Share This Article with a Friend!


Democrats File Bill to Repeal the First Amendment

We the People

As Congress prepares for its traditional Memorial Day recess Democrats in the Senate have quietly snuck a bill to repeal the First Amendment onto calendar of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The bill, actually a Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, is sponsored by Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico and 41 other Democratic and Independent Senators and will be heard before the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 3.

Udall’s S.J.Res.19 would insert into the Constitution of the United States language stating that “Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections.”

If passed by the requisite two-thirds majority of Congress and sent to the States and ratified by three-fourths of the States Udall’s new amendment to the Constitution would grant to Congress, and the States, the power to regulate the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination or for election to political office; and the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

The plain language of S.J.Res 19 is clearly intended to undo the freedom of speech guarantees found in the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, which Democrats have made a legislative and regulatory priority, but it is also a blatant incumbent protection bill that might appeal to some Republicans.

After the drubbing weak-kneed establishment Republicans like Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, Idaho Representative Mike Simpson and North Carolina Rep. Renee Ellmers have taken this cycle at the hands of grassroots limited government constitutional conservatives limiting the financial firepower your opponent can bring to bear on you probably sounds pretty good.

We agree with our friends at the National Right to Life Committee who said, “Among the many incumbent-protection-racket proposals that have been put forth under the banner of “campaign finance reform,” this proposed constitutional amendment is the most ambitious power grab – a naked attempt to permanently empower the political patrician class to substantially insulate its members from

criticism by and accountability to the plebeians. Perhaps a lone speaker standing on a stool in the park, upbraiding the local congressman for a recent vote, could remain outside the scope of the restrictions that would flow from S. J. Res. 19 – but if he first went to a local copy shop to buy some leaflets to draw listeners to his presentation, he could no longer rely on the protection of the First Amendment, because S. J. Res. 19 effectively removes speech about office holders and office seekers from the scope of the First Amendment.”

If you think the National Right to Life Committee’s take is too alarmist or that perhaps there is indeed too much money in politics, consider this: The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights provides in part that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .” While the First Amendment applies broadly, first and foremost it was intended to provide absolute protection for the right to speak freely about those who hold or seek political power.

It is, in NRLC’s analysis, precisely that form of speech – speech about those who hold or seek offices of power in government, at the Federal or state level – that is targeted by S. J. Res. 19. Under the proposal, Congress would be granted virtually unlimited power to regulate and ration speech about those who hold or seek federal office, including both congressional and executive offices. This power would extend to “the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections,” including (but not limited to) “the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.”

S. J. Res. 19 also would grant to state officeholders an equivalent power to regulate “the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to” state candidates – legislative, executive, or judicial.

We agree with NRLC that it is predictable that this language will be construed to encompass not only any money spent for overt appeals to vote for or against specific “candidates,” but also to disseminate speech that criticizes “candidates” or that portrays their actions or positions in a light that they find unflattering. The power to regulate and ration political speech would extend to every mode of communication – print, electronic, broadcast, internet, etc.

S. J. Res. 19 is a frontal assault on the First Amendment. If it becomes law it will create two classes of communicators on politics and public policy; those favored by incumbents with unlimited speech and communications rights, and those whose views and the expression thereof are limited because they question the status quo and incumbent elected officials.

Share this

S.J. Res. 19

Senator Udall and many of the Democrats are not longer interested in maintaining the Republic as the Founders intended. Rather the senate
is composed of wealthy Democrats who demand they, as a party, be treated
as Primus Inter Pares [First among equals]. In their estimation, we are
their servants and their slaves and their serfs; they, by election, are
our betters and know what is best for us.
Theirs is a Plantation mentality. If this passes Committee and gets on the
Senate floor, likely it will pass because Harry Reid likes the idea; the media will swoon and agree, not realizing in time their speech will be censored, too.
The states? I expect the Northeast and the West will jump on the bandwagon. But Middle America will reject the generous offers to wear shackles or to
surrender our liberty or freedom.

1ST Amendment

Whether or not the commieonazicrats in the congress like it or not, they cannot repeal the 1ST Amendment by passing a bill or federal law or anything else. The only way that can happen is by a Constitutional Amendment, and that requires ratification by 3/4 of the states, and that is not going to happen.