In the wake of “Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission” and the Obama/Alito kerfuffle, I give you the First Amendment, as seen through the eyes of lefty statists:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech*, or of the press**; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble†, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”‡
*Except inconvenient political speech.
**If new forms of communication media are developed in the future (e.g. radio, television, internet), Congress shall be permitted to make laws abridging communication involving those media.
†Exception: Congress shall make laws abridging the right of the people to peaceably to assemble into groups of individuals known as corporations, particularly in cases in which these groups spend large sums of money exercising their “right” to communicate.
‡Unless the attempt to redress grievances involves spending money on political campaigns within the 60 day period preceding an election.
Now, from constitutional novice, some thoughts on the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
- Take special note of the words “NO LAW.”
- Let those words sink in.
- The First Amendment is not just about “speech.” It’s about freedom of communication. It’s about freedom of assembly (you can even form an evil corporation if you wish). It’s about the freedom to redress grievances (no exceptions).
So a group of people assemble and form a corporation ― and they communicate their thoughts in print, online, and over the airwaves. What part of the First Amendment provides wiggle room for the Imperial Federal Government to stop that?