Senator Schumer calls for limits on the 1st Amendment

[rambone]

Chuck Schumer, arguing for the DISCLOSE Act, says that no amendment is absolute.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeFBGaKJk7o

 

[IndyDave1776]

That's OK, the First Amendment calls for limits on Chuck Schumer.

BTW, notice that Chucky doesn't appear to understand the difference between a republic and a democracy.

 

[rambone]

 

[88GT]

The issue isn't whether or not he's wrong. He's not. The issue is whether or not it is the government's role to determine those limits and attempt to control them.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The issue isn't whether or not he's wrong. He's not. The issue is whether or not it is the government's role to determine those limits and attempt to control them.

I would say that it is government's role to do exactly as the Constitution says--no more and no less!

 

[rambone]

Congress shall make no law...

 

[donballz]

Seems like an odd debate tactic to accept the premise that money is speech and then argue against the first amendment. Democrats are so weak is laughable.

 

[88GT]

I would say that it is government's role to do exactly as the Constitution says--no more and no less!

Federal, yes. It's role is clearly limited. What about state and local? Who defends the individual from the individual when rights are abridged/infringed/stomped?

And just so we're clear, it is my opinion that this was posted because the OP finds fault with the premise that rights are not absolute, not with the technicalities of government's role in that discussion.

Edit: the video is garbage as evidence goes. There's absolutely no context for his statements.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Federal, yes. It's role is clearly limited. What about state and local? Who defends the individual from the individual when rights are abridged/infringed/stomped?

And just so we're clear, it is my opinion that this was posted because the OP finds fault with the premise that rights are not absolute, not with the technicalities of government's role in that discussion.

Edit: the video is garbage as evidence goes. There's absolutely no context for his statements.

I would point out that most everything out of Chuckie's mouth is garbage. I have to agree with Ram that the First Amendment does say that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or the press. My conclusion is that it means exactly that.

 

[CX1]

I would point out that most everything out of Chuckie's mouth is garbage. I have to agree with Ram that the First Amendment does say that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or the press. My conclusion is that it means exactly that.

Just to be clear on your position, are you advocating the abolishment of any law dealing with slander, libel, incitement to riot and in some cases conspiracy?
What about treason? Should freedom of speech allow one to tell our Countries enemies our Nation's secrets?
Because based on the 1st amendment alone all of the above would be allowed.

 

[level.eleven]

Just to be clear on this point, you all are okay with Chi-com funds flowing into the Obama administration's war chest?

 

[level.eleven]

Seems like an odd debate tactic to accept the premise that money is speech and then argue against the first amendment. Democrats are so weak is laughable.

Democrats are doing exactly what the Supreme Court told them to do after Citizens United. Republicans are blocking their recommendation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/opinion/the-power-of-anonymity.html?_r=1

 

[Hogwylde]

CONGRESS shall make no law...............

I on the other hand am free to call you stupid, ignore you, ridicule you, not buy your product, not patronize your establishment, not watch your movie, not buy or listen to your song.

You have the right to express your opinion and not have the GOVERNMENT censor you. You do NOT have the right to make others listen to your opinion.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

Just to be clear on this point, you all are okay with Chi-com funds flowing into the Obama administration's war chest?

Wouldnt doubt it, but, link? Might be an intresting read

 

[Ted]

Just to be clear on this point, you all are okay with Chi-com funds flowing into the Obama administration's war chest?

Its already been illegal, and a separate issue from the court's finding of the constitutionality of the BCFRA.

 

[Ted]

Democrats are doing exactly what the Supreme Court told them to do after Citizens United. Republicans are blocking their recommendation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/opinion/the-power-of-anonymity.html?_r=1

If campaign finance reform is what Congress wants, all it has to do is cap contributions from any and all entities, eliminate PACs, as well as 527 type groups.

Both sides want their cake and eat it too. Traditionally, Dems have been all about blocking or limiting corporate contributions, but have been unwilling to place the kibosh on political contributions from unions. The Reps are equally as guilty in the same respect.

 

[cobber]

I would say that it is government's role to do exactly as the Constitution says--no more and no less!

I'm okay with less...

 

[Ted]

I'm okay with less...

They already do. Look at the Southern border with Mexico.

 

[KLB]

They already do. Look at the Southern border with Mexico.

What does that have to do with the Constitution?

 

[Ted]

I would say that it is government's role to do exactly as the Constitution says--no more and no less!

I'm okay with less...

They already do. Look at the Southern border with Mexico.

What does that have to do with the Constitution?

Is, or is not the federal government charged with Border, Immigration and Customs enforcement?