Sherrod Brown wants a Constitutional Amendment to silence Opposition to the Liberal Party

I recently received this in an email from Sherrod Brown (one of the most Liberal Senators in the U.S. Senate:

Email resized for clarity.

To refresh your memory:

“If the First Amendment has any force,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included the four members of the court’s conservative wing, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”

 Forget about the fact that Congress would never pass this amendment, but it raises an important question. Will unions be able to spend the dues of their membership to support Liberal candidates and parties?

As a lawyer, Sherrod Brown should know that a Constitutional Amendment requires a
process of ratification that requires three-fourths of the states. A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). 

This is an electoral map from 2008 (the height of Obama’s popularity):

Clearly the Left controls the large coastal cities with large populations, but the thought that a Liberal sponsored Constitutional Amendment could garner 38 of 50 states is ridiculous.

Sherrod Brown is feeling the heat from organizations who are exposing his far left policies and “accomplishments.” Brown is correct that “we (the Left) do big things.”

  • They passed Obamacare, which has been unpopular with nearly 60% of Americans since it was passed. Obamacare is so popular that the U.S. Government mandated that people buy insurance or be fined.
  • In the first 35 months of the Obama Administration, the federal debt held by the public (excludes intragovernment IOU’s like Social Security) increased by $6.38 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the National Debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. Presidents from George Washington through halfway through W’s first term (this assumes he blows through the new debt ceiling of $16.4 trillion).

So, Sherrod Brown may dream about silencing his opponents, but if he thinks he can get a Constitutional Amendment to the Constitution, then he probably thinks Obamacare will make insurance cheaper and will reduce the deficit. Rather than trying to amend the Constitution, may be Sherrod Brown should fight on the basis of facts. The fact that he is not fighting with facts suggests that his opponents are merely telling the truth.

8 thoughts on “Sherrod Brown wants a Constitutional Amendment to silence Opposition to the Liberal Party”

  1. Sherrod Brown-Schultz, the champion of class warfare and now the silencer of free speech. How did such a left-wing moonbat ever get elected in Ohio?

  2. I was not clear about the impact on Unions. The Citizens United decision says “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), 558 U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 876 (January 21, 2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment prohibits government from placing limits on independent spending for political purposes by corporations and unions.” My comment was intended to say that if our speech is limited, then unions speech should be limited as well.

  3. There’s nothing “free” about the speech in Citizens United, a decision that is detested and opposed on a bipartisan basis. What Citizens United permits is the privileged few having the ability to crowd out all other speech.

    It was decided by a 5-4 vote made solely possible by the judicial activists that President Bush put on the Supreme Court.

    And Duke, I didn’t know you were a corporation.

    1. Of course the most recent use of the Citizens United outcome was seen when the big unions ran several hundred thousand dollars of anti-Newt ads in the Florida REPUBLICAN primary (they obviously want the Lightworker to face someone they view as a comparative lap dog, as opposed to Newt the flamethrower – Newt’s not my guy, but just sayin’.) Modern, what’s you view on that use of the decision by the “privledged few” at the top of the unions. And, hey, didn’t we used to call that dirty tricks?

  4. Ok Modern, then I want to see all democrats refuse to accept donations from Unions. If corporations donating is so bad than why is Union Money so great? I’ll answer that, because there is more money out there from corporations than Unions and Progressives know it, and they don’t like it.

    Also, I know progressives hate freedom of any kind, but free speech also covers a persons right to put there money where they want how they want.

  5. Modern, Obviously I am not a Corporation. I was referring to the Conservative/Republican side of the aisle. Brown, Obama, etc. would love to kill Citizens United so that they would have an advantage in terms of money to run ads, etc. When you can’t run on your record, you need to have money to have ads, etc, to con people into voting against their own interests.

  6. If corporations are not “persons’ why is my company paying income taxes? No taxation without representation! My C Corp is required by Federal law to file an income tax for every year and to pay income taxes. If its a non-entity then it should not be paying any taxes.

    Also, what about union money? Unions are businesses too! They should be taxed!

Comments are closed.