Adam Schiff And His Merry Band Of Democrats Propose Overturning The First Amendment

Adam Schiff and a group Democrats introduced a proposed Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United Decision, one of history’s greatest free-speech wins

It’s just a political stunt, of course, as Schiff doesn’t have the votes. But the stunt reflects the authoritarian outlook that’s been normalized on the contemporary left. Since the date the decision was made, which was 13 years ago, Citizens United Unregulated speech was seen as a threat and this rallying cry was heard by many. Barack Obama is known for his infamous, and inaccuratelyhe rebuked the judges during his State of the Union speech for upholding the First Amendment. Democrats have repeatedly blamed this decision for the alleged corrosion. “democracy.”

Democrats try to obscure the fact that their position is objectively pro-censorship. Remember that Citizens United revolved around the federal government’s banning the showing of a documentary critical of 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton before the Democratic primary elections. McCain-Feingold at the time made it illegal for corporations (groups freely associating citizens), and unions (ditto), to engage in. “electioneering” A month or two months prior to a primary election. Oral arguments were made by the then-Solicitor General, United States, now Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan contended That the federal government could ban books “express advocacy.”

Recall also that “campaign finance” laws — speech codes — were written by politicians and defended by political media who were encumbered by any limitations on their own free expression. These unacceptable laws prevented citizens from coming together to pool their resources and engage in the most essential form of expression, just before an election.

Schiff’s amendment would overturn Citizens UnitedThe First Amendment and the Constitution empower both federal and state governments to adopt legislation. “reasonable, viewpoint-neutral” Speech restrictions “influences” elections.

For one thing, blanket, politically neutral restrictions on political speech — even if we trusted that politicians could neutrally dispense them — are still There are no restrictions on freedom of expression It doesn’t matter one whit if they are “reasonable” Or “neutral.” The principle of free speech isn’t contingent on fairness or outcome, or the form the speech takes. It is a fundamental right. Inbuilt The Constitution protects our right, and does not prescribe what the state should do. It’s amazing that this has to be said.

Moreover, do Democrats trust Kevin McCarthy’s conception of “reasonable”? Because I don’t. Hakeem Jeffries and that I also don’t trust. weasel Schiff, who is a former participant in censoring dissent. Lois Lerner might. tell youAny law giving bureaucrats the power to define political speech will not be enforced arbitrarily and will undoubtedly be abused. Only “viewpoint-neutral” position on speech is that it’s none of the state’s business.

Moreover, the amendment is not neutral. Section 4 of Schiff’s proposal offers an exemption to the “press.” Who is the press? It’s not difficult to see how bureaucrats would make that determination. Schiff knows that most large communication companies already work for Democrats and aren’t any more neutral activists. Schiff