FEC: Liberals Seek To Amend the 1st Amendment to Eliminate Successful Conservative Media

[easyt65]

Liberals have decided since they can't COMPETE with the Conservative message, they will act to ELIMINATE it!

Socialists...Communists...dictators that abhor 'freedom' and 'democracy' seek to control people in every aspect. Socialists believe that people must be stripped of everything they are dependent on other than the government - religion, the media, etc...

They have proven they could not compete with Conservative media - Fox News dominates the news media and Conservative talk radio has no liberal competition. Oh the Libs TRIED to start up their own talk radio channel...but it fell flat.

Libs have tried to find ways to 'silence' Conservatives. Obama's administration has been caught spying on Americans as well as using the IRS against them to do so. Now the FEC is warning the 'TOLERANT' Libs are planning on silencing all opposing voices.



FEC commissioner warns Dems are gunning for conservative media

"A key Federal Election Commission Republican warned Wednesday that liberals are moving aggressively to "amend the First Amendment" so that conservatives are silenced and businesses are chased "out of the democracy."

FEC commissioner warns Dems are gunning for conservative media


Can you say 'domestic enemy'?!

 

[PredFan]

Hillary has been trying to do that since she was FLOTUS. The so called "Fairness Doctrine" was an attempt to minimize and dilute conservative talk radio.

Liberals don't like opposition.

 

[BULLDOG]

OK. What efforts have been made to change the first amendment? Are two thirds of the states calling for a constitutional convention, or has an amendment been proposed in the house, and senate? Give us some details of the amendment you claim is proposed.

 

[OKTexas]

OK. What efforts have been made to change the first amendment? Are two thirds of the states calling for a constitutional convention, or has an amendment been proposed in the house, and senate? Give us some details of the amendment you claim is proposed.

Actually 49 States have collectively made more than 600 requests for a convention, congress choses to ignore them.

 

[BULLDOG]

OK. What efforts have been made to change the first amendment? Are two thirds of the states calling for a constitutional convention, or has an amendment been proposed in the house, and senate? Give us some details of the amendment you claim is proposed.

Actually 49 States have collectively made more than 600 requests for a convention, congress choses to ignore them.

2/3 of the states have called for a constitutional convention? Link?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Leftists want to silence anyone who presents a differing pov. That's why they're clamoring ... er, whining .. for 'safe spaces' and use made up bullshit like 'micro aggressions' and 'check your white privilege' or call you an '-st' or 'phobe' if you view anything differently from them. They love to throw the 'you're intolerant!' at someone while one look at their actions shows who the intolerant really are ... them.

 

[OKTexas]

OK. What efforts have been made to change the first amendment? Are two thirds of the states calling for a constitutional convention, or has an amendment been proposed in the house, and senate? Give us some details of the amendment you claim is proposed.

Actually 49 States have collectively made more than 600 requests for a convention, congress choses to ignore them.

2/3 of the states have called for a constitutional convention? Link?

My mistake, it's 554 documented requests.

http://www.article-5.org/01page/Amendments/index.htm

Keep in mind there is nothing in Article V that says these requests expire or they must pertain to the same subject.

Article 5

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it's equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Article 5

 

[ClosedCaption]

And they want to ban kittens!

 

[Mac1958]

If the lefties weren't so consumed with controlling speech, they'd think a minute and realize that right wing media is probably good for their cause.

 

[BULLDOG]

OK. What efforts have been made to change the first amendment? Are two thirds of the states calling for a constitutional convention, or has an amendment been proposed in the house, and senate? Give us some details of the amendment you claim is proposed.

Actually 49 States have collectively made more than 600 requests for a convention, congress choses to ignore them.

2/3 of the states have called for a constitutional convention? Link?

My mistake, it's 554 documented requests.

Friends of the Article V Convention - Congressional Records

Keep in mind there is nothing in Article V that says these requests expire or they must pertain to the same subject.

Article 5

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it's equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Article 5

Of all those requests all the way back to 1789, how many of them are to change the 1st amendment to eliminate conservative media? My only interest for now is something to back up the OP claim. You went to a lot of trouble finding every article 5 request. That really has nothing to do with the information I was wanting.

 

[BULLDOG]

If the lefties weren't so consumed with controlling speech, they'd think a minute and realize that right wing media is probably good for their cause.

Since they have gone completely crazy, you could be right. Up till now, right wing radio has done much harm to the country.

 

[g5000]

OK. What efforts have been made to change the first amendment? Are two thirds of the states calling for a constitutional convention, or has an amendment been proposed in the house, and senate? Give us some details of the amendment you claim is proposed.

Don't expect a response. easyt65 is a copy and paste bot for right wing propaganda outlets, not a sentient being. I think the easyt65 algorithm is triggered by a Facebook feed or something.

 

[OKTexas]

OK. What efforts have been made to change the first amendment? Are two thirds of the states calling for a constitutional convention, or has an amendment been proposed in the house, and senate? Give us some details of the amendment you claim is proposed.

Actually 49 States have collectively made more than 600 requests for a convention, congress choses to ignore them.

2/3 of the states have called for a constitutional convention? Link?

My mistake, it's 554 documented requests.

Friends of the Article V Convention - Congressional Records

Keep in mind there is nothing in Article V that says these requests expire or they must pertain to the same subject.

Article 5

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it's equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Article 5

Of all those requests all the way back to 1789, how many of them are to change the 1st amendment to eliminate conservative media? My only interest for now is something to back up the OP claim. You went to a lot of trouble finding every article 5 request. That really has nothing to do with the information I was wanting.

I guess you missed the ones requesting the overturn of Citizens United. And you asked two different questions, the answer to the second one is YES.

 

[BULLDOG]

OK. What efforts have been made to change the first amendment? Are two thirds of the states calling for a constitutional convention, or has an amendment been proposed in the house, and senate? Give us some details of the amendment you claim is proposed.

Actually 49 States have collectively made more than 600 requests for a convention, congress choses to ignore them.

2/3 of the states have called for a constitutional convention? Link?

My mistake, it's 554 documented requests.

Friends of the Article V Convention - Congressional Records

Keep in mind there is nothing in Article V that says these requests expire or they must pertain to the same subject.

Article 5

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it's equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Article 5

Of all those requests all the way back to 1789, how many of them are to change the 1st amendment to eliminate conservative media? My only interest for now is something to back up the OP claim. You went to a lot of trouble finding every article 5 request. That really has nothing to do with the information I was wanting.

I guess you missed the ones requesting the overturn of Citizens United. And you asked two different questions, the answer to the second one is YES.

2/3 of the states want Citizen's United overturned? Not surprising. I thought right wingers were whining about getting all the big money out of politics a couple of days ago. Are you for that or not?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

They have been trying to bring back the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" for the past 30 years so they can regulate what political opinion people hear on the airwaves. Leftists trying to control speech is nothing new. Walk on any college campus these days.

 

[OKTexas]

Actually 49 States have collectively made more than 600 requests for a convention, congress choses to ignore them.

2/3 of the states have called for a constitutional convention? Link?

My mistake, it's 554 documented requests.

Friends of the Article V Convention - Congressional Records

Keep in mind there is nothing in Article V that says these requests expire or they must pertain to the same subject.

Article 5

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it's equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Article 5

Of all those requests all the way back to 1789, how many of them are to change the 1st amendment to eliminate conservative media? My only interest for now is something to back up the OP claim. You went to a lot of trouble finding every article 5 request. That really has nothing to do with the information I was wanting.

I guess you missed the ones requesting the overturn of Citizens United. And you asked two different questions, the answer to the second one is YES.

2/3 of the states want Citizen's United overturned? Not surprising. I thought right wingers were whining about getting all the big money out of politics a couple of days ago. Are you for that or not?

Seriously, your hildabitch plans to spend 2 billion dollars to get a job that pays 400K and you're crying about big money. I guess you don't know, Citizens United dealt with much more than money. It also dealt with selected people being denied political speech during specified times before elections. Also as I said, you don't need 2/3rds to request a convention on the same subject. Did you miss this part of Article V, "shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments"? Note it's Amendments, plural, it doesn't say an Amendment, singular. Now run along child your question has been answered.

 

[Londoner]

Once again the OP is using a Trotskyite method to distort the information. He is doing what the majority of partisans do: lying for a cause he believes in.

First, he has not linked us to the actual legislation or Supreme Court decision but rather a Rightwing interpretation of the legislation as reported by the Washington Examiner, one of the most shameless partisans in the Conservative Media empire.

The actual issue is about the Democrat's desire to reverse the Citizen's United Decision, which is a portal through which dark money pours into the pockets of politicians. Republicans advocated for the Citizens United decision because they want to keep their donor system in the dark whereas dissenters of the ruling think the public has a right to know who is buying their politicians.

Before you buy into the Soviet-style propaganda of the Original Poster, ask him if he's read both the Citizen's United Decision & the dissent. Then ask him to link the actual proposal that impacts talk radio. You will discover he hasn't read anything but the propaganda of his media overlords. [And this guy is lecturing us about freedom? He's merely cutting & pasting garbage]

Read through the OP's post history and you will find a constant stream of spam from partisan media sources, i.e., sources that shape all information to fit a political agenda. Both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of this shit, but the OP has perfected it to an art form.

Rather than lazily cutting/pasting someone else's pathetically slanted view of the world, why doesn't he ever link us directly to the source, so that we can discuss the actual language from an actual piece of legislation or an actual proposal?

Be careful with this poster. I have found no evidence that he has ever sought information beyond his bubble.

When I read the Citizens United decision, I had a different opinion of it than the one offered by the Left media drones. I actually found some compelling arguments on the right, though I didn't jump in with both feet there either. I wish for the OP the same freedom, but until he reads some actual Supreme Court Decisions and some actual policy language, we will have to suffer through his intellectually lazy garbage.

 

[BULLDOG]

2/3 of the states have called for a constitutional convention? Link?

My mistake, it's 554 documented requests.

Friends of the Article V Convention - Congressional Records

Keep in mind there is nothing in Article V that says these requests expire or they must pertain to the same subject.

Article 5

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it's equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Article 5

Of all those requests all the way back to 1789, how many of them are to change the 1st amendment to eliminate conservative media? My only interest for now is something to back up the OP claim. You went to a lot of trouble finding every article 5 request. That really has nothing to do with the information I was wanting.

I guess you missed the ones requesting the overturn of Citizens United. And you asked two different questions, the answer to the second one is YES.

2/3 of the states want Citizen's United overturned? Not surprising. I thought right wingers were whining about getting all the big money out of politics a couple of days ago. Are you for that or not?

Seriously, your hildabitch plans to spend 2 billion dollars to get a job that pays 400K and you're crying about big money. I guess you don't know, Citizens United dealt with much more than money. It also dealt with selected people being denied political speech during specified times before elections. Also as I said, you don't need 2/3rds to request a convention on the same subject. Did you miss this part of Article V, "shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments"? Note it's Amendments, plural, it doesn't say an Amendment, singular. Now run along child your question has been answered.

It didn't deal with political speech as normally considered. It defined money as political speech. Again. You have failed to show any identifiable effort to modify the 1st amendment. Typical unfounded right wing claim.

 

[OKTexas]

My mistake, it's 554 documented requests.

Friends of the Article V Convention - Congressional Records

Keep in mind there is nothing in Article V that says these requests expire or they must pertain to the same subject.

Article 5

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it's equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Article 5

Of all those requests all the way back to 1789, how many of them are to change the 1st amendment to eliminate conservative media? My only interest for now is something to back up the OP claim. You went to a lot of trouble finding every article 5 request. That really has nothing to do with the information I was wanting.

I guess you missed the ones requesting the overturn of Citizens United. And you asked two different questions, the answer to the second one is YES.

2/3 of the states want Citizen's United overturned? Not surprising. I thought right wingers were whining about getting all the big money out of politics a couple of days ago. Are you for that or not?

Seriously, your hildabitch plans to spend 2 billion dollars to get a job that pays 400K and you're crying about big money. I guess you don't know, Citizens United dealt with much more than money. It also dealt with selected people being denied political speech during specified times before elections. Also as I said, you don't need 2/3rds to request a convention on the same subject. Did you miss this part of Article V, "shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments"? Note it's Amendments, plural, it doesn't say an Amendment, singular. Now run along child your question has been answered.

It didn't deal with political speech as normally considered. It defined money as political speech. Again. You have failed to show any identifiable effort to modify the 1st amendment. Typical unfounded right wing claim.

Really, ads aren't political speech, maybe you shouldn't depend on you not so good memory, it dealt primarily with speech. The BRCA prohibited any braodcast opposition ads, that named a candidate, for 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. CU changed nothing in regards to contributions. My bold.

Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries.[1][5] The Supreme Court reversed this decision, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures and "electioneering communications".[4] The majority decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[6] The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.[7]

Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Defiant1]

Actually 49 States have collectively made more than 600 requests for a convention, congress choses to ignore them.

2/3 of the states have called for a constitutional convention? Link?

My mistake, it's 554 documented requests.

Friends of the Article V Convention - Congressional Records

Keep in mind there is nothing in Article V that says these requests expire or they must pertain to the same subject.

Article 5

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it's equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Article 5

Of all those requests all the way back to 1789, how many of them are to change the 1st amendment to eliminate conservative media? My only interest for now is something to back up the OP claim. You went to a lot of trouble finding every article 5 request. That really has nothing to do with the information I was wanting.

I guess you missed the ones requesting the overturn of Citizens United. And you asked two different questions, the answer to the second one is YES.

2/3 of the states want Citizen's United overturned? Not surprising. I thought right wingers were whining about getting all the big money out of politics a couple of days ago. Are you for that or not?

How can anyone who believes in freedom want to take money out of politics?