Sen. Chuck E. Schumer: Super Genius Moves to Outlaw Political Speech

A notorious slime ball in the U.S. Senate has weighed in on the Democratic Party’s latest fascist scheme to silence organizations, corporations, and associations that they don’t agree with. Sen. Chuck E. Schumer: Super Genius and his totalitarian cohorts want to pass a constitutional amendment to limit political speech. New York’s Mussolini equates political speech to someone who yells fire in a crowded theater.

(CNSNews.com) – Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United was the “worst” decision since the court upheld racist segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson.

“The point I’d make here – and that’s why a constitutional amendment shouldn’t be necessary but is – there’s balance in every amendment. The First Amendment is not absolute. You can’t falsely scream fire. We have anti-pornography laws. We have libel laws, and what more important balance than to keep the wellspring of our democracy?

“Citizens United was an outgrowth of this. It is the worst decision since Plessy v. Ferguson – I believe that – of the United States Supreme Court,” Schumer said Wednesday at a conference of Democratic members of Congress and liberal groups focusing on amending the Constitution to repeal Citizens United.

So, political speech by an entity that Senator Schumer doesn’t agree with is pornography and a violation of his civil rights. But Mr. Super Genius isn’t through. He also invokes Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton to make his case:

Schumer said that a constitutional amendment was needed to roll back the free-speech rights expanded by the court since Buckley, particularly the free-speech rights granted to political activist groups by Citizens United.

“This constitutional amendment is a moral, political, and substantive imperative,” he said. “And frankly, if Thomas Jefferson or Alexander Hamilton – both sides of the equation – were looking down on this room, they’d say ‘Go forward, right on,’ because our democracy is being ruined by these decisions.”

That assertion is absolutely absurd. One of the dirtiest elections in American history was between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Here is an excerpt from a CNN article:

Negative campaigning in America was sired by two lifelong friends, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Back in 1776, the dynamic duo combined powers to help claim America's independence, and they had nothing but love and respect for one another. But by 1800, party politics had so distanced the pair that, for the first and last time in U.S. history, a president found himself running against his vice president.

Things got ugly fast. Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

In return, Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."

As the slurs piled on, Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant, while Jefferson was branded a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward.

Even Martha Washington succumbed to the propaganda, telling a clergyman that Jefferson was "one of the most detestable of mankind."

And as for Alexander Hamilton, he could get just as nasty as the rest of them. As a matter of fact, it cost him his life.

Alexander Hamilton got in a swipe against President Adams writing…”the disgrace of his foolish and bad manners…he does not possess the talent, there are great and intrinsic defects in his character which unfit him for the office…infected with some visionary notions, imagination sublimated and eccentric, vanity without bounds, and a jealousy capable of discoloring every object.” Not too severe an attack, until you realize they were in the same Federalist party. This was private correspondence leaked to the press.

Adams responded to Hamilton’s slurs calling him…”an intriguant, the greatest in the world…a man devoid of every moral principal…a bastard.”

Even the universally worshipped George Washington was not off limits. Benjamin Franklin’s grandson declared…”if ever a nation has been debauched by a man, the American nation has been debauched by Washington.”

Alexander Hamilton also hated Aaron Burr. His attacks on the future Vice-President were relentless for years. During those years Burr seems to have either ignored Hamilton or was simply too busy with his own intrigues to care. But all this changed in 1804. Burr lost his election for Governor of New York, and Alexander Hamilton was one of the reasons. A letter appeared in the Albany register which proclaimed Burr was “a dangerous man who ought not to be trusted.” Not remarkable for the times until the letter writer declared “I could detail to you a still more despicable opinion which General Hamilton has expressed of Mr. Burr.”

This called for clarification from Aaron Burr. Historians are not certain as to the “despicable opinions” are but some believe he claimed Burr having an incestuous relationship with his own daughter.

Burr called Hamilton out and Hamilton agreed to an “interview” (duel).

On the morning of July 11, 1804, the men settled their differences as Vice-President Aaron Burr put a one ounce slug into Alexander Hamilton’s liver. Hamilton died the next day.

Politicians like Sen. Chuck E. Schumer: Super Genius isn’t worried about their political opponents mud slinging. What he and his democratic thugs are concerned about is the revelation of their fascist records. And they can’t have that.

Source: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/schumer-citizens-united-worse-racial-segregation-case-plessy-v-ferguson

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-08-22/living/mf.campaign.slurs.slogans_1_jefferson-family-sally-hemings-vice-president-jefferson?_s=PM:LIVING

http://buffalo.indymedia.org/content/violence-slander-and-libel-american-way-politics-part-one

Newt Gingrich Should Propose Repeal of 14th Amendment, Instead of Trying Judges

Earlier this week, Newt Gingrich stated that he would ignore Supreme Court decisions that conflicted with constitutional prerogatives of the executive office. This is nothing new. Past presidents and states have openly defied rulings by rogue courts. During the “Biddle’s Bank” controversy, SCOTUS ruled in favor of the Bank of United States, citing the “supremacy clause” in the landmark case: McColluch v. Maryland.

The states ignored the ruling. Ohio imposed a $50,000-per-year-tax on each of the two branches in the state. The BUS refused to pay. Ohio sent its tax auditor to collect the money. The bank’s management wouldn’t comply, so the auditor leaped over the counter and helped himself. Needless to say, the BUS filed a federal lawsuit. The Ohio state legislature flipped the finger at the federal government with the following declaration:

We are aware of the doctrine, that the Federal courts are exclusively vested with jurisdiction to declare, in the last resort, the true interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. To this doctrine…we can never give our assent.

President Andrew Jackson also offered his opinion on the Supreme Court’s decision on BUS:

To this conclusion I cannon assent…Congress and the President as well as the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. It is as much of the duty of the House of the Representatives, of the Senate, and the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented…The opinion of the [Supreme Court] justices has no authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive…but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve.

We have a long history of casting a suspect eye on centralized power. During the ratification process of the U.S. Constitution, the anti-federalist was suspicious of the unchecked powers of the Supreme Court. The pseudonymous author Brutus summed it up best:

They will give the sense of every article of the constitution, that may from time to time come before them. And in their decisions they will not confine themselves to any fixed or established rules, but will determine, according to what appears to them, the reason and spirit of the constitution. The opinions of the supreme court, whatever they may be, will have the force of law; because there is no power provided in the constitution, that can correct their errors, or controul their adjudications. From this court there is no appeal. And I conceive the legislature themselves, cannot set aside a judgment of this court, because they are authorised by the constitution to decide in the last resort. The legislature must be controuled by the constitution, and not the constitution by them. They have therefore no more right to set aside any judgment pronounced upon the construction of the constitution, than they have to take from the president, the chief command of the army and navy, and commit it to some other person. The reason is plain; the judicial and executive derive their authority from the same source, that the legislature do theirs; and therefore in all cases, where the constitution does not make the one responsible to, or controulable by the other, they are altogether independent of each other.

The judicial power will operate to effect, in the most certain, but yet silent and imperceptible manner, what is evidently the tendency of the constitution: — I mean, an entire subversion of the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the individual states. Every adjudication of the supreme court, on any question that may arise upon the nature and extent of the general government, will affect the limits of the state jurisdiction. In proportion as the former enlarge the exercise of their powers, will that of the latter be restricted.

That the judicial power of the United States, will lean strongly in favour of the general government, and will give such an explanation to the constitution, as will favour an extension of its jurisdiction, is very evident from a variety of considerations.

How prescient is that? Anytime I hear someone quote Hamilton’s federalist #78, I counter with Brutus’s anti-federalist #11.

Our Constitution was almost not ratified, because of concerns that an all-powerful federal government would subvert the self-governance of the states. That’s why our founding fathers ratified the Bill of Rights. And in the landmark case Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court reconfirmed that the first eight amendments applied only to the federal government and not the states.

The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled that Barron had no claim against the state under the Bill of Rights because the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. The Court asserted that the Constitution was created "by the people of the United States" to apply only to the government that the Constitution had created -- the federal government -- and "not for the government of the individual states." The separate states had drafted constitutions only to apply to themselves, limiting the actions of only state governments. Thus, "the Fifth Amendment must be understood as restricting the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states." The Court argued that the validity of this conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the Constitution nowhere states that the Bill of Rights also limits the actions of state governments, Thus, the state of Maryland, through the actions of the city of Baltimore, did not infringe on the Constitution. With no federal claim, the Supreme Court thus lacked jurisdiction (or power) to hear Barron's case and dismissed it.

That all changed after the progressives bastardized the 14th Amendment. The amendment was designed to ensure that ex-slaves and their progeny were afforded equal protection and due process under individual STATE LAWS, not an all-encompassing federal government. This bastardization has resulted in a federal government tyranny; and its being perpetuated by a judicial oligarchy.

And I remind everyone, that the 10th Amendment has never been repealed.

I disagree with Newt Gingrich on summoning justices to Congress to answer for their decisions. If you want to take power away from federal judges and the general government, then we need to repeal the 14th Amendment.

Source: http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus11.htm

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gingrich-judges-20111217,0,1295899.story

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_barron.html

http://www.amazon.com/Hamiltons-Curse-Jeffersons-Revolution---Americans/dp/0307382850/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324523222&sr=1-1

Alexander Hamilton was an Illegal Alien?

Alexander Hamilton was an illegal alien?  You've got to be kidding me!  First of all Hamilton was a British subject just like the rest of our founding fathers.  He was born in the British West Indies.  He later moved to New York  in 1774 to study at Kings College.  The U. S. Constitution wasn't even ratified until 1789.

That's a pretty neat trick to have participated in the Revolutionary War; help formulate the U.S. Constitution; be an outspoken advocate for said Constitution and at the same time prohibit yourself from being a citizen. 

  
PARKER: But, you know, Eliot, let's remember, too- a lot of Americans did come through the back door-



SPITZER: Yup-


PARKER: Such as Alexander Hamilton.


SPITZER: Yup-


PARKER: He got off the boat from the West Indies, and all he did was write the Constitution and become the first Secretary of the Treasury- and, of course, what about the 'Terminator'?


SPITZER: That's right. We've got to have Arnold, who is in his last days as the great governor of California- has a little bit of a deficit that he's leaving for his successor, the 'moonbeam,' Jerry Brown. So you got Arnold, you got Alexander Hamilton- can you imagine the two of them having dinner together?

Kathleen Parker constantly criticizes Sarah Palin.  She has ridiculed Palin as an idiot; an intellectually challenged, backwater dolt that couldn't figure out a way to walk through the grand salons of New York's Upper East Side.  Hey Kathleen you are no longer entitled to throw stones at glass houses anymore.