Democrats Vote For Partial Repeal of First Amendment

Don’t worry, nude dancing and flag burning will still be secure. But supporting candidates for elective office will no longer be a constitutional right, if Senate Democrats have their way. Rather, your right to participate in the political process will be subject to the whim of Congress, which can make it essentially illegal to run against an incumbent. Every entrenched politician’s dream!

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-8, along party lines, in favor of Tom Udall’s constitutional amendment, which would empower Congress to limit every individual’s participation in the political process. You can read the text of the proposed amendment here. A relatively new web site called Vox, apparently geared to low-IQ, low-information readers, reports on today’s vote and swallows the Democrats’ spin hook, line and sinker:

The proposal, sponsored by Senator Tom Udall (D-NM), is intended to reverse recent Supreme Court rulings that have deregulated the campaign finance system, such as Citizens United and McCutcheon v. FEC.

Actually, the amendment goes much farther than reversing Citizens United and McCutcheon. It would give Congress unfettered power to limit or even prohibit participation in politics, a power that until now, no one imagined that Congress could constitutionally exercise. Nearly all Democrats now support a proposal that could easily be applied to terminate the electoral process by making it illegal to spend money to unseat incumbents. That tells you all you need to know about today’s Democratic Party, the party of the entrenched and powerful.

Thankfully, the Udall amendment has no chance of being enacted. It can’t get through the Senate, it would get hardly any votes in the House, and nowhere near 38 states would seriously consider repealing the First Amendment. Like pretty much everything else the Democratic Party does these days, the Udall amendment isn’t a serious proposal. It is merely another effort to raise money by riling up the party’s ill-informed base. There is, I suppose, a certain irony in that.

Responses