Amending the Bill of Rights

Over at WaPo, Dave Weigel has a piece about Hillary Clinton’s promise to seek to “amend” the First Amendment in order to eliminate the Citizens United Supreme Court Decision. That’s an important personal goal for her because what that decision actually did was tell the Federal Election Commission that it could not prevent Citizens United from showing a video that told inconvenient truths about Hillary Clinton within 60 days of an election. She views that as a severe flaw in the First Amendment.

Of course, that’s not the only part of the pesky Bill of Rights that she feels needs … um … modernizing … yeah, that’s the sort of word she’d use … modernizing. Clearly, the Second Amendment will have to go entirely, and the Fourth and Fifth will need work as well, except as they might apply to certain charitable foundations.

22 thoughts on “Amending the Bill of Rights


      • The difference is that the MSM and The Establishment would be all over Trump and explaining how awful his ideas are while they will be extremely supportive of Hillary and explain how we “just don’t understand” how her changes are great for us. In each case however, the MSM and Establishment will be operating from the basic stance that we’re stupid peasants who don’t know what’s good for us.

        Better Trump with massive opposition than Hillary with massive support.


        • I have come to the conclusion that any actual Trump supporter is either painfully deceived or egregiously insidious. There is no positive option, either in the two main candidates or in descriptors of the active supporters of the two main candidates. I’m doing like Richard Pryor said and voting “None of the Above”, for the very reasons Richard Pryor told New Yorkers to vote that way.


          • John I support Trump only because I cant support Hillary. Unfortunately there are only two choices – give up your rights, your freedoms, make the world for your children and grandchildren to be at the will of evil – or you can vote for someone who represents freedom and democracy.

            And is a total asshole – but that’s what happened, its over Evil or Freedom, Poverty and Crime vs prosperity and safety


          • You have a choice, vote for a lying, corrupt, dishonest, Constitution-hating Democrat,

            OR
            vote for a lying, corrupt, dishonest, Constitution-hating Democrat.

            Neither one supports the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Ninth Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, the Separation of Powers, or any other Freedoms for the Little People. Neither one of them puts the country ahead of their own power and glory. Both of them are doomed to an eternity in Sheol when they leave their mortal coils.

            What you have is a choice of Feces on Rye or Feces on Wheat. Or, would you rather die by being dropped in a vat of molten iron or by by being dropped from 50,000 feet naked, without a parachute or breathing aparatus? Because that’s your choice. Both of them lead to the destruction of the Constitution and the US.


          • it is what it is John. I do think that much of Trumps problem is that he is an insulting personality, however, Romney was just as disrespectful to Perry and Reagan was an ass to Bush, people forget that. Reagan was and is portrayed as this gentle subtle statesman, he wasn’t, he was rude, condescending, arrogant. Much like Trump. We just didn’t have 17 debates at 4 hours long, if we did back then, there would be little sunlight between Trump and Romney and Reagan.

            The thing about Reagan that we loved is he was a champion of liberty – I don’t see Donald being different in the end, just the tone is crass, rude, and Jeb Bush, who I like very much couldn’t handle the Don, neither could Cruz, or the rest – only Rubio showed that if he had started earlier, it might have made a difference.

            But the electorate en mass has spoken, and even Cruz has stepped away from the stop Trump crowd as they are now showing really un-American qualities.

            Yes I didn’t want Trump, still don’t but I REALLY don’t want Hillary. I think Trump will be a very good president, and I think Pence will do much of the heavy lifting and according to some people Trump is already reaching out to Perry, Walker and others for advice and for their participation.

            Calling Trump names, sure we all feel good, but he one doesn’t care and two, it will only embolden the Hillary supporters – who BTW, want your money.


          • It is not that Trump is rude.
            It is that there is not a dime’s worth of difference between Hillary and the man who pumped money and major support to her over the past few years. If you hate Hillary, you have to hate the man who said she was a great SecState and would make a great President. That man you have to hate, who did that, is Trump. The only difference between the two is the body parts. He has one set and she has the other.

            Trump is just as corrupt as Hillary, just as dishonest as Hillary, just as anti-Freedom as Hillary, just as Leftist as Hillary. Again, to claim otherwise is to be painfully deceived or egregiously insidious. There is no other option.


          • As far as I’ve heard, nothing Trump has done has purposefully led to people dying. Nor has he committed treason — yes, it’s a sad fact that we’re reduced to opposing a traitor for president, rather than voting for someone, but here we are.

            And insulting people will NOT persuade them. All I hear when I hear or read attacks on Trump supporters is Winston Howell III saying, “Not our class, dear.”


  1. Proposed liberal replacement Constitution:
    Article 1. We in leadership can do whatever we want.
    Article 2. You little people must obey all laws and regulations imposed by leadership. They are there for your own good. (Even when they are blatantly self-serving on our part. – This part in parentheses isn’t actually printed, just implied.)


  2. Ah yes, Citizens United, the case in which the FEC was attempting to suppress a movie critical of Hillary Clinton and argued infamously that they had and needed the power to ban books critical of politicians.


  3. Since when is Dave Weigel back at WaPo? I guess 6 years heals the Journolist indiscretions he was fired for and his pretending to be conservative in hopes of being WaPo’s David Brooks. The dream is still alive!


  4. I suppose you could consider this: Which candidate is more like Schmalfeldt? Which one pursues ‘enemies’ relentlessly [anyone who opposes them is seen as an enemy]? Which one has an enemies list that grows constantly longer? Which one uses or attempts to use the power of government to pursue and harass their enemies? Which one lies even when there appears to be no good use for lying? Which on e most misrepresents their past? Which one claims to be schmart but constantly messes things up?
    I could go on with the similarities, but . . .


        • He has never had that power, but you can bet your last dollar or Mexican Peso or Philippine Peso or Japanese Yen that, given the opportunity, he will do exactly that. “Not our class”, indeed! You accused an OTR trucker who hasn’t seen his official residence in 11 months of being an elitist against a multi-millionaire who claims to be a billionaire. You’ll hear what you want to hear because you don’t want to hear what is actually being said. You’re one of the dwarves in the shack in the final Chronicles of Narnia book, being fed a king’s buffet but only seeing sticks and straw.

Leave a Reply