Noted earlier: Hillary Clinton does not appear to like the US First Amendment

From a Wall Street Journal op-ed from last May:

Hillary Clinton is now on board this [anti-First Amendment] campaign, based on her recent pledge to “fix” our political system “even if that takes a constitutional amendment.” For a hint of what her proposed amendment might look like, consider the measure then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) brought to the Senate floor last year. The so-called Udall Amendment—introduced by Sen. Tom Udall (D., N.M.), co-sponsored by 48 other Democratic senators, and ultimately supported by 54 senators, but no Republicans—was designed to reverse Citizens United.

The amendment—which was filibustered in the Senate in September—promises to “advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all” and “protect the integrity of the legislative electoral process.” In reality, it would give politicians unlimited authority to stifle the speech of their political opponents.

But by definition, political opponents are not part of government and in a permanent progressive society, there is no government in waiting that would disempower ‘crats.

The Obama administration admitted in 2010 that its position in Citizens United would empower the government to ban books, ads and anything else that contains a political message that regulators and politicians don’t like. The only limit the Udall Amendment placed on Congress is that any campaign-finance law must be “reasonable.” This led Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) to remark in a 2014 Senate subcommittee hearing on the amendment that “I am not content to have . . . free speech rights protected by the reasonableness of members of Congress, Republicans or Democrats.” More.

“Reasonable” is what empowers permanent progressive government, in time for the student ‘crats to have jobs in it.

This is further to: US student ‘crats think First Amendment outdated

  • Hillary is a megalomaniac. But not as warm.

  • Drunk_by_Noon

    I will guarantee you this.
    If Hillary succeeds (which I’m almost positive she will not/cannot) that would be one of the things that would spark a popular civil insurrection against the Federal Government.
    We have over 200,000,000 privately owned guns and billions of rounds of ammo, so that insurrection would be short.
    Violent, but short.

    BTW: don’t forget “the lists”.
    We must maintain “the lists”.

    • Gary

      The civil war wasn’t based on slavery alone, it was the Federal government wanting to control the States which opposed this and was ready to go to war over it.
      There were 5 pro-slavery States fighting the South so it would have been pretty rich for those States to take the moral high ground.

      Obama goes on about gun control as if he’s so concerned at the deaths of those innocent people, YET….he’s quiet over the near 800 Homicides per year combined for Chicago and Detroit to most Blacks and almost all by guns.
      The black lives matter groups are Obama’s neo nazis street thugs Brown Shirts sent to riot and bash heads plus expand to Cop killing thanks the Holder and Obama.

      • Drunk_by_Noon

        The BLM “activists” are Obama’s brown-skinned ‘brown shirts’.

      • mauser 98

        Fast And Furious

  • tom_billesley

    She’s not against all Amendments. She’s all for the Fifth.

  • Hard Little Machine

    Let’s be clear. If Hillary wins the US is pretty far down the path of becoming a single party totalitarian state.