic of instead of a film being banned, what about a book?
Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the majority also noted that because the First Amendment does not distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television, and blogs.
Free Speech is just that – there is no political speech, offensive speech, or any other kind of speech. Speech is speech and the First Amendment was installed because the Founders knew that was a primary bulwark against the taking of our Liberty.
And Betty Tamposi is now a person that can be considered to be a person, with her support of Hillary and the latter’s willingness to step on the accelerator of the Progressives dismantlement , that the Founders warned us against.
Betty has decided that the Constitution can be cast aside because of a simple animus against a single candidate. Really, Betty, are you so blithe as to do such a bargain?