How often does the ACLU take the same position as Ted Cruz.
His three questions to the Senate committee were riveting:
- Should Congress be able to ban books?
- Should Congress be able to ban movies?
- Should Congress be able to prohibit the NAACP from speaking about politics?
As you can see in the above video this proposed amendment to the Constitution would empower congress to do all three.
As Ted Cruz wrote in the Southeast Texas Record,
The answer to all three questions should, unequivocally, be “no.” But, sadly, 46 Democrats in the U.S. Senate are supporting a constitutional amendment to repeal the free-speech provisions of the First Amendment and give Congress carte blanche power to regulate political speech.
It’s all because a group of conservative filmmakers made a documentary film in 2008 about then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton that did not speak favorably about her record. Forty-five Senate Democrats are now supporting a constitutional amendment from Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico to stop Americans from showing movies like the one Citizens United created during the 2008 election.
Forty-six Senate Democrats are willing to rewrite the Constitution to take away the right of Americans to speak or create art that is critical of politicians.
Forty-six Senate Democrats are actively working to silence political criticism ahead of the next presidential election.
They are the “Fahrenheit 451” Democrats.
Never before has Congress tampered with the First Amendment.
When a similar proposal was considered in 1997, the famed liberal lion of the Senate, Ted Kennedy, reminded his colleagues that never before had the Bill of Rights been amended and “now is no time to start.”
Democrats in office don’t seem to have any idea that they are supposed to protect civil liberties. They see them as impediments to their power. They are literally proposing to rewrite the Constitution to do so.
Cruz is right. This is a radical proposal. The fact that Senate Democrats are trying to amend the First Amendment should be front page news in all newspapers. But it is not. Read the “tone” in USA Today’s story:
A long-shot effort to amend the U.S. Constitution to curb political spending won the approval of a key Senate committee Thursday.
By a 10-8 vote, the Democratic-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee approved a measure that would give Congress and the states the power to ban corporations from spending money to influence elections. It heads next to the full Senate.
The proposed amendment stands little chance of winning the required support of two-thirds of Congress, but the heated debate at the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday underscores the intensity of the fight over the growing role of unlimited money in elections.
…the American Civil Liberties Union strongly opposes the proposed amendment. In a June letter to the Judiciary Committee’s top senators, ACLU officials warned that the proposed amendment would give Congress the power to limit the publication of politician’s books, such as Hillary Rodham Clinton’s new memoir, Hard Choices, if she decides to seek the presidency.
I hope the paper is right that this is a “long-shot effort.” But the fact that it is even being considered means that our country is rotting. Politicians should fear to ever suggest such an amendment. It should end their political careers.
Note that all of this was about speech and freedom of the press. Now that Hobby Lobby has won their case, I suppose we will soon see Democrats proposing to amend that part of the First Amendment as well.