Campaign Finance

Al Franken Misrepresents the Censorship Power Democrats Are Demanding



During today's debate about SJR 19,  a proposed constitutional amendment that would restrict freedom of speech in the name of "democratic self-government and political equality," Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) claimed the measure would merely "restore the law to what it was before Citizens United was decided." Not so. True, the amendment would allow Congress to re-enact the speech restrictions overturned in that case, which barred unions and corporations, including nonprofit advocacy groups, from criticizing federal politicians on TV or radio close to an election. But as I noted yesterday, the amendment would go a lot further than that.

The amendment would allow Congress and state legislatures to "regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections." That means it would overturn Buckley v. Valeo, the 1976 decision in which the Supreme Court upheld limits on donations to candidates but rejected limits on spending by candidates, reasoning that such caps amount to restrictions on speech, since communicating with a mass audience requires money.

The amendment that Franken and at least 48 of his colleagues favor also would allow legislators to impose limits on independent spending by individuals, which the Court has never upheld. Section 2 says legislators "may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law," but there is no requirement that they do so. Congress might decide, in the interest of "political equality," that opinionated billionaires such as George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Sheldon Adelson, and the Koch Brothers should shut the hell up and let other people have a turn. It could even ban political ads featuring celebrities,  on the theory that they have an unwarranted influence on voters.

Given the breadth of this authority, the examples of possible censorship listed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed piece—including bans on the distribution of voter guides by the National Rifle Association, on pro-life or pro-choice advocacy close to an election, on get-out-the-vote efforts by churches or unions, and on documentaries critical of politicians running for office—are not at all fanciful. In fact, that last example is exactly what Citizens United involved. Under this amendment, such a documentary could be squelched even if it were the work of an independent filmmaker unaffiliated with any group organized as a corporation. 

The only limits on the censorship allowed by this amendment are that it apply to speech that could influence an election, that the restriction be "reasonable," and that it not "abridge the freedom of the press." If "the press" is understood as the Framers understood it, to mean a technology of mass communication, that last condition would make it difficult for legislators to limit any messages that require significant spending (along with some, such as blogging, that don't). But if "the press" is understood as SJR 19's supporters presumably intend, to mean professional journalists, respecting "the freedom of the press" would be consistent with all manner of restrictions on speech by people who do not work for officially recognized news organizations. That distinction would create a legally privileged class of speakers who are allowed to freely debate political issues while their fellow citizens are hemmed in by "reasonable limits." But remember: It's all about political equality.

Today Franken called Citizen United "one of the worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court." Apparently a decision saying that the government may not ban a movie because it made a politician look bad is up there with Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Korematsu v. United States. For more overheated criticism of Citizens United, see my December 2010 Reason cover story.

NEXT: Ray Rice and Punishing Abusive Cops

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Life is like a hurricane, here in Duckburg.

    1. Race cars, lasers, aeroplanes, it’s a duck-blur!

  2. Megan McCardle wrote an article about idiotic mistakes made by left-wing social scientists and totally nailed it.

    I am reluctant to make sweeping generalizations about a very large group of people based on a single study. But I am reluctant indeed when it turns out those generalizations are based on 85 drunk people and 75 psychology students.

    Here’s a good rule for journalists writing about most social psychology papers: If you are tempted to write “studies show that people …” try replacing that with “studies show that small groups of affluent psychology majors …” and see if you still want to write the article.

    1. The retarded bias in almost every social psychology study is usually glaringly obvious to anyone who isn’t a drooling moron partisan.

      1. It’s all about obtaining source material for propaganda. You deluge the other side with a plethora of these easy to generate studies and claim ‘science’ is on your side. As long as there are a lot more Left leaning Psychology majors than there are Right leaning ones, the ‘consensus’ will always be on your side.

  3. If the Democrats have their way we can finally have a Pravda of our very own. We cannot afford a propaganda gap!

    1. Yep. Its kind of surprising, they’re not just letting the mask drop, they’re throwing the mask away.

  4. The dems have truly gone insane. It’s not just about the poor, or “equality”. They have really set themselves up as enemies of freedom of all forms. This proposed amendment represents an ugly and frightening shift.

    1. “socially liberal”

    2. But the Dems are good on civil rights!

      1. Evil vs. eviler?

        1. Dicks versus Cunts cause we are fucked.

    3. “The right does it too”

      Well, Ari Fleischer!

  5. This Democrat-proposed amendment removes any doubt that the “recognized” news media are Democrat shills and are known by the party to be so.

  6. Putting the word “reasonable”in an amendment is fucking stupid.

    1. Reasonable is a wonderful weasel word. It allows you to claim that whatever you want to do at this instant is ‘reasonable’ and to therefore have the law mean whatever you want.

    2. So no fan of the drafters of the Fourth Amendment I guess?

      1. No fan of the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. It should be understood that the Constitution is a strict enumeration of the powers of the government, and anything that is not included is not within the government’s purview.

        1. The problem with this view is that the Constitution contains a few broad delegations of powers which the later Amendments stand as bulwarks against.

          1. I think Hamilton and Madison and Jay were wrong about the BoR, but not entirely. Hamilton was right that a specific BoR would lead to ignoring rights not listed. The 9th and 10th havent helped much.

            1. They’ve just located such rights in the due process clause.

              1. Insert eye roll here.

                1. I’m partly being serious. I don’t know how they would interpret and apply the 9th other than the way substantive due process rights are (at least purportedly) adopted.

                  1. Bo, have you read Randy Barnett’s excellent book on the subject? It could be the subject of law school seminar (Instead of “The Law of Nuisance” or whatever it was I ended up taking as a 3L.)

              2. Insert eye roll here.

            2. Ha! My commerce clause trumps your tenth.

            3. I thought it was Franklin who made that argument.

              1. Franklin didnt write the Federalist Papers.

  7. From the second link in the article, a Progressive gets his Robespierre on:

    Tue, Sep 9th, 2014 at 4:23 pm
    No. Because ever since the Powell Memo came out in the 70’s we have been asleep at the wheel. Being that we are progressives we look at the better angels of other people and we were wrong. ALEC controls the states even blue states so it is what it is.

    The only thing that can save this nation is if QVC has a sale on guillotines

    “I Agree”: 8

    1. “we look at the better angels of other people…” and “sale on guillotines”.

      The cognitive dissonance combined with an innate viciousness topped off with willful lack of self-awareness makes for a genocidal cocktail.

      1. I invoked your full name upon reading the comment, btw.

      2. and we were wrong

        Miss that part?

        1. Well that part he got right. He did forgot to add “and still are”.

      3. “The cognitive dissonance combined with an innate viciousness topped off with willful lack of self-awareness makes for a genocidal cocktail.”

        Indeed. But hey, the Left are Smart and Nice; just ask them.

    2. The only thing that can save this nation is if QVC has a sale on guillotines

      It might be surprised as to whose head gets placed in the blocks.

  8. Outside of a comedy routine, that face should probably be censored, public eyesore, that is one ugly motherfucker.

    1. I think I’d actually go gay for long enough to brutally hate fuck Franken.

      These people are pure, power-mad scum.

  9. a proposed constitutional amendment that would restrict freedom of speech in the name of democratic self-government and political equality

    Does anyone else see anything wrong with that statement?

    1. Not at all.

      /msnbc viewers

    2. “Does anyone else see anything wrong with that statement?”

      Fairness doctrine for the Win!

    3. It’s in Orwellesque where day is night,square is round and where slavery is freedom.

  10. Question: Can a Constitutional amendment violate other amendments?

    ‘Cause, that kinda seems where this whole shebang is headed.

    1. We just have to repeal that 1st one, oh… and the 2nd one, dusty old things that they are, and then we can get started on the new freedom, no violations necessary.

    2. 18th and 21st.

      1. Yeah, the 18th seems to me to be in the same vein, so to speak. However, this one would directly reference (and contradict) another amendment.

        Send it to the SC and let them declare the amendment “Unconstitutional”.

        Yeah, that’s the ticket!

        1. The 21st directly references and contradicts the 18th.

          1. If by “contradict” you mean “repeal”, then yes. Otherwise, not exactly the same sitch here.

            1. If you can completely repeal an earlier Amendment in its entirety then you can partially contradict or repeal part of an earlier one.

              1. You can? What’s that based on?

                I don’t necessarily doubt you, but it’d help to know the basis for it.

                1. I don’t mean to be snarky here, but logic. I mean, if it’s within the power to negate in whole it should be within to negate in part.

                    1. Bo may be a dick most of the time, but he’s in the right on this topic.

                  1. Logic dictates that the amendment would have to specifically repeal all or part of the First. You can’t just contradict it.

                    Which, I would add, is exactly what the text of the 21st does (repeal).

                    1. It would be up to the SC to make it consistent. Which is pretty easy to do: Congress may make no law, except in cases where this new amendment says it can make law. Ta-da.

    3. Basically, whenever a new amendment contradicts with an old one, the new one “wins”. Hence, despite the First amendment specifying that only “Congress shall make no law…”, the 14th Amendment makes the 1st Amendment applicable to the states as well.

  11. Misrepresent? HOW DARE YOU EVEN SUGGEST!?

    Isnt progressivism largely a process of ‘renaming’ things anyway? “prison” is “re-education”, etc; or just “education”, if you look at public schools.

    1. Isnt progressivism largely a process of ‘renaming’ things anyway?

      You mean like ‘communism’, no ‘socialism’, no ‘progressive’, no ‘communism’, no, ‘socialism’, no… uhh, ‘progressive’.

      Like that?

    2. What we remember is not what actually happened, not history, but those hackneyed impressions that they tried to hammer into our memories by constant repetition.

      Aleksander Solzenitsyn

      1. Great quote, thanks for making me remember that.

  12. The find liberals are at Talking Points Memo refer to this suppression of free speech as a “Constitutional Fix”. Because if there’s one thing modern politicians know anything about, it’s ‘fixing’ what the founding fathers wanted.

    1. It is fix, if you think that freedom of speech is a bug rather than a feature.

      1. it seems like more of a “fix” in the sense that they’re rigging the game in favor of a fawning lefty media.

      2. Well that Freedom of the Press, needs to be clarified too. We can’t just have unlicensed agents of the Press writing ill considered thoughts, now can we?

    2. Maybe they mean “fix” like the way a male dog is “fixed” at the vet’s office.

  13. …”Al Franken (D-Minn.) claimed the measure would merely “restore the law to what it was before Citizens United was decided.””

    He’s a lefty; he lied. Why would anyone expect otherwise?

  14. OT: What to expect from establishment Republicans during Lame Duck session?…..lame-duck/

    “House Republicans are preparing a continuing resolution to keep the government open. In doing so, they’ve decided to be total sluts for K Street and Wall Street. The Crony Capitalists, emboldened by the Chamber of Commerce’s help during primary season, are doing some very unusual things.”

    These “unusual things” include: reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank, spend more money, and encourage outgoing members to use their vote to accomplish these things.

    1. They don’t want to introduce any new dynamic before the coming elections they are slated to win.

      1. Establishment Republicans deserve to lose it all for this very shit right here.

        1. And the democrats deserve to lose for all the very shit they do. You know who’s going to lose? Us.

          1. Yes, right now, we lose with both parties. I will say this: At least Democrats are honest about their goals. Republicans talk a more free market game to get elected (although this is happening less and less), and then it’s business as usual once they take office. This is why I despise them just a little bit more.

            1. Yeah, Obama, Reid and Pelosi (oh, and Franken)are all noted for their honesty.

              1. You are right: Dems lie all the time. But, that’s not what I meant by honesty. Unlike Republicans, the Democratic leadership does not lie about its goal, which is authoritarianism. They’ll lie their asses off to get there, but that’s a means to an end, an end we all know they want and they do not hide.

                1. They do not explicitly admit to being authoritarian. They are the party of “caring.” The mean ole (R)s are the party of killing children and old people (oh, and rascism/ exploitative business practices.)

                  Dems don’t admit that they love crony capitalism, they don’t admit that they advocate policies that hurt the poor, minorities and women, they don’t admit that they hate free speech or that they are equally war mongers. They LIE, just like the republicans. ZERO difference, really!

                  I’m sorry, there is the minor difference, that an occasional liberty is safe with the right wingers, but it’s pretty rare.

                  1. How many libertarian leaning dems are there in congress? How many libertarians are on MSNBC’s payroll? Fox new has a few, I believe. I’m pretty sure a democrat gov. has never run for prez on the libertarian ticket.

                    1. Charlie Crist (L) for governor!

                  2. As to Dems “hiding” their authoritarianism, I picked up on the authoritarianism of the left when I was 15 years old. The left wants to limit your freedoms and they do not hide this fact. Yes, they rationalize it with “caring” for the poor or whomever, but they say out loud and in the same breath that in the name of caring for [fill in the name of aggrieved group here] our freedom should be limited.

                    As to the occasional liberty being safe with right wingers, I say it depends on which right wingers you have in mind. If you mean the establishment Republicans (Boehner, McConnell), I disagree. If you mean Tea Party types, I am more inclined to agree. Notice though that its establishment Republicans who are out to destroy the Tea Party. Notice that it is they who will be up to their old tricks once the election is over, as I wrote above. Notice that these same people are no longer even talking about repealing Obama Care, but want to get in power and manage it for themselves.

                    The political class in Washington is the problem and both parties are contributing. Personally, I think we should bypass all of them and work for an article five convention of the states to reclaim our freedoms.

                    1. I believe Democrats call it “fairness.”

                      Republicans call it “Family Values.”

            2. “Stickler Meeseeks|9.9.14 @ 8:58PM|#
              … At least Democrats are honest about their goals.”

              In the future you might want to use a /sarc tag with statements like that.

              Some here might actually think you meant that as a serious statement and then decide that you are either a liar or a stupid motherfucker.

          2. You think we will “win” with this current crop of Republicans? How? The Republicans stand for nothing. They have no vision, no rudder, which is why they are unable to stand up effectively to the democrats. Hell, they don’t even stand up! They have basically rolled over for Obama.

            Would we have “won” with Mitt Romney, you know, of Romney Care? If he had won the election, our current trajectory would be essentially the same as it is today, drifting more an more toward authoritarianism and economic collapse.

            In other words, we’d still be losing. The problem is with a Romney people would think that free markets were tried and failed, when a Romney administration would have been using the government essentially in the same manner as Obama, perhaps not as radically, but he would be doing nothing to shrink its size and scope.

    2. Two sides, same coin. I wonder if an Ebola outbreak could be contained to DC?

      1. Democrats give us fascism, Republicans offer far leftism. Nuke Washington from orbit.

        1. Actually, Democrats give us Strasserian Nazism, and Republicans offer us a lighter (for now) version of Hitlerian Nazism. Spin the Wheel of Mensch to decide where either stands on TEH JEWZ (anti-capitalism isn’t quite so overlapping with the Jews in the US as it was in Germany, so our fascists don’t have to be quite so pre-occupied with them). In fact, many Jews are a part of our fascist machine, just as they were in Italy until Mussolini lost the upper hand and Hitler could demand their expulsion.

        2. It’s the only way to be sure.

    3. “”House Republicans are preparing a continuing resolution to keep the government open.”

      Are you seriously arguing the House Republicans should shut the government down right before the election? The Democrats and the Left leaning Press would crucify them. Resulting in, at the least, the Democrats holding onto 50 seats in the Senate.

      Please, arguing that the House should shutdown the government after the two previously disastrous attempts is stupid, assuming you don’t want the Democrats to win the debate. We absolutely know what the results will be. A Democrat win.

  15. It’s a pernicious measure, but interesting the logic behind it is analogous to the many commenters here who in immigration threads argue ‘we can’t let the freedom of movement and association go unchecked in this instance because it will undermine our system of government.’

  16. IRS still targeting Obama’s political enemies: Now they are auditing Breitbart.…..irs-audit/

    1. Not that the IRS doesn’t deserve this, but it seems to me that now any auditing of any conservative organization is going to be met with people making that conclusion, warranted or not.

      1. Is anyone being audited actually giving them documentation or just saying, “sorry, hard drive crashed”?

      2. So, you are suggesting that the Breitbart audit is warranted?

        Keep in mind that while a few liberal outfits received some extra scrutiny, not a single liberal outfit was scrutinized as tea party groups were scrutinized.…../?page=all

        Media Matters, however, RICHLY deserves it, as many have observed.

        1. I don’t know, but it’s at least possible that an audit of Brietbart or any conservative organization might be an honest one. Some audits are going to be conducted, even if they did them totally randomly some conservatives will be the subject of them. It’s convenient to be able to say ‘hey, I’m just getting targeted because I’m in the opposition.’ Of course it’s the IRS’ own earned reputation enabling that, but just saying…

          1. 30% of liberal outfits with things like “progressive” in their title were audited; 100% of right of center outfits with “tea party,” “freedom” and the like in their titles were audited.

            So, sure it’s possible that this audit is random, but given the fact that the Obama administration has used this agency to deliberately target the opposition during an election season, is this the likely go to explanation?

            1. And it appears that Senator Cruz agrees with me, and links it with the subject of this article in Reason. From his letter addressed to the IRS over the Breitbart audit:

              “This media audit, coupled with the recent proposal of 49 Senate Democrats to amend the Constitution to give Congress plenary power to regulate political speech, paints a disturbing picture of a coordinated assault on the First Amendment.”

              1. Note that Obama’s skeezy half-brother got his “charity” through the IRS in record time, with an unprecedented forgiveness for years of prior illegal fundraising.

                That could just be a coincidence, though.

                *Rolls eyes*

    2. They are probably throwing a party at this minute. They’ll be able to get millions from people that think the IRS is out to get them.

      1. When they audit MSNBC and Al Sharpton (or the Rainbow Coalition), I’ll be convinced it’s not politically motivated.

        The IRS has been a tool of political revenge since its inception. They just got caught big time this go-round.

      2. american socialist|9.9.14 @ 8:45PM|#
        “They are probably throwing a party at this minute. They’ll be able to get millions from people that think the IRS is out to get them.”

        Yeah, commie-kid, it was just a coincidence that the emails ‘disappeared’. So coincidental that the writer took the 5th.
        I’m sure you and at least ten other idiots believe that.

        1. “I’m sure you and at least ten other idiots believe that.”

          I doubt AS really believes it either. But he’s not going to get away from the talking points.

      3. Exhibit A: The “progressives” postulate that the possibility of someone drawing a profit from something means that everything they say is false.

        (exceptions made for green energy proponents and other crucial progressive voter groups)

  17. If the constitution is a “living document,” can it be murdered?

    1. No. At this point it’s just desecrating the corpse.

      1. So Al Franken is teabagging the corpse?

      2. So Al Franken is teabagging the corpse?

        1. I’ve always assumed Franken was transgendered. We’re a tolerant state up here in the frozen burning (sorry forgot that all of the birds are dead in MN due to global warming) north. Anyway, that would mean no actual scrotum with which to bag.

          1. BTW, did you get the review of the solar bird-fryer?

            “California solar projects plan undergoing major overhaul”

            The birds are peripheral; construction and the required off-peak fueling seem to make the entire exercise worthless regarding carbon count.
            Except to D contributors, I’m sure.

            1. It’s amazing how little Indian burial sites and desert tortoises matter when Democratic donor interests are at stake.

  18. I got roped into a League of Women Voters forum last election. They were waxing ecstatic over the Constitutional Amendment that would keep evil corporations from interfering in elections.

    I had to remind them that they were a corporation that interfered in elections.

    But they aren’t a rich corporation like Citizens United, so Congress will never use the amendment to shut them down.

    The political ignorance out there is astounding.

    1. “The political ignorance out there is astounding.”

      And seems to be willful.

    2. We’re at the point where the only sane path is to buy some remote property, arm well and grab the popcorn. It’s going to tear itself all to fucking hell in short order.

    3. I got roped into a League of Women Voters forum last election. They were waxing


    4. Uh, rich people are the only people that can afford to just buy ads without pooling their resources in a corporation.

      They are gullible as shit.

  19. Oh, Simpsons. How you could be so right AND so wrong at the same time…

  20. Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Korematsu v. United States

    I’d put Kelo v. New London up there with them. Just a godawful decision.

    1. How about United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al vs. State of Florida, et al

  21. First they come for mr. Koch then they came for me.

    1. That is exactly right you stupid shit.

    2. I suppose we should be surprised that the socialist doesn’t have any concept of the history of socialism.

      1. No no no. This time it will be different!

    3. Oh, I imagine if this ever goes anywhere, your day against the wall won’t be too long after.

      1. Beria was a sadist, but when he was finally shot, the claim is he crawled on his knees begging. I’m sure commie-kid will do the same, assuming he gets his wish of a crushing dictatorship.
        Oh, sorry! He wants a country-side commune! And the US should be one!
        My mistake! (and his stupidity)

    4. Don’t worry, they’ll never come for you. They only come for successful MIT-educated engineers.

    5. I think it’s cute how you focus on the Koch Brothers, as the Great Evil Rich Bastards who support causes you dislike (namely Libertarian causes, and a lot of charities as well), so they must Rule Everything…But you ignore political work done by Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, George Soros, the Joyce Foundation, the Rockerfeller Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, and probably a dozen or so more Rich Yet Liberal foundations and individuals.

      Heck, just by mentioning George Soros, you will probably dismiss me as a right-wing conspiracy-theory kook who doesn’t deserve the time of day!

      Yet you find the Koch Brothers hiding under every bed and in every closet, ready to pop out with the tyrannical political message of “Hey, perhaps people should be left alone, generally speaking!” when it’s least expected…

  22. Why do I feel the sudden urge to start hoarding guns and ammo?

  23. Just remember that this idea is being advanced by the party of literacy tests. Sure, they’re just doing it to improve democracy.

  24. Back in the ’70s, Saturday Night Live had a recurring sketch called the Franken & Davis Show. One recurring theme of that show was that Al and Tom were actually dedicated Communists working towards their ultimate goal of a Communist takeover of the Untied States.

    For years I just assumed it was all a joke. How wrong I was.

    1. The ultimate joke was that Al Franken was billed as ‘Funny’.

  25. I’m actually enjoying this amendment. It’s like we get a national moment when democrats walk around with their pants unzipped and the mask lifted off the face like at the end of the Halloween party when everyone is drunk and relaxed.

  26. Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Korematsu v. United States

    No mention of Kelo? The ruling that said the government can take your shit anytime it wants because as long as it has a forceful purpose behind the taking, it’s all good?

    1. Paul,
      Check the responses; Kelo gets a call-out.

  27. Ron Paul (I give him credit for the straight talk) wasn’t too keen on the civil rights act preventing individuals from hiring whoever they wanted.

    The media was quick to pick up on that, and now they hounds his SON about his position on the Civil Rights Act. OMG, is Rand Paul going to repeal it, along with minimum wage laws and life saving seat belts?

    But when MAINSTREAM democrats propose radical makeover of the first amendment? Crickets.

  28. Kennedy . although Denise `s st0rry is cool, on wednesday I got Renault 5 after having made $6744 this past four weeks and-even more than, ten k this past month . with-out any question its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve ever done . I started this 5 months ago and practically straight away earned minimum $79, per hour .
    visit this page ===

  29. Look at the 49 co-sponsors and you’ll see they are all big C’s who should have a big red one stamped on their forehead.

  30. my friend’s sister makes $83 an hour on the laptop . She has been fired for ten months but last month her payment was $12435 just working on the laptop for a few hours
    Find Out More. ??????

    1. So why aren’t you doing it?

  31. my friend’s step-aunt makes $81 hourly on the internet . She has been out of work for 10 months but last month her payment was $13276 just working on the internet for a few hours. try here ………..


  32. The left foolishly think they they will always be in power and in control of the censorship. A simple law forbidding union donations would crush the democrats. Screw around with basic rights and you can get burned.

  33. Only professional (AKA left-leaning) journalists are allowed to editorialize and comment about future elections and candidates – I can’t possibly see that turning out badly.

  34. The reason for the Citizens United decision was that Congress passed an illegal act, passing it again would no more make it legal than a new Separate but Equal Act, thereby correcting the mistaken decision in Brown V Board of Education.

  35. Isn’t it true that if this amendment were ratified, Congress would be free to double tax rates, conscript senior citizens into the armed forces and sell Mount Rushmore to China?

  36. Al Franken, the funny national socialist!

  37. I would like to take a moment to remind us all that while the 1st, 2nd, et al amendments can be revoked (and even enumerated rights like habeas corpus that aren’t found in the Bill of Rights, but are in the original Constitution itself), it is impossible to revoke the rights that these amendments are designed to permit. These rights are neither created nor destroyed by the Constitution, and they do not depend on the Constitution, or any document, to exist.

    Legitimate governments recognize these (and other) rights. If we repeal the portions of the Constitution that protect these rights, all we are doing is giving our Governments the power to become illegitimate.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.