Tyrants: Democrats, led by Schumer, want to amend 1st Amendment to block political speech they don’t like

(NationalSentinel) While the headline to this story may seem hyperbolic to some readers, it is absolutely true, and when you read on, you’ll see.

Millions of Americans don’t think that corporations, companies, small businesses, and labor unions should have the same ‘free speech’ rights that individuals do.

The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees, and for good reason.

In 2010, in the infamous Citizens United case, the high court ruled that corporate speech — and speech by companies, businesses, labor unions, and other organizations — most certainly is speech that is protected by the First Amendment, the same as speech by an individual.

What’s more, monetary donations made by some of these same entities to political parties and candidates also amounts to ‘political speech,’ and, thus, is summarily protected under the Constitution.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and his hack underling, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), don’t think so. They want to limit speech by corporations, companies, businesses, and labor unions because they may actually support causes and policies and political positions these tyrannical Democrats disagree with.



While standing in front of the Supreme Court building — for dramatic effect, no doubt — Schumer and his lackey proclaimed the First Amendment flawed, along with the high court’s ruling, which was written, by the way, by historic ‘swing vote’ and now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Both were at the high court to announce their support for Sen. Tom Udall’s (D-N.M.)’s proposal to amend the First Amendment.

CNS News explains:

Specifically, in 2010, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission that Americans enjoy freedom of speech not only when they act as individuals but also when they form corporations.

In other words, a movie-making company has the same right to free speech that its owners individually do.

The same can be said for a book publishing company — or a company that manufactures lawnmowers or fishing rods.

In the United States, they all enjoy a freedom of speech that Congress “shall make no law … abridging.”

Schumer, et al, hate that.

“Few decisions in the 200 and some odd years of this republic have threatened our democracy like Citizens United,” Schumer said on Tuesday.

“If I get to be majority leader with the help of my colleagues here and all of you, Citizens United will go. It must,” he said.

“Overturning Citizens United is probably more important than any other single thing we could do to preserve this great and grand democracy,” he continued.

The ‘most important thing’ we can do to preserve America?

Wow. Talk about hyperbole.

In any event, we have to ask ourselves time and again why Democrats are the ones who are always seeking to take away fundamental constitutional rights rather than vote to secure and uphold them?

And then we answer our own question: Because Democrats of today have the exact same autocratic, authoritarian mindset of King George and the 17th-century Great Britain monarchy against which our founders rebelled.

The similarities are stunning, which proves the adage, “History doesn’t repeat itself but it sure rhymes.”

  • By Jon Dougherty, The National Sentinel

Follow Jon Dougherty on Parler — the Twitter alternative

Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Subscribe to our Brighteon channel

You Might Like


10
Leave a Reply

avatar
10 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
Notify of
Pouncekitty
Guest
Pouncekitty

Democrats are a threat to our security.

trackback

[…] article originally appeared at The National Sentinel and was republished with […]

trackback

[…] article originally appeared at The National Sentinel and was republished with […]

trackback

[…] article originally appeared at The National Sentinel and was republished with […]

trackback

[…] article originally appeared at The National Sentinel and was republished with […]

trackback

[…] article originally appeared at The National Sentinel and was republished with […]

trackback

[…] article originally appeared at The National Sentinel and was republished with […]

trackback

[…] article originally appeared at The National Sentinel and was republished with […]

dickee
Guest
dickee

THE ONLY FALLACY IN JON’S REASONING IN THIS ARTICLE IS THAT THE FOREFATHERS *NEVER* EVER* WANTED CORPORATIONS TO HAVE PERSONHOOD. MATTER OF FACT THERE WAS ACTUALLY EITHER AN 11TH OR 12TH AMENDMENT TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS THAT WAS REJECTED BECAUSE TOO MANY OF THE BUSINESS AND MERCHANT MEN OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS REFUSING TO ALLOW IT TO BECOME ONE OF THE ORIGINAL BILL OF RIGHTS, THAT STATED MUCH THE SAME. THOM HARTMANN HAS AN EXCELLENT BOOK CALLED, “UNEQUAL PROTECTION,” THAT DIVES INTO THIS VERY IDEA, THAT BEING, ONCE THE COURTS ILLEGALLY ALLOWED CORPORTATIONS TO BECOME THE SAME AS PEOPLE… Read more »

trackback

[…] article originally appeared at The National Sentinel and was republished with […]

%d bloggers like this: