Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) gave an interview this week in which he displayed contempt for the First Amendment and the rights of Americans to engage in political activity and political speech.
Reid voiced support for a constitutional amendment sponsored by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) that would severely restrict free-speech protections and promised he would force "multiple" votes to pass the measure.
Reid wants to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, which restored the rights of all Americans to engage in independent political speech. But he also wants to give Congress the power to limit spending by candidates on political campaigns or by anyone else in support of or opposition to candidates-a measure guaranteed to protect incumbents such as himself and make it even more difficult for challengers to knock off sitting members of Congress.
Reid's actions would overturn Buckley v. Valeo, the 1976 Supreme Court decision holding that limiting campaign spending directly restricts political speech since it rations the ability to speak to potential voters through advertisements, brochures, and other political activities.
In the interview, Reid continued his unwarranted attack on the Charles and David Koch for having the temerity to participate in the political process by voicing their opinions and supporting candidates.
Reid said he is angry the Kochs have spent money in elections including "in state party [and secretary of state] races." Yet, Reid displays no concern whatsoever over the many liberals, such as George Soros and Tom Steyer, who spend enormous amounts of money in the political field. Or the many unions that support Reid and his political party almost exclusively and who, as Kim Strassel of the Wall Street Journal has pointed out, spend far more on political campaigns than the Koch brothers.
It looks like all sorts of people are joining the game of rewriting parts of the U.S. Constitution. It started with state legislators who apparently had time on their hands, and now it's even extended to U.S. Supreme Court Justices.
Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg made a joint appearance at the National Press Club and added their two bits worth of advice about changing our Constitution. Justice Scalia said he would like an amendment to make it easier to pass more amendments, which probably is music to the ears of those who are trying to pass several or even a dozen new amendments. Currently it's considered to be a laborious process even to get a constitutional amendment introduced, much less passed and ratified.
However, Justice Scalia added a caveat to his suggestion, saying "I certainly would not want a constitutional convention. Whoa! Who knows what would come out of it?"
As Hamlet bemoaned, "Aye, there's the rub." Any new constitutional convention, called as allowed by Article V, would surely attract and include political activists with motives and goals diametrically different from those of Justice Scalia.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg then weighed in with the tiresome complaint of the feminists. Her first choice for a constitutional change, she said, would be the addition of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).
The American people, the mainstream media, and state legislators spent ten years (1972 to 1982) considering the proposed Equal Rights Amendment. They then let it die after it failed to get the three-fourths (38) of the states that are needed to ratify a new amendment.
ERA was marketed as something that would give new rights (with the false promise of a pay raise) to American women (whom the feminists falsely claim are oppressed by the patriarchy), but that phony sales talk failed. Since the text of ERA doesn't use the words "women" or "gender," but instead calls for "equality of rights ... on account of sex," it is now beyond dispute that ERA's principal effect would be to make it unconstitutional to deny a marriage license "on account of sex."
Our biggest trouble about constitutional revisionism comes from 93-year-old Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who just emerged from retirement to try to make himself relevant again. He has just written a new book calling for six amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Stevens' most dangerous suggestion is to gut the Second Amendment. Stevens wants to reverse the Supreme Court decision that upheld our right to keep a gun at home for self-protection.
The fundamental right of Americans to own guns was considered by our Founders to be basic to a free society, and abolishing this right has long been a major goal of the liberals who oppose the conservative values at the heart of our nation. Our right to own a gun is not only necessary for personal self-defense, but it's fundamental to preventing a takeover by a dictatorship, as we have watched happen in so many other countries.
If Congress acquiesces in the states' petitions to call an Article V convention, you can bet that rewriting the Second Amendment to allow gun control and to forbid private ownership of guns will be a top priority of many delegates. Would they succeed?
Justice Stevens' plan to achieve his goal is deceptively simple; he just calls for adding five itty-bitty words: "when serving in the militia." That sounds so innocuous, but it would wipe out individual Americans' right to own a gun unless actually serving in the militia, and that would be a dramatic takeaway of our current Second Amendment right to own guns for personal self-defense.
I really wish that this information had come into my hands before the TN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to call for an Article V Constitutional Convention. Maybe it would have made a difference. I know that the motive behind this vote was the heart felt fear of what could happen to our country if it stays on the trajectory it is on and wanting to do SOMETHING to protect the future. I still have serious questions about how this will play out and whether or not there will be the protection they think will be provided, but I do know where their hearts were on this issue.
If Congress receives 34 'calls' we will see out it plays out. HJR 0548 by *Powers Constitutional Conventions - Makes application to Congress for the purpose of calling a convention of states concerning balanced budgeting. It passed the House 89-2-3; passed the Senate 29-0, was signed by the Governor on April 15, 2014.
They also passed the "faithful delegate" bill: SB 1432 by *Norris ( HB 1379 by *Brooks K) Constitutional Conventions - As introduced, establishes that general assembly appoints and recalls delegates to Article V convention; requires delegates to abide by instructions given to delegates by the general assembly. It passed the Senate 30-1; the House 77-10-1; was transmitted to Governor for action on May 13, 2014.
we wrote about a popular Article V Con-Con movement, Compact For America, and the concerning leadership behind it. On that board of advisers was Harvard's Lawrence Lessig, former adviser to the Obama campaign. Lessig is on the board of multiple efforts for a Con-Con, including Compact For America, Call a Convention, ConventionUSA, Rootstrikers, etc. Another very popular movement being referred to by Glenn Beck, Mark Levin and others is the Convention of States, founded and promoted by Mark Meckler, formerly of the Tea Party Patriots. When they recommend joining this particular effort, are they aware it is part of a coalition with some questionable members?
Since their co-sponsored Constitutional Convention conference in 2011, Lessig and Meckler have been in close contact, appearing together at many events (mostly far Left events) to promote a Constitutional Convention. In fact, the two of them are scheduled to appear in March for the third year in a row at the annual Citizen's University conference, along with Grover Norquist. The conference is sponsored by SEIU among others.
Recently, we wrote about a popular Article V Con-Con movement, Compact For America, and the concerning leadership behind it. On that board of advisers was Harvard's Lawrence Lessig, former adviser to the Obama campaign. Lessig is on the board of multiple efforts for a Con-Con, including Compact For America, Call a Convention, ConventionUSA, Rootstrikers, etc. Another very popular movement being referred to by Glenn Beck, Mark Levin and others is the Convention of States, founded and promoted by Mark Meckler, formerly of the Tea Party Patriots. When they recommend joining this particular effort, are they aware it is part of a coalition with some questionable members?
Since their co-sponsored Constitutional Convention conference in 2011, Lessig and Meckler have been in close contact, appearing together at many events (mostly far Left events) to promote a Constitutional Convention. In fact, the two of them are scheduled to appear in March for the third year in a row at the annual Citizen's University conference, along with Grover Norquist. The conference is sponsored by SEIU among others.
The fact that these two have worked so closely together might be concerning enough, but it appears that many of the Con-Con movements are actually in a coalition together. The different groups in the coalition all seemed to have had representation at the original 2011 Con-Con conference put on by Meckler and Lessig, and include some very radical players. It is possible that the thinking has been to organize subgroups that would appeal to different factions, but actually be working as a coalition behind the scenes. Certainly, that has been the result. The coalition is brought together on the Call a Convention site, also headed up by Lessig. Just a quick glance at one of the stories on their main page gives you a very good idea of their direction.
A current main page story outlines Lessig's annual New Hampshire Rebellion walk which addresses the Left's #1 priority, campaign finance reform. It is promoted as being anti-corruption, which no one would argue with, but the actual cause is campaign finance reform, as their site states. Further down the page, you'll see links to MoveToAmend.org and Wolf PAC, two far Left Con-Con movements:
In January, 1999, at the age of 88, Doris Haddock (aka, "Granny D"), started a walk from LA to DC with a sign on her chest that read "CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM."
Six months after she started her walk, John McCain launched his run for president in New Hampshire with a speech in Bedford that attacked the "corruption" that the existing system of campaign finance had produced.
ArticleV.org We are a group of people from many different groups, and have become the legal expression of the Inter-Occupy Article V Work Group, which includes various Occupy chapters, former military, former 99% Declaration members and many other individual efforts, etc.
This one is run by Dan Marks, part of the Inter-Occupy working group. He has discussed the movement with fellow Occupiers here, as well as making a presentation to the radical Democracy Convention in 2013, Madison, WI. (Code Pink, Green Action, unions, etc.)
The website discussion groups break into various interests, such as one for members of Lessig's Rootstrikers and another one to discuss ideas like an Israel relocation amendment.
we wrote about a popular Article V Con-Con movement, Compact For America, and the concerning leadership behind it. On that board of advisers was Harvard's Lawrence Lessig, former adviser to the Obama campaign. Lessig is on the board of multiple efforts for a Con-Con, including Compact For America, Call a Convention, ConventionUSA, Rootstrikers, etc. Another very popular movement being referred to by Glenn Beck, Mark Levin and others is the Convention of States, founded and promoted by Mark Meckler, formerly of the Tea Party Patriots. When they recommend joining this particular effort, are they aware it is part of a coalition with some questionable members?
Since their co-sponsored Constitutional Convention conference in 2011, Lessig and Meckler have been in close contact, appearing together at many events (mostly far Left events) to promote a Constitutional Convention. In fact, the two of them are scheduled to appear in March for the third year in a row at the annual Citizen's University conference, along with Grover Norquist. The conference is sponsored by SEIU among others.
NOTE: If someone forwarded this email to you and you would like to receive more like this, click HERE to Register. For more information about Tennessee Eagle Forum, go HERE.
Just 5 words would disarm the public Charlie Butts (OneNewsNow.com) Wednesday, April 30, 2014
An attorney with Liberty Counsel doesn't think much of a former Supreme Court justice's idea of modifying the Constitution to deprive Americans of their constitutional right to bear arms
John Paul Stevens, 94, has released a new book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution. The former justice, who stepped down from the bench in June 2010, argues that the framers of the Constitution never intended for one of those amendments that he proposes be changed - the Second Amendment - to be an individual right. OneNewsNow talked with Matt Barber, vice president of Liberty Counsel Action, who believes the Second Amendment is firm on permitting individuals to have arms. "However, I think implicit in Justice Stevens' words here is the reality that there are many who view the Constitution and the inalienable rights that are guaranteed and reiterated by the Constitution, that he and others find them problematic," says Barber. Stevens suggests adding five words to the Second Amendment which would guarantee a person's right to bear arms only when serving in the militia or military. Barber contends that suits progressives who support more of a Euro-Socialist form of government rather than a constitutional republic. "So I think ... inherent within the changes that [Stevens] is recommending to the United States Constitution is the reality that the Constitution was put in place to prevent these kinds of changes from occurring," says the founder of BarbWire.com
