Priebus: Trump Considering Amending or Abolishing 1st Amendment

[JA]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/priebus-trump-considering-amending-or-abolishing-1st-amendment

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Honestly, if all he's going to do is give himself the ability to sue CNN or NYT, I don't really care. Let him do it.

[pbrower2a]

It won't get through Congress.

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

Can you say impeachment

[Hermit For Peace]

Funny. Trump claims many things with no basis in fact.

Always remember that.

[Hermit For Peace]

Trump needs to learn how to let stuff roll off his back. He needs thicker skin.

Jesus, he's got the hardest job in the world and he has such thin skin. Who voted for this delicate flower?

[Ronnie]

It won't get through Congress.

That's a bit of an understatement.  I don't think anyone in congress would support it, aside from Trump's greatest sycophants (Chris Collins, Lou Barletta, etc.).

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Upon thinking over this, I've come to this conclusion: What's so bad about suing the media? Reps would sue O'Donnell, Hayes, Burnett out of existence, Dems would do the same to Baier, Hume, Hannity. The result would be a media with a lot more fairness and integrity.

[Beet]

Upon thinking over this, I've come to this conclusion: What's so bad about suing the media? Reps would sue O'Donnell, Hayes, Burnett out of existence, Dems would do the same to Baier, Hume, Hannity. The result would be a media with a lot more fairness and integrity.

By whose standards? Yours? The result would be a chilling effect where people are afraid to say what they really think. The first step to America becoming like North Korea, which would be bad for the average person.

[Devout Centrist]

Upon thinking over this, I've come to this conclusion: What's so bad about suing the media? Reps would sue O'Donnell, Hayes, Burnett out of existence, Dems would do the same to Baier, Hume, Hannity. The result would be a media with a lot more fairness and integrity.

Dude, that sounds ing awful, I don't know what you're smoking.

[Bismarck]

This would be horrendous if they actually tried to do it. The first amendment should not be messed with. I doubt it actually happens though, it's not even clear that that's the administrations goal. It would be DOA in congress in any case. It is worth noting that some democrats including Harry Ried  wanted to amend the first amendment a couple years back.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You guys realize were like 3 states away from an Article V Constitutional Convention?

Trump could rachet up his demagoguery and just flip a couple more state legislature seats and he could theoretically push through whatever he wants

A constitutional convention doesn't involve Trump at all. The state legislatures that passed it meet up, agree on amendments, and then 38 state legislatures have to ratify it. It has nothing to do with the feds.

[Santander]

Great news. The Second Amendment should be second to none.

[Virginiá]

You guys realize were like 3 states away from an Article V Constitutional Convention?

Trump could rachet up his demagoguery and just flip a couple more state legislature seats and he could theoretically push through whatever he wants

That is easier said than done. Putting aside that getting all those different state legislatures to agree on such a toxic proposal, there is also the issue of where these extra state legislatures would come from. The Republican Party is already sort of over-extended on that front, and is much more likely to lose some ground over the next 4 years than gain any.

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

Whoever voted yes, leave the country and move to NK or Russia.

[RI]

Can you say impeachment

You can't get impeached for pushing for a constitutional amendment...

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Yes. Trump should absolutely attempt to abolish the First Amendment. Preferably by holding lots of prime time speeches where he rants about his vague but ubiquitous enemies, how big his appendages are, and how he really won the rigged election by five million votes (complete with Ross Perot-style maps) and everyone needs to give him some respect.

[Virginiá]

The Republicans have total control of 32 state legislatures and are a handful of seats from getting total control of 5 more that are split (in NY and WA for example they need 1 seat each to get total control) And this doesn't factor in Democratic states that called for a convention decades ago but never rescinded their call.

Well to be fair, in New York Republicans already control the State Senate through a power-sharing agreement with turncoat "Independent Democrats," but the Assembly they are in a deep hole with zero hopes of changing right now. In Washington they are on the verge of losing the Senate by 1 seat if a deep blue Clinton district goes to a Democrat in a special election later this year, which is probably likely.

I get what you're saying, and it is unnerving that they have so much power, particularly because as you stated we are already close to a convention for other reasons, but even with them controlling 32 legislatures right now, getting those extra 6 legislatures is extremely difficult as they have already grabbed all the low and even medium hanging fruit. Since at least the early 30s, no party has controlled the necessary 3/4th states at the same time to amend the Constitution unilaterally. It's very difficult to accrue that much power, and history shows it's actually pretty easy to lose a lot of ground relatively quickly, at least under the right circumstances.

Personally I'm more worried about a convention getting triggered by all these calls for a balanced budget (like you were alluding to) that have trickled in over the years. Such a thing at this point in time, where corporate/special interest power is running wild, well, it seems like it has a lot of potential to be a disaster.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This would be kind of horrifying if it had the slightest chance of passing, but as such it's just pathetic.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Upon thinking over this, I've come to this conclusion: What's so bad about suing the media? Reps would sue O'Donnell, Hayes, Burnett out of existence, Dems would do the same to Baier, Hume, Hannity. The result would be a media with a lot more fairness and integrity.

Dude, that sounds ing awful, I don't know what you're smoking.

There's nothing wrong with stripping the media of its hardcore partisans on both sides.

[Maxwell]

The saddest administration - YOU'RE BEING SO MEAN TO US WELL TAKE AWAY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

oh wait you can't even get the votes for healthcare reform and even tax reform is looking tough. Sad!

[GeorgiaModerate]

Upon thinking over this, I've come to this conclusion: What's so bad about suing the media? Reps would sue O'Donnell, Hayes, Burnett out of existence, Dems would do the same to Baier, Hume, Hannity. The result would be a media with a lot more fairness and integrity.

Dude, that sounds ing awful, I don't know what you're smoking.

There's nothing wrong with stripping the media of its hardcore partisans on both sides.

On the contrary, there's nothing right about it. 

Restricting the press is the first step toward tyranny.  Yes, I think there are hardcore partisans (of both persuasions) in the media who are truly reprehensible.  But you know what?  I don't have to listen to them -- and generally I don't.  If you try to strip the media of hardcore partisans, who defines what that means, and where do they draw the line? 

Nobody can be trusted with that kind of power.

[Mike Thick]

Upon thinking over this, I've come to this conclusion: What's so bad about suing the media? Reps would sue O'Donnell, Hayes, Burnett out of existence, Dems would do the same to Baier, Hume, Hannity. The result would be a media with a lot more fairness and integrity.

Dude, that sounds ing awful, I don't know what you're smoking.

There's nothing wrong with stripping the media of its hardcore partisans on both sides.

Perhaps, but who gets to decide who the most hardcore partisans are? And, probably more significantly, this opens the door for further restrictions of press freedom.

In any case, I think that a press that does bad things because it's free is far better than a press that does bad things because it's restricted.

[JA]

The saddest administration - YOU'RE BEING SO MEAN TO US WELL TAKE AWAY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

oh wait you can't even get the votes for healthcare reform and even tax reform is looking tough. Sad!

Trump wants this entire country to be his giant safe space.

[Maxwell]

The saddest administration - YOU'RE BEING SO MEAN TO US WELL TAKE AWAY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

oh wait you can't even get the votes for healthcare reform and even tax reform is looking tough. Sad!

Trump wants this entire country to be his giant safe space.

ahahahaha that's awesome and accurate.