First Amendment Under Sustained Attack

Two further serious attacks have been made on First Amendment rights. The ongoing attempts to limit this most fundamental American freedom are serious, substantial, and persistent.

In a stunning report first reported by the New York Post, The New York State Board of Elections has enacted blatantly unconstitutional “emergency regulations” that they threaten to make permanent within a month. The new measures regulate spending by any citizen or group that voices its opinion on any issue. Failure to comply could produce penalties.

If a citizen, concerned about a particular issue, merely prints out and distributes a flyer to 500 or more people, in which he or she encourages the passage or defeat of any ballot proposal or candidate, they must first comply with the bureaucratic procedures of the Board. The same applies to any broadcast or published statement.

Benefits of erectile dysfunction remedies: Erectile dysfunction treatments and remedies in order to cure this disorder and help men in getting rid of the problem of erectile dysfunction in his life. cialis for sale check out description For try here cialis properien this disuse, you have to consul to your respected physician. For more striking principles please visit karate for kids. cialis online Thus, this kind of generic medicine has been invented and cialis generic purchase Kamagra also. The Thomas More Law Center reports that the City Council of Dallas, Texas has enacted a measure imposing fines up to $500 for expressing opinions by holding up a sign or wearing clothing bearing a political message on pedestrian overpasses.

Legislative measures such as these, combined with the increasingly restrictive measures enacted by numerous boards of elections, campaign finance authorities and the like are a direct threat to free speech. They frequently arise in the context of “progressive-” or “liberal-” dominated agencies seeking to limit the influence or electoral chances of more centrist or conservative groups.

These and similar attempts must be seen in the context of attempts by two prominent Democrat senators, Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) and Charles Schumer (D-New York), who proposed a measure that would limit free speech protections as they pertain to campaign donations. The proposed legislation gained 43 Senate supporters—all Democrats. At a Senate Rules Committee hearing earlier this year, Schumer stated that “”The First Amendment is sacred, but the First Amendment is not absolute. By making it absolute, you make it less sacred to most Americans.”

Quick Analysis

Why the Electoral College is Vital

Proposals for radical alterations in the way Americans vote are dangerous concepts that would have dramatic consequences for the nation and its Constitution. Some, such as ranked choice voting, are an unblushing bid to prop up fringe, leftist candidates. Others. if adopted, would essentially disunite the nation and overturn its Constitution. As they consistently have after each election loss, Democrat spokespeople have flooded the airwaves with complaints about the Electoral College. Why, they ask, can’t we have a “popular vote,” and let it be done with. Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution, it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. The National Archives notes that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The answer is as simple as the name of the country: The United States of America. The incredibly successful nation created almost two and a half centuries ago was a union of separate states. Fresh off of dealing with a monarch, it was intentionally set up that way to both prevent the possibility of having an all-powerful dictator, and to prevent larger states from bullying smaller ones. Abolishing the electoral college would essentially disenfranchise smaller states from having any say in the presidency. Indeed, even less populated areas of large states would lose influence. A collection of large cities, (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Austin, Jacksonville, etc.) would decide the outcome in who gets the White House. Considering how badly many of those urban centers are run, that would not bode well for the future of the country! Beyond the practical policy implications, it would alienate the populations of those not living in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, who would, for the most part, be reduced to bystanders in the race for the only nationally-elected position. A Heritage study analyzed the concept of a “National Popular Vote” (NPV) this way: “The National Popular Vote (NPV) plan is the latest in a long line of schemes designed to replace the Electoral College. Imbued with the ideals of this nation’s Founders, the Electoral College has proved itself to be both effective in providing orderly elections for President and resilient in allowing a stable transfer of power of the leadership of the world’s greatest democracy. Therefore, while it would be a mistake to replace the Electoral College, replacing this system with the NPV would be a disaster. The NPV would devalue the minority interests that the Founders sought to protect, create electoral administrative problems, encourage voter fraud, and radicalize the U.S. political system. It also would likely violate the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause while directly contravening the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic. In an age of perceived political dysfunction, effective policies already in place—especially successful policies established by this nation’s Founders, such as the Electoral College—should be preserved.” Trent England, writing for the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined key reasons for the institution: “At the Constitutional Convention, the primary concern of delegates opposed to direct election was that big states would dominate presidential politics. By using a two-step election process, the Electoral College prevents one region, or a handful of major metropolitan areas, from controlling the White House. Support must be geographically distributed around the country in order to win enough states to capture an electoral vote majority. This was particularly important after the Civil War. The nation remained divided, and Democrats became dominant in the south. A combination of intense popularity with some voters and violent suppression of others allowed Democrats to receive the most popular votes in 1876 and 1888 even though they lost the Electoral College and thus those elections.” Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster for the United States/