Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Fahrenheit 451 Democrats?
If you wonder why Sen. Ted Cruz is so feared by the left, watch his prosecutorial evisceration of Senate Democrats on their legislation to regulate the political speech and the 1st Amendment. He asks Sen. Al Franken and Sen. Dick Durbin a simple question of free speech and the law: “Under the text of this amendment, could Congress ban political movies — could Congress ban books — and would it be constitutionally permissible for Congress to prohibit the NAACP from speaking about politics?” Spoiler alert: they had no answer.
Published in General
To reference a phrase used by the Junior Senator from Minnesota, (Al Franken), “the parade of horribles” IS realistic, and that Al Franken is a senator proves it.
Al Franken (D. Minnesota) is leading the “Parade of Horribles.” Dreck Durbin (D. Corruptastan) is the Grand Marshall.
Cruz gets a lot of credit for suffering these malignant narcissists.
Thank you Ted Cruz! Cruz and others in the GOP should also point out that the ACLU opposes the Udall amendment because of how much speech it empowers Congress to criminalize. The ACLU’s opposition should provide a basis for non-conservative members of the press to ask Democrat senators more probing questions.
If others in the GOP could follow Cruz’s lead on these talking points, there wouldn’t be this one-sided “Citizens’ United is evil” narrative, i.e, people would realize that Congress sought to ban certain movies under McCain-Feingold, and Obama’s lawyer argued that the FEC could ban books too. We need to constantly reiterate that the Democrats are on record in support of banning books and movies about politics. They should be harangued on this issue until they, or their apologists in the media, are forced to confront the free speech ramifications of their proposal.
Hmmm, well Durbin was certainly unimpressive in that clip. While he is probably correct that Cruz’s concerns are unlikely to carry the day popularly, it’s a mostly irrelevant point. Dems don’t have the votes and can’t campaign effectively on an issue few prioritize.
That is, it doesn’t matter if 75% of Americans think corporations should have their political spending curtailed to a greater degree if only 5% of Americans care.
The Cruz-Franken exchange seemed like a muddled mess to me.
I’m sharing this YouTube video on Facebook, for what it’s worth. I try to not inject politics into Facebook (more than it already is), but this is really important.
Thank you.
Should such a law be enacted, some power hungry Administration agency will use it to persecute and prosecute anyone it deems guilty.
I wanted to think that the depth of that kind of thinking is beyond Durbin or Franken, and indeed beyond the depth of thought of most Democrats who are merely protecting themselves from being recognized for how far down they have sunk, but I don’t. Weasels act like weasels and bring all the wiliness of a weasel to wherever they happen to be present. These people are weasels who want to deny Americans the rights hammered out in the Bill of Rights.
You can add McCain to that list as he actually has been able to legislate limits on political speech when votes are due.
Cruz demonstrates an essential principle about law, and therefore about law-making: law is like water … it’ll find every crack unless you seal the container. Open an inch and you’ll get a mile.
That’s why law-making is a discipline that requires actual skill. Cruz is arguing that if the language of a law grants power, it doesn’t matter if no one has plans to use that power for a nefarious purpose right now. Later on, that power can be used, and once that power has been granted, the advantage is on the side of the person who has it.
The classic case is the Commerce Clause, a power that was granted to facilitate a reasonable function (and was used reasonably for many years). But when a problem came up in the FDR years, that reasonable clause was interpreted to expand regulatory power, and the expansion became an explosion.
That’s why “limited government” has to include limited language.
There is your problem, “the language of a law”, it presumes that the Democrats even read the laws they support/ vote for. After reading the “law” they have to think about how it could be abused. That is way too much work. It is easier to vote yes and say the Kock brothers are “evil” then to actually read and understand a bill.
Beautifully put, KC.
Perhaps instead of asking whether the proposed amendment would permit a legislative ban on political speech by ‘liberal’ groups such as ACLU or NAACP, he should have asked whether they would permit a ban on political speech by conservative groups such as the Tea Party. This might have avoided the hedging and evasion that Franken/Durbin engaged in.
When I see faux collegial forums like this it makes me long for an American version of the British Parliament’s Question time where the debate is more intense and the snark flies. I think that would have been a much better forum to discuss this naked and Fascistic attempt by Durbin, Franken and the Dems to limit free speech that they find objectionable.
Dick Durbin came off very poorly in this clip.