And this is what set me off earlier: Hillary Clinton recently announced that she will be pushing for a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United (full name Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission).
Per the Washington Post:
Hillary Clinton will call for a constitutional amendment to “overturn Citizens United” in her first 30 days as president
To her credit–which is not something I say often–she is merely “calling for” an amendment to the Constitution, not promising to pass one, though I’ll wait until I hear/read how she herself phrases it before I pass judgement. It is worth saying that a president does not have the power to introduce a Constitutional amendment nor veto one.
Per the Constitution itself, only Congress can pass a Constitutional Amendment (and since a Constitutional amendment requires two-thirds of each house to vote “yea”, a Constitutional Amendment is automatically veto proof). But, before a Constitutional Amendment takes effect, it requires three-quarters of all the state legislatures (that’s 37 of the 50 states) to ratify the Amendment.
Although Hillary Clinton has a pretty well documented and consistent history of opposing free speech–so much so that her support for government censorship may in fact be one of the few things she sincerely believes–this is not an earnest attempt to translate her beliefs into concrete policy. For one thing, it respects rule of law and the Constitution too much, two things never known to stop Hillary Clinton or even give her pause. This is, rather, a shameless attempt to whip up the ill-informed masses of useful idiots we call the Democratic Party (don’t worry, the Republican Party is merely a mass of not-so-useful idiots) into voting for Hillary Clinton.
I would wager most Democratic voters have no idea what Citizens United was actually about and, moreover, have bought into the laughable idea that free speech is acceptable only as long as it is speech of which they approve. But Mrs. Clinton’s tactic is going to work, because the idiots do not grasp that Mrs. Clinton is promising something she cannot possibly deliver.
The President, as has already been discussed, doesn’t really have anything to do with the process for amending the Constitution. Moreover, the chances of this amendment even passing Congress are zero–zilch, zip, diddly squat, nil, nada, naught, fuck-all, not a snowball’s chance in hell, never in a million years–this, is a late
In all likelihood the Republicans will still hold majorities in both Houses of Congress after the election (and they would only need a majority in 1 house to completely scupper Hillary’s “promise”). But it gets even worse (for Mrs. Clinton that is): a Constitutional amendment requires two-thirds’ approval from both houses. Even if by some miracle the Democrats wrenched control of Congress away from the Republicans in November and gained majorities in both houses of Congress, even then this Amendment is going to be still-born, if it even gets introduced at all. Even with a simple majority, the Democrats would not be able to muster the requisite two-thirds of Congress to vote “yea”, especially since it is quite possible, and indeed likely, that at least a few Democrats would vote “nay”. But, assuming Hillary Clinton kidnapped all the children of everyone in Congress and put guns to their heads and forced Congress to vote 100% yes on this amendment, even then, there is simply no way that 37 state legislatures (most of which are controlled by Republicans) are going to vote to ratify this god-awful idea.
And let’s remember why this idea is so awful–indeed, any citizen of this Republic should find what Hillary Clinton is demanding to be disgusting.
Hillary Clinton wants the government to have the power to decide what is and isn’t “speech”. If Hillary Clinton merely objects to the idea that “money is speech”, why not then propose an amendment declaring “money is not speech”? Why an amendment overturning Citizens United?
It should be obvious, but in a nation of idiots, the obvious needs to be said: if the government is given the power to determine what is and isn’t “speech”–and can therefore censor (which is what is meant by “regulate”) what it determines not to be speech–then there is no such thing as “free speech”. And needless to say (ergo, it must be said), there can be no democracy nor liberty without free speech. Which is why I find the Democrats’ DoubleThink on the subject–we must abolish free speech to save “democracy”–revolting.
The fact that some media outlets are reporting this as “Hillary Clinton Promises Quick Action on Campaign Finance” is especially worrisome, since a more accurate headline would be “Hillary Clinton Favors Government Censorship”–but this is how those who aren’t paying attention end up thinking government censorship of free speech is acceptable.