So which is it Mr. Crazy Pants, are you and your friends in the Reich attempting to abolish First Amendment protections by way of what is occurring in Virginia? Or are you delusional and hyperbolic by taking a piece of Democrat led legislation and twisting it through your lens of a theocratic Oligarchy to remove First Amendment protections in your own right?
First, S. J. Res. 19 and what "I'm so oppressed" Cruz had to say.
“I'm telling you, I'm not making this up," he said as the audience offscreen gasped. "Sen. Chuck Schumer [D-N.Y.] has announced the Senate Democrats are scheduling a vote on a constitutional amendment to give Congress the plenary power, the unlimited 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."Cruz does get one thing right, this Resolution is in response to Citizens United/McCutcheon and will, if enacted, regulate the amount corporations and wealthy individuals can spend [and raise] to support and oppose candidates. What Cruz ignores, as noted by Chuck Schumer, is the balance SJ 19 is attempting to return to the political system.
Cruz was referring to a proposed constitutional amendment from Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) that would reverse recent Supreme Court rulings invalidating campaign finance limits, including Citizens United and McCutcheon. Schumer said the Senate would vote this year on the constitutional amendment, which seeks to capitalize on the unpopularity of the Citizens United decision in an election year.
The text of the amendment gives Congress the "power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections." Cruz said that 41 Democrats signed on to what he characterized as an all-out effort to "repeal the First Amendment."
"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, it doesn't say the same thing about religious liberty," he said. "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 that government finds inconvenient."
SJ 19 speaks of: (a) political equality for all, and protecting the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes [at both the State and Federal level]; (b) the power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal [and State] elections: and (c) placing limits on contributions to candidates for nomination for election,,,the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates. It does not speak about limiting free speech, "unless a pastor also runs a super PAC, it would not affect his life all that much, much less “muzzle” him."
You see, in the mind of Ted Cruz it okay for corporations and billionaires to buy elections under Citizens United as a means to usher in an oligarchy. Yet limiting this activity, which will effectively destroy our democracy, is somehow violates the First Amendment rights of the ministers in attendance, "muzzle each and every one of you." In the words of Mark Udall (D-N.M.), the amendment sponsor, "[e]lections have become more about the quantity of cash and less about the quality of ideas."
So how exactly does the above relate to the situation in Virginia? Well they are both variants of First Amendment issues (freedom of religion, religious expression or establishment of religion). Cruz is emphatically stating the Dems are trying to repeal (which they are not); while little, big-man in Virginia is demonstrating Christian entitlement. (Something if one reads Kagan's dissent in Greece v. Galloway she warned against; the majority religion pushing aside all minority beliefs.)
“The freedom of religion doesn’t mean that every religion has to be heard,” said Bedrosian, who added that he is concerned about groups such as Wiccans and Satanists. “If we allow everything … where do you draw the line?”And,
The supervisor campaigned on the idea of eliminating the policy, and the ruling has breathed new life into his idea for a policy that could lead to the exclusion of non-Christian groups from the invocation.
[,,,]
When asked if he would allow representatives from non-Christian faiths and non-faiths, including Jews, Muslims, atheists and others, the Hollins District supervisor said he likely would not.
[,,,]
If a non-Christian wished to pray during a meeting under his idea for the prayer policy, Bedrosian said, he or she would be able to do so during the allotted time for citizen comment.
“I think America, pretty much from founding fathers on, I think we have to say more or less that we’re a Christian nation with Christian ideology,” Bedrosian said. “If we’re a Christian nation, then I would say that we need to move toward our Christian heritage.”
Reached Friday for comment, Bedrosian stuck with his original comments. He was asked again how he would respond to a non-Christian’s request to offer the invocation at the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meetings.
“I would say no,” he said. “That does not infringe on their freedom of religion. The truth is you’re trying to infringe on my right, because I don’t believe that.”So I sit here shaking my head at these conflicting views of the First Amendment issues as represented by members of the right side of the aisle. Both are Republicans but yet they can not agree on what is occurring in the grand scheme of things. So I ponder,,,
No comments:
Post a Comment