UGH...JR 19 WILL "REPEAL FIRST AMENDMENT"? SRSLY?

WARNING: TL;DR. YOU'RE BOUND TO NOT HAVE YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT IF YOU RESPOND WITHOUT READING THROUGH.

It only goes to show that government officials will take advantage of American paranoia every chance they get. Senator Ted Cruz recently announced that this year, Congress will be voting on Senate Joint Resolution 19, an amendment to repeal the First Amendment. I know, sounds shocking. So I went ahead and looked up the text of the bill, which you can read here.

Or read it right here.



First, let's examine what's going on here. A joint resolution is a bill that must be approved by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. It then passes to the President, who may sign it into law or veto it.

Now, this joint resolution grants Congress the power to limit, control, and regulate the amount of money donated and spent on election campaigns. What you probably wouldn't realize unless you're an activist like me, is that this resolution is the very bill that the Occupy movement has been trying to push to bypass the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court ruling. Frankly, the Occupy movement doesn't like the idea that the corporations that save money by trampling on people's rights can buy whoever they want to put into office. They don't like the fact that corporations in the last election dumped 1 billion dollars a piece on each party, 10 times more than any election campaign has ever raised in history.

How would this repeal the First Amendment? Well, it doesn't. In order to do that, "Repeals the First Amendment" must be found in the language of the text, along with the full text of the First Amendment, and the extent to which the First Amendment is being repealed. What does our friend, Ted Cruz do? He points to Section 3: Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the Freedom of Press.

Now, if you've been paying attention, this should be tickling the back of your mind. How did the Supreme Court come to it's Citizens United ruling? Why, they claimed that a corporation is run by people and that by restricting the amount of money they could spend on election campaigns, those people were being limited to how they could make their voices heard, or abridging the Freedom of Press. You see, Freedom of Speech is just the ability to speak as you will without fear of retribution from the government. Freedom of Press is how loudly you can make your voice heard.

This bill, if made an amendment, would nullify the Citizens United ruling, which would make it unconstitutional (you see, you can't add a constitutional amendment if it is conflicting with other parts of the constitution unless it specifically says that it alters those parts of the constitution. THIS bill makes a point of saying that it does not alter any part of the constitution in the form of a restriction that prevents Congress from actually silencing anyone's ability to use their Freedom of Press).

I am currently in argument with a man who firmly believes that because this bill doesn't mention the other First Amendment rights, that's how it repeals the First Amendment. "It only protects Freedom of Press," he says. Again, look at the resolution. What does it say it limits? Money. Only money. This bill does not silence our voices. It does not limit our religious beliefs. It does not stop us from sending petitions to the White House. It does not stop us from protesting. The only way this bill threatens us is by threatening to limit our resources. Even then, it only limits money that you can give to an electoral candidate (or not depending on how Congress decides in each individual situation). In short, this bill cannot affect you or me, who probably only have 20 bucks to throw at a potential president anyway. It affects the people who have millions of dollars to spend on our system. It affects the people who are in a position to buy our country.

So does this limit their access to the First Amendment? No. Why? Because the ability to suppress "lesser" people's rights is not a First Amendment right. Spending money is not the same as Free Speech or Free Press. Why? Because these things are free! We can start a blog or even a newspaper, and all it will cost us is an online connection or the cost of paper and ink, and that's no guarantee people will read. This bill doesn't even stop these people from using the press, expressing their voices on their own dime. It just stops them from giving obscene amounts of money from government officials, again, if that's what Congress decides in each case.

So why is Section 3 there? Because the Citizens United ruling is there. Section 3 prevents Congress from stopping potential donors from using their money in other ways (I can't donate as much as I like? I'll just put my own ads supporting Future Mr. President on TV).

The facts of this matter? Ted Cruz and his friends don't like the fact that We The People have successfully used this system to petition for a law that prevents him and his buds from getting megabribes from their rich lobby friends. They don't like the fact that when they come up for re-election they can't get unlimited sums of cash in exchange for ignoring the needs of their constituents, such as running unnecessary pipelines carrying highly corrosive forms of oil through our Heartland, or giving food conglomerates the power to hide potentially life threatening facts about what we eat, such as foods that actually create pesticide (or are you actually so naive to believe them when they say that what kills insects doesn't have the potential to kill you? Or better yet, do you actually think that "reasonably safe" is the same thing as "good"?)

Ted Cruz says that he and his father came from Cuba to escape oppression, and now they need a another place to flee to! Wow! Maybe they need to go back to Cuba.

Post Script: There are dozens of laws in effect right now that trample on our Constitutional rights, such as the law that outlaws video taping a police officer on duty, a law that it is blatantly intended to make it easier to hide the crimes of police officers. Other such laws are these Ag-Gag laws which outlaw any outside documentation of factories that raise livestock. Ag-Gag laws were historically put into place expressly for the purpose of preventing people from discovering unsafe, abusive practices that put the consumer at potential risk of disease. (Seriously. These laws started being put forward in direct response to the fact that recalls were being made based on the discovery that these factories were deliberately distributing meat tainted with such things as salmonellasis and Mad Cow disease.) In January, the FAA approved the used of UVA Predator Drones in U. S. cities effective May (now). This isn't conspiracy theory bullshit. This is all stuff that been reported by CNN, NBC, Reuters, the Guardian, and every other reputable source. Of all of the laws that we should be worried about, the last thing we need to do is jump when some whiny bitch like Ted Cruz cries when Congress actually does something to protect our rights.

@Addit, you're offer to join you in Canada is tempting, but I'll stay in Florida where the weather is warm, even when it's cold, the local government still believes in Free Speech, let's me keep my 38. special and wouldn't give a damn if I bought a Vulcan cannon.

My friend tells me that a lie by omission is still alive...but that's not...the way...the law...works. A law by omission...still isn't a law. smdh

@Dyhalto I sure as hell hope you're wrong about this bill not gaining any traction. This country badly needs it. It just isn't right that whoever has the money can legally buy however many politicians he or she likes. I certainly don't have the money to enjoy that freedom and I doubt many, if any of you do, either.