Quantcast

Cruz: “41 Senate Democrats Co-Sponsor Bill to Repeal 1st Amendment and Regulate Free Speech”

Jan Morgan
 

About the author: Jan is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment Advocate/Speaker/ NRA Certified Firearms Instructor/ Associated Press Award winning investigative journalist/ Owner/Editor JanMorganMedia.com, Sr. Editor/Patriot Update/ Independent Constitutional Conservative. She is closely aligned with the Republican/ ... [read 's FULL BIO]

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) told attendees at a Family Research Council pastors retreat that Senate Democrats want to limit free speech through amending the Constitution.

“When you think it can’t get any worse, it does,” Cruz said at the FRC’s Watchmen on the Wall 2014 event in Washington, D.C. on Thursday. “This year, I’m sorry to tell you, the United States Senate is going to be voting on a constitutional amendment to repeal the First Amendment.”

Calling these “perilous, perilous times,” Cruz said Senate Democrats have said they are ready to vote on the amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 19 – “an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.”

“Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has announced the Senate Democrats are scheduling a vote on a constitutional amendment to give Congress the authority to regulate political speech, because elected officials have decided they don’t like it when the citizenry has the temerity to criticize what they’ve done,” he said.

“They don’t like it when pastors in their community stand up and speak the truth,” Cruz said to an audience of hundreds of pastors from across the country.

“And I’ll note this amendment, which has 41 Democratic senators as co-sponsors – 41 Democrats have signed on to repealing the First Amendment,” Cruz said. “It explicitly says nothing in this new amendment shall abridge the freedom of the press.

“So the New York Times is protected, but it doesn’t say the same thing about the freedom of speech,” Cruz said. “It doesn’t say the same thing about religious liberty.”

Cruz said Democrats want to limit free speech.

“What it says is that politicians in Washington have unlimited constitutional authority to muzzle each and every one of you if you’re saying things the government finds inconvenient,” Cruz said.

UPDATE… Because of several comments on this story indicating they would like the list of Senate co-sponsors of S.J. Res. 19, we are providing the list below, courtesy of the Library of Congress (alpha order by last name):
Tammy Baldwin (WI)
Mark Begich (AK)
Michael Bennet (CO)
Richard Blumenthal (CT)
Cory Booker (NJ)
Barbara Boxer (CA)
Sherrod Brown (OH)
Benjamin Cardin (MD)
Thomas Carper (DE)
Christopher Coons (DE)
Richard Durbin (IL)
Dianne Feinstein (CA)
Al Franken (MN)
Kirsten Gillibrand (NY)
Kay Hagen (NC)
Tom Harkin (IA)
Martin Heinrich (NM)
Mazie Hirono (HI)
Tim Johnson (SD)
Angus King, Jr. (ME)
Amy Klobuchar (MN)
Edward Markey (MA)
Robert Menendez (NJ)
Jeff Merkley (OR)
Barbara Mikulski (MD)
Christopher Murphy (CT)
Patty Murray (WA)
Jack Reed (RI)
Harry Reid (NV)
John D. Rockefeller, IV (WV)
Bernard Sanders (VT)
Brian Schatz (HI)
Chuck Schumer (NY)
Jeanne Shaheen (NH)
Debbie Stabenow (MI)
Jon Tester (MT)
Mark Udall (CO)
John Walsh (MT)
Elizabeth Warren (MA)
Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)
Ron Wyden (OR)
Please note that the above article mentioned all co-sponsors as Democrats. Actually, there are 40 Democrats and one admitted socialist, Senator Bernie Sanders (VT), a registered Independent who caucuses with the Democrats.


Read more here

Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • vernabc

    Does wanting Cruz to shut up constitute limiting free speech?

    • viktoreee

      Wanting it? no. Supporting those who want to enforce it, yes. Clever jabs at politicians are wonderful. Devastating criticisms and witticisms hurled at politicians is exquisite…as long as it is allowed freely, even when you or any politician despises it.

    • I love Ted Cruz… If I had my way… He would be President of the United States.

      • violater1

        He is an absolute true Patriot and I agree Jan!

        • GQ4U

          If he is an absolute true patriot then he will refuse to run for POTUS because he is ineligible.

      • GQ4U

        I too love Ted Cruz. Sorry Jan, Ted is not a Natural Born citizen so he ineligible just like Obama. You are aware Ted is a Canadian born to a Cuban national dad (also a great guy) and an American mom. Natural born citizenship requires a child be born on U.S. soil to two (2) citizen parents.
        No matter how much I agree with Ted’s politics Him being POTUS is not worth another assault on the U.S. Constitution. Millions of “Birthers” who love the Constitution will never vote for Ted for president, including me.
        Jan I admire your intellect and the stands you take so please delve into the true definition of Article-2; Section-1; Clause-5; or else risk becoming a lemming like Obama’s supporters. Thanks.

        • Zinctwentyone

          If this is true which I don’t think it is according to an article I read on the constitutional requirement. Who else will run?
          I think the nation, just like Europe and the recent votes in VA, are leaning conservative at any cost, perhaps you won’t vote but just like 2008, those lost votes will screw this country into oblivion. Rubio? Paul? None of them compare to Cruz.

          • GQ4U

            I know its true but you can find articles that refute the truth that were written to support the current usurper Obama — those articles are fluff pieces that ignore the Constitution. Article-2; Section-1; Clause-5; is very specific and unless you investigate its definition as understood by the Framers then all sorts of cockeyed theories creep in. Many of the dreaded “Birther” websites explain it. Here is an excerpt from attorney Mario Apuzzo who happens to specialize in citizenship and nationality law:

            Now as to the correct definition of a “natural born Citizen,” here it is: A “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who are its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. This is the settled definition of the clause under American national common law. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 Citizens and natives (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”); The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring); Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830; Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 476-77 (1857) (J. Daniel concurring); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168-170 (1875); Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 679-80 (1898) (all confirmed Vattel’s Section 212 of the The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) definition of the “natural-born citizens” who “are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”). This is the only definition of the clause that has ever existed and which has been recognized by our U.S. Supreme Court. The conditions of being born in the country to “citizen” parents are both necessary and sufficient conditions of being a “natural born Citizen.” The definition of a “natural born Citizen” therefore excludes anyone who is either not born in the country (or its jurisdictional equivalent) or not born to parents (both parents) who are its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth or both.
            http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-fallacies-of-congressional.html
            & http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

            Read the truth, then ask yourself if you love Ted Cruz more than our Constitutional Republic.

            PS: Since you mentioned Rubio you should know he is also ineligible as is Bobby Jindal. Both are good solid Americans but neither are Natural Born because their parents were not both citizens when they were born. I have voted in every election for the past 44-years. The GOP is to blame for backing weak RINOs that never have a chance. Its a miracle they G.W. Bush in office. Plus,112-Million adults in the U.S. did not vote in 2012.

            By the way, Paul is an excellent choice, he believes in governing according to the Constitution which means he would not run if he were ineligible – like Cruz.

      • Zinctwentyone

        Agree 100%. it seems he is the only standing up to all this crap the liberal democrats are trying to force upon us.

        • GQ4U

          If Ted runs then he proves he has no respect for the U.S. Constitution. Taking the oath of office would make him as much a traitor as the current usurper in the Oval Office. Don’t become lemmings like Obama’s groupies.

    • violater1

      Another card carrying Communist speaks out! Now we know of 42 Card carrying Communist Vernabc and these Senators!

    • GQ4U

      NO!!! No more than me wanting you to shut up limits free speech.
      These 41 democrat senators are traitors who do not want to limit free speech — they want to eliminate it. This violates their oath of office and they should be impeached immediately. Remember this vernabc, when 1st amendment speech becomes worthless we will shout using the 2nd.

  • jrw_RN

    Unless Sen. Cruz sees something in the wording of this bill that I don’t, I’m confused how he’s interpreting this as a limitation on free speech. I agree it is not a bill to “repeal the First Amendment” but is an attempt to reverse the SCOTUS ruling on campaign financing, which is a cur in the craw of the liberals. What we really need is clear reporting on issues and not trumped up stories that get people riled up! And I AM a Conservative!! So, maybe someone can clarify what’s really going on here?!!

    • JRW…. As always, Its what is NOT in the amendment that is problematic… and Cruz was very specific about that…

      Did you not read the article?

      Cruz said. “It explicitly says nothing in this new amendment shall abridge the freedom of the press.

      “So the New York Times is protected, but it doesn’t say the same thing about the freedom of speech,” Cruz said. “It doesn’t say the same thing about religious liberty.”

      What you should be asking, rather than attacking Cruz is this: WHY amend the Constitution? We do not need further regulation by the federal government .. we do not need any further intrusion on the Constitution and Bill of Rights..

      • Bill

        Ok so let’s go with that. Since it doesn’t say anything about Freedom of speech, how does it go against the #1A that does in fact protect our freedom of speech. I really don’t understand that and that’s’ why I’m asking. While I don’t claim to be a genius, I’m far from stupid.

        Thanks!

        • This resolution would drastically limit…if not totally eliminate…all political free speech via restricting the monetary contributions to political organizations (kinda like the limits the McCain/Finegold Act attempted to do… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCain-Feingold act) by the free people of this country under the guise of fairness. This is considered a first amendment issue thus requiring an amendment to the Constitution…which would enumerate the limits on political activeness contributions.

        • baddab

          are you critical of the imperial federal government and like to speak out against it?? THAT, is precisely what they want to stop…just like in hitlers day when kids were coerced into revealing what mom or dad said that was against hitler…I dont like hitler and what he’s doing to germany….that simple comment made many german parents forever disappear…think about moochelles comments a couple weeks ago when she said school kids should be telling teachers when parents make allegedly racist comments~here is the kicker on that, over 95%of the people that use the term racist comment, DON”T know the meaning of racist or racism…so back to today and now…you believe nobama is the worst thing thats ever happened to our FREE form of govt and his loyal libtard, and 1 independent (socialist) senator want to do something that nobama had talked about several months ago and limit your constitutionally protected right to voice your opinion and feelings against the current leadership WITHOUT fear of retribution against you and your family from the federal govt just because they dont want you to be able to speak out against them….THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT THEIR INTENT IS….TO STOP YOU FROM VOICING YOUR OPINION

        • GQ4U

          Why not pass an amendment that bans disparaging remarks? Suddenly every opposing topic is universally loved due to a constitutional edict. Everyone would be for abortions on demand and everyone would be for life at conception. Utopia??? More like hell on earth.

  • Bill

    Jan when I looked up SJ Res 19 I got something completely different, can you provide a link to this bill?

    Thanks!

  • truckroc

    What Cruz is referring to is:

    ““(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates”.
    This would limit the amount of adds the Special Action Groups could put on TV, radio, print, etc.. They run adds that favor one candidate over another, or that favor or disagree with an action or legislation a candidate has taken. Since they are not officially part of the candidates campaign they can spend millions of dollars swaying how you see a candidate or piece of legislation.

    Bottom line always follow up what you see on these adds with your own research.

    • Skylerzx

      Exactly! Two sides to every story.

    • JerryBGoode

      That law is a limit on free speech. If they have the right to limit the financial support for a candidate or against him/her they can make it $1 limit. Unions and political action groups are not limited, why individuals?

  • Poppa Homage

    Don’t suppose a lot of people now just how difficult [ IMPOSSIBLE] this would be. Cruz hasn’t a clue

  • JagerBomb714

    Same ole dog and pony show between the demoCrips and reBloodlicans. Both appear to constantly be at each others throats but the reality is that neither of their agendas serve the interests of the American people. They both serve the agendas of special interests groups, world corporations, and the corrupt global banking system. They strive for money and power and could give a rats fat ass less about a failing American economy, a crumbling American infrastructure, or the erosion of American virtues and integrity. I mean Christ almighty! Look at the once great motor city. It’s damn near totally abandoned in places! Yet our government can send billions upon BILLIONS of aide to other countries to help THEM rebuild? Wake up America and vote BOTH of these two gangs out of our government! WE have other choices at the polls this Nov for congressional elections!

  • Cajun812

    And this, in conjunction with the Media Shield Law that the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Diane Feinstein, and espoused by Shumer last fall, to define what THEY consider “media” to be, has basically set up a virtual State propaganda machine, and not simply a liberal media bias.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/08/feinstein_looks_to_exclude_bloggers_new_media_from_press_shield_law.html#undefined

  • JGalt

    If Democrats had any interest in fair elections they would support Voter ID Laws. They don’t support free elections, they only want to limit Conservative money, and want and get massive voter fraud. They will only investigate Conservative money and look the other way at the massive illegal Dem money.

  • Abigail Packer

    I notice there is no-one from Texas. Texas should split from the union while it still can!

    • Ray Magnus

      Texas is smart enough not to elect Demonrats to the senate, but your point on secession is well taken.

  • Willie Bowles

    BUT, the Senators, work for the American people. So, we should have Freedom of Speech. Again, stepping across the line. They must all be fired.

  • Average Joe

    I think this post should be SHARED WITH EVERYONE.
    Especially the list of senators…

  • mantirig41

    how can you tell when a politician is lying ? LOL

    • JobRon

      mantirig41: Just look at the pos face: if the lips are moving, a lie is being spread like the brown stuff from bulls.

  • Joseph Friday

    In my humble opinion and as a resident of Montana, Walsh and Tester, if they did sign on to this are a disgrace and traitors to their oaths of office not to mention usurpers of the constitution and rule of law! They should be recalled/impeached and prosecuted!

  • Roy S. Mallmann

    It appears that these folks never took civics or bothered to read the Constitution to which they took an oath to support and defend. There is a lot of ignorance on that list.

  • Roy S. Mallmann

    Wy do we even have a government if the ruling class does not obey the law? Can ANYONE answer that one question.

  • GQ4U

    “What it says is that politicians in
    Washington have unlimited constitutional authority to muzzle each and
    every one of you if you’re saying things the government finds
    inconvenient,” Cruz said
    They already an agency that limits free speech — the IRS.

    • Zinctwentyone

      In what way does the IRS limit free speech?

      • GQ4U

        Fear by intimidation.

      • Zinctwentyone, you can’t be that dense. Well, maybe you can.

        • Zinctwentyone

          GFY!

          • Ah, nothing like proglibtard discourse. Good job, if by ‘good job’ I mean being an unmitigated @sshole.

          • Zinctwentyone

            Always a little Ricky around that feels bigger behind the keyboard. Good luck to you LR