Thursday, April 19, 2012

Nancy Pelosi: Democrats want to amend the First Amendment

The only protected speech should be speech that Democrats approve.
“We have a clear agenda in this regard: Disclose, reform the system reducing the role of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to use secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns,” Pelosi said at her Thursday press briefing.

“I think one of the presenters [at a Democratic forum on amending the Constitution] yesterday said that the Supreme Court had unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system, and that, indeed, is not an exaggeration,” said Pelosi. “Our Founders had an idea. It was called democracy. It said elections are determined by the people, the voice and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. This Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our Founders’ vision and we want to reverse it.”

That's exactly why the Founders included the little known clause in the First Amendment that says "when you exercise your freedom of association you lose your right to free speech."

First off, our Founders didn't create a Democracy they established a constitutional republic - there is a huge difference between the two. Second, Nancy doesn't believe in Freedom of Speech or the sanctity of the Constitution. She, and the rest of her ilk, only believe in a liberals Freedom of Speech. Too bad for her that the Supreme Court has found, time and again, that you don't lose your Freedom of Speech because you exercise your Freedom of Association. NAACP v Patterson found:
"It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the "liberty" assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. See Gitlow v. New York, 268 U. S. 652, 268 U. S. 666; Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 302 U. S. 324; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 310 U. S. 303; Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U. S. 313, 355 U. S. 321. Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters,

There is no fundamental difference between a business owner choosing to use company money to run a political ad or engage in political advocacy and a bunch of friends and I pooling our money to air a political ad in support of Mitt Romney or low taxes.

Of course everything Nancy Pelosi said could be summed up in 7 words - "Free speech for me but not for thee."

No comments:

Post a Comment

HyperSmash [Valid Atom 1.0]