Category Archives: First Amendment

The point of this "improvement" of James Madison's First Amendment is to reverse the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision. It left in place the ban on corporate contributions to candidates. It said only that Americans do not forfeit their speech rights when they band together to express themselves on political issues through corporations, which they generally do through nonprofit advocacy corporations.

Shutterstock.com

Enlarge photo

WASHINGTON Since Barry Goldwater, accepting the Republicans' 1964 presidential nomination, said "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice," Democrats have been decrying Republican "extremism." Actually, although there is abundant foolishness and unseemliness in American politics, real extremism measures or movements that menace the Constitution's architecture of ordered liberty is rare. This week, however, extremism stained the Senate.

Forty-eight members of the Democratic caucus attempted to do something never previously done amend the Bill of Rights. They tried to radically shrink First Amendment protection of political speech. They evidently think extremism in defense of the political class's convenience is no vice.

The First Amendment as the First Congress passed it, and the states ratified it 223 years ago, says: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." The 48 senators understand that this is incompatible by its plain text, and in light of numerous Supreme Court rulings with their desire to empower Congress and state legislatures to determine the permissible quantity, content and timing of political speech. Including, of course, speech by and about members of Congress and their challengers as well as persons seeking the presidency or state offices.

The 48 senators proposing to give legislators speech-regulating powers describe their amendment in anodyne language, as "relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections." But what affects elections is speech, and the vast majority of contributions and expenditures are made to disseminate speech. The Democrats' amendment says: "Congress and the states may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections," and may "prohibit" corporations including nonprofit issue advocacy corporations (such as the Sierra Club, NARAL Pro-Choice America and thousands of others across the political spectrum) from spending any money "to influence elections," which is what most of them exist to do.

Because all limits will be set by incumbent legislators, the limits deemed "reasonable" will surely serve incumbents' interests. The lower the limits, the more valuable will be the myriad (and unregulated) advantages of officeholders.

The point of this "improvement" of James Madison's First Amendment is to reverse the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision. It left in place the ban on corporate contributions to candidates. It said only that Americans do not forfeit their speech rights when they band together to express themselves on political issues through corporations, which they generally do through nonprofit advocacy corporations.

Floyd Abrams, among the First Amendment's most distinguished defenders, notes that the proposed amendment deals only with political money that funds speech. That it would leave political speech less protected than pornography, political protests at funerals, and Nazi parades. That by aiming to equalize the political influence of persons and groups, it would reverse the 1976 Buckley decision joined by such champions of free expression as Justices William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and Potter Stewart. The one reason President Harry Truman vetoed the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act was that he considered its ban on corporations and unions making independent expenditures to affect federal elections a "dangerous intrusion on free speech." And that no Fortune 100 corporation "appears to have contributed even a cent to any of the 10 highest-grossing super PACs in either the 2010, 2012 or 2014 election cycles."

Read more from the original source:
Extremism in defense of re-election

Published: Thursday, September 11, 2014 at 3:15 a.m. Last Modified: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 3:22 p.m.

Since Barry Goldwater, accepting the Republicans' 1964 presidential nomination, said "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice," Democrats have been decrying Republican "extremism."

Actually, although there is abundant foolishness and unseemliness in American politics, real extremism measures or movements that menace the Constitution's architecture of ordered liberty is rare. This week, however, extremism stained the Senate.

Forty-eight members of the Democratic caucus attempted to do something never previously done amend the Bill of Rights. They tried to radically shrink First Amendment protection of political speech. They evidently think extremism in defense of the political class' convenience is no vice.

The First Amendment, as the First Congress passed it and the states ratified it 223 years ago, states: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." The 48 senators understand that this is incompatible by its plain text, and in light of numerous Supreme Court rulings with their desire to empower Congress and state legislatures to determine the permissible quantity, content and timing of political speech. Including, of course, speech by and about members of Congress and their challengers as well as people seeking the presidency or state offices.

The 48 senators proposing to give legislators speech-regulating powers describe their amendment in anodyne language, as "relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections." But what affects elections is speech, and the vast majority of contributions and expenditures are made to disseminate speech.

The Democrats' amendment states: "Congress and the states may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections," and may "prohibit" corporations including nonprofit issue advocacy corporations (such as the Sierra Club, NARAL Pro-Choice America and thousands of others across the political spectrum) from spending any money "to influence elections," which is what most of them exist to do.

Because all limits would be set by incumbent legislators, the limits deemed "reasonable" would surely serve incumbents' interests. The lower the limits, the more valuable will be the myriad (and unregulated) advantages of officeholders.

The point of this "improvement" of James Madison's First Amendment is to reverse the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision. It left in place the ban on corporate contributions to candidates. It stated only that Americans do not forfeit their speech rights when they band together to express themselves on political issues through corporations, which they generally do through nonprofit advocacy corporations.

Floyd Abrams, among the First Amendment's most distinguished defenders, notes that the proposed amendment deals only with political money that funds speech. That it would leave political speech less protected than pornography, political protests at funerals and Nazi parades. That by aiming to equalize the political influence of persons and groups, it would reverse the 1976 Buckley decision joined by such champions of free expression as Justices William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and Potter Stewart. That one reason President Harry Truman vetoed the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act was that he considered its ban on corporations and unions making independent expenditures to affect federal elections a "dangerous intrusion on free speech." And that no Fortune 100 corporation "appears to have contributed even a cent to any of the 10 highest-grossing super PACs in either the 2010, 2012 or 2014 election cycles."

Go here to read the rest:
Will: Group of senators tries to 'improve' First Amendment

New Hampshires Constitution Day essay contest is right around the corner, and some Nashua students are taking on the competition as a part of their social studies classes. The contest is hosted by The Telegraph and six other newspapers and the states court system. Essay topics put contemporary issues within a constitutional context. This years this question asks to students address the conflicts between cyberbullying and First Amendment rights.

Fairgrounds Middle School has been home to the two previous grades 5-8 statewide essay winners, Suhaas Katikaneni in 2013 and Benjamin Swain in 2012. Fairgrounds incorporats the contest into its fall curriculum. ... Subscribe or log in to read more

New Hampshires Constitution Day essay contest is right around the corner, and some Nashua students are taking on the competition as a part of their social studies classes. The contest is hosted by The Telegraph and six other newspapers and the states court system. Essay topics put contemporary issues within a constitutional context. This years this question asks to students address the conflicts between cyberbullying and First Amendment rights.

Fairgrounds Middle School has been home to the two previous grades 5-8 statewide essay winners, Suhaas Katikaneni in 2013 and Benjamin Swain in 2012. Fairgrounds incorporats the contest into its fall curriculum.

The three levels in the middle school, all the social studies teachers, are all participating, said Fairgrounds teacher Ralph Sommese. Sommese is an eighth grade social studies teacher and social studies curriculum liaison for Fairgrounds Middle School to the district.

Sommese said student interest in the contest varies depending on student age and the essay topic.

I know the sixth graders really get into it. The eighth graders are this year because of the topic theyre really interested, he said. In preparing the kids, we take them to the library to do research. I go over Supreme Court cases related to the idea of First Amendment freedom of speech topics. We also go into setting up the essay itself, he said.

Although Sommese said cyberbullying wasnt specifically a problem at the school as far as he knew, staff discusses bullying in general with students. On our team in eighth grade we do a character education piece that deals with bullying. We have speakers come in for it, he said.

Students interested in the contest can submit essays to Constitution Day contest, attn: Phil Kincade, Nashua Telegraph, 17 Executive Drive, Hudson, NH 03051. The deadline for entries this year is October 6. After that, each newspaper will select one local winner from grades 5-8 and one winner from grades 9-12. From the local winners, the state Supreme Court will select one statewide winner from each group. Local and state winners are invited to the Supreme Court, and state winners are also invited to the annual First Amendment Awards presented by the Nackey S. Loeb School of Communications of Manchester.

This years essay prompt:

Link:
Students study First Amendment for Constitution Day essay contest

A Democratic election year push to amend the Constitution and roll back campaign-spending free speech rights ran out of steam Thursday and fell victim to a Senate filibuster.

Holding the vote, even in defeat, was a major political goal for Democrats during the two-week session of Congress. They hope the fight will help them rally their base ahead of Novembers elections, arguing that changing the Constitution is needed to prevent wealthy conservatives from improperly influencing elections.

The amendment Democratic leaders proposed would have given Congress and state legislatures the ability to set reasonable limits on how much candidates could raise and spend during their campaigns and to enact outright bans on interest groups that wish to use their money to influence elections.

The amendment would overturn the First Amendments protection of free speech as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

This, make no mistake, is an attack on the First Amendments most important protection, said Sen. Mike Lee, Utah Republican.

All Democrats present voted to back the amendment, while all Republicans voted for the filibuster to block it a 54-42 division that left the measure six shy of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster, and underscores just how partisan First Amendment and campaign spending fights have become.

Only in Washington is campaign finance reform a partisan issue, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said after the vote.

The amendment was sponsored by Sen. Tom Udall, New Mexico Democrat, but Mr. Reid was its biggest backer. He repeatedly took to the Senate floor to call for its passage and singled out his two chief targets for the amendment: brothers Charles and David Koch, who use their multibillion-dollar fortune to support conservative and libertarian causes.

While Republicans in Congress stand up for the Koch brothers, Senate Democrats will continue to stand up for our constituents and fight the corrosive influence of dark money in American politics, Mr. Reid said.

Mr. Reids own hold on power as majority leader also is threatened by the Koch brothers, as groups affiliated with their network are pouring tens of millions of dollars into ads in an effort to unseat a number of Democrats, which could deliver the Senate to Republicans in November.

Continued here:
GOP blocks Democrats' push to rewrite First Amendment campaign spending

Since Barry Goldwater, in accepting the Republicans 1964 presidential nomination, said, Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, Democrats have been decrying Republican extremism. Actually, although there is abundant foolishness and unseemliness in U.S. politics, real extremism measures or movements that menace the Constitutions architecture of ordered liberty is rare. This week, however, extremism stained the Senate.

Forty-eight members of the Democratic caucus attempted to do something never previously done: Amend the Bill of Rights. They tried to radically shrink First Amendment protection of political speech. They evidently think extremism in defense of the political classs convenience is no vice.

The First Amendment, as the First Congress passed it and the states ratified it more than 200 years ago, says: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech. The 48 senators understand that this is incompatible by its plain text, and in light of numerous Supreme Court rulings with their desire to empower Congress and state legislatures to determine the permissible quantity, content and timing of political speech. Including, of course, speech by and about members of Congress and their challengers as well as people seeking the presidency or state offices.

The 48 senators proposing to give legislators speech-regulating powers describe their amendment in anodyne language, as relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. But what affects elections is speech, and the vast majority of contributions and expenditures are made to disseminate speech. The Democrats amendment says: Congress and the states may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections, and may prohibit corporations including nonprofit issue-advocacy corporations (such as the Sierra Club, NARAL Pro-Choice America and thousands of others across the political spectrum) from spending any money to influence elections, which is what most of them exist to do.

Because all limits will be set by incumbent legislators, the limits deemed reasonable will surely serve incumbents interests. The lower the limits, the more valuable will be the myriad (and unregulated) advantages of officeholders.

The point of this improvement of James Madisons First Amendment is to reverse the Supreme Courts 2010 Citizens United decision. It left in place the ban on corporate contributions to candidates. It said only that Americans do not forfeit their speech rights when they band together to express themselves on political issues through corporations, which they generally do through nonprofit advocacy corporations.

Floyd Abrams, among the First Amendments most distinguished defenders, notes that the proposed amendment deals only with political money that funds speech. That it would leave political speech less protected than pornography, political protests at funerals, and Nazi parades. That, by aiming to equalize the political influence of people and groups, it would reverse the 1976 Buckley decision, joined by such champions of free expression as Justices William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and Potter Stewart. That one reason President Harry Truman vetoed the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act was that he considered its ban on corporations and unions making independent expenditures to affect federal elections a dangerous intrusion on free speech. And that no Fortune 100 corporation appears to have contributed even a cent to any of the 10 highest-grossing super PACs in either the 2010, 2012 or 2014 election cycles.

There are not the 67 Democratic senators and 290 Democratic representatives necessary to send this amendment to the states for ratification. The mere proposing of it, however, has usefully revealed the senators who are eager to regulate speech about themselves:

Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Benjamin Cardin (Md.), Thomas Carper (Del.), Robert Casey (Pa.), Christopher Coons (Del.), Richard Durbin (Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Al Franken (Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Martin Heinrich (N.M.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Angus King (Maine), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Edward Markey (Mass.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Robert Menendez (N.J.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Barbara Mikulski (Md.), Christopher Murphy (Conn.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Harry Reid (Nev.), John Rockefeller (W.Va.), Bernard Sanders (Vt.), Brian Schatz (Hawaii), Charles Schumer (N.Y.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Mark Udall (Colo.), John Walsh (Mont.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Ron Wyden (Ore.).

The italicized names are of senators on the ballot this November. But all 48 Senate co-sponsors are American rarities real extremists.

Continued here:
Will: George Will: Senate Democrats extremism on display

SINCE Barry Goldwater, accepting the Republicans 1964 presidential nomination, said extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, Democrats have been decrying Republican extremism. Actually, although there is abundant foolishness and unseemliness in American politics, real extremism measures or movements that menace the Constitutions architecture of ordered liberty is rare. Last week, however, extremism stained the Senate.

Forty-eight members of the Democratic caucus attempted to do something never previously done amend the Bill of Rights. They tried to radically shrink First Amendment protection of political speech. They evidently think extremism in defense of the political class convenience is no vice.

The First Amendment as the First Congress passed it, and the states ratified it 223 years ago, says: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech. The 48 senators understand that this is incompatible by its plain text, and in light of numerous Supreme Court rulings with their desire to empower Congress and state legislatures to determine the permissible quantity, content and timing of political speech. Including, of course, speech by and about members of Congress and their challengers as well as persons seeking the presidency or state offices.

The 48 senators proposing to give legislators speech-regulating powers describe their amendment in anodyne language, as relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. But what affects elections is speech, and the vast majority of contributions and expenditures are made to disseminate speech. The Democrats amendment says: Congress and the states may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections, and may prohibit corporations including nonprofit issue advocacy corporations (such as the Sierra Club, NARAL Pro-Choice America and thousands of others across the political spectrum) from spending any money to influence elections, which is what most of them exist to do.

Because all limits will be set by incumbent legislators, the limits deemed reasonable will surely serve incumbents interests. The lower the limits, the more valuable will be the myriad (and unregulated) advantages of officeholders.

The point of this improvement of James Madisons First Amendment is to reverse the Supreme Courts 2010 Citizens United decision. It left in place the ban on corporate contributions to candidates. It said only that Americans do not forfeit their speech rights when they band together to express themselves on political issues through corporations, which they generally do through nonprofit advocacy corporations.

Floyd Abrams, among the First Amendments most distinguished defenders, notes that the proposed amendment deals only with political money that funds speech. That it would leave political speech less protected than pornography, political protests at funerals, and Nazi parades. That by aiming to equalize the political influence of persons and groups, it would reverse the 1976 Buckley decision joined by such champions of free expression as Justices William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and Potter Stewart. That one reason President Harry Truman vetoed the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act was that he considered its ban on corporations and unions making independent expenditures to affect federal elections a dangerous intrusion on free speech. And that no Fortune 100 corporation appears to have contributed even a cent to any of the 10 highest-grossing super PACs in either the 2010, 2012 or 2014 election cycles.

There are not the 67 Democratic senators and 290 Democratic representatives necessary to send this amendment to the states for ratification. The mere proposing of it, however, has usefully revealed the senators who are eager to regulate speech about themselves:

Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Benjamin Cardin (Md.), Thomas Carper (Del.), Robert Casey (Pa.), Christopher Coons (Del.), Richard Durbin (Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Al Franken (Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Martin Heinrich (N.M.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Angus King (Maine), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Edward Markey (Mass.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Robert Menendez (N.J.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Barbara Mikulski (Md.), Christopher Murphy (Conn.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Harry Reid (Nev.), John Rockefeller (W.Va.), Bernard Sanders (Vt.), Brian Schatz (Hawaii), Charles Schumer (N.Y.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Mark Udall (Colo.), John Walsh (Mont.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Ron Wyden (Ore.).

The italicized names are of senators on the ballot this November. But all 48 Senate co-sponsors are American rarities real extremists.

View post:
George Will Eviscerating the 1st Amendment is extremism

E.V.P. - Can we make a sound?
This audio clip was recorded around the year 2009 in a home in California (old gold mining town). It was recorded with a computer as I did not have a handheld voice recorder at the time. I...

By: I Invoke My First Amendment Rights

View post:
E.V.P. - Can we make a sound? - Video

CJ #39;s First Amendment Project

By: Sarah Richards

Excerpt from:
CJ's First Amendment Project - Video

D.T. Hour Kansas was RIGHT?
Well we #39;ll be talking about the attempt by 49 democrats to appeal the first amendment. Also we might even get to see Kansas Hillbilly prepper.

By: GreenDragon Tavern Chats

View original post here:
D.T. Hour Kansas was RIGHT? - Video

Jeanne Shaheen wants you to shut up already. She believes passionately that the First Amendment is too broad. It has to be rewritten to give government the authority to limit the speech of citizens.

Shaheen has promoted this view for years, and on Monday the bill she co-sponsored to amend the Constitution to restrict citizen speech came up for a procedural Senate vote. The American people lose when corporations and special interests can spend limitless dollars trying to sway public opinion and inject themselves in our democratic election process, and we have to take action on the secret money that is growing increasingly prevalent in campaigns, she said

Corporations and special interests, eh? If restricting corporations is the goal, then why does the constitutional amendment that she co-sponsored say, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections?

The phrase candidates and others means you, not corporations and special interests.

The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. Shaheen wants to make a law to do exactly that. But she cannot, because of the First Amendment. So she wants to amend it to give her the power to limit your ability to speak about politics, which means about her. New Hampshire, speak out against this while you still can.

See more here:
Shaheen vs. free speech She wants to silence you