TEA PARTY JESTER STRIKES AGAIN!

 

The US Senate's "Court Jester"

 

Senator Ted Cruz is almost correct….kinda, sorta.

 

If you have seen the Democrats proposed constitutional amendment for limiting campaign contributions, please do not look at this as the best way to fix the Citizens United situation. 

We should not mess with the US Constitution in trying to keep all the billionaires from messing with our elections.  Even the “pull the plug on grandma”, Republican Senator, Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), was correct when he said that if there was one more liberal judge on the Roberts Supreme Court, they could and would be able to get rid of the “Citizens” decision.  It would be much easier to get the liberal judge we need on the US Supreme Court, than the supermajorities needed for a Constitutional amendment’s approval.

So, just why and how did I come to this conclusion?

Well, as usual, that Tea Party guy from Texas that continues to “open mouth-insert foot”, did it again, but this time he was sorta correct…Now I did say sorta.

Yep, once again, the wacky, Senator Ted Cruz, went way over-board in making his point, but even I have to agree that the Constitutional amendment proposal is like using a sledge hammer on a thumb tack.  But of course, to get the TV camera coverage that Mr. Cruz always pursues, here is how he hyperventilated in going after the proposal:  Per the senator, “This amendment would support repealing the First Amendment, and it would abandon the Bill of Rights.  It would also seize the power to ban books and to ban movies and it favors politicians silencing the citizens.”

Then Ted just couldn’t help himself. Cruz had them all laughing when he added, “I’m defending the free speech not only of conservatives but also of Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, the NAACP, labor unions and Michael Moore.” 

 

I doubt that anyone could believe that this far right Tea Party member would actually do anything that supported both the ultra-liberal Michael Moore and Planned Parenthood.

So OK Ted, now just take a big, deep breath.

No, of course, the amendment would not do all of what Ted’s claims.  What it would do is reduce the ability of billionaires to buy elections.  A right that those like the Koch Brothers have enjoyed since the Supreme Court, in the Citizens United case virtually outlawed all restraints on campaign spending. But rewriting the US Constitution is a very dangerous way of fixing this very real problem.

And why do I think that getting a liberal judge on the highest court would be an easier fix?

Well, in today’s presidential elections, the way the Republican party continually alienates all minorities; most women; younger voters; and elderly voters, there may not be another Republican president for some time. If someone like a Hillary Clinton can win and hold the presidency for two terms after President Obama, the conservative high-court judges, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy would both turn 89 in Hillary’s last year in office.

I do think the use of the amendment proposal is good for keeping the campaign spending issue in an up-front position in Congress and in all of the states.  In that way, should the GOP actually take the presidency and/or take the US Senate or even increase their power in the House, then going after such an amendment to limit campaign spending would be good for the Democrats.  But for a real amendment try, it could take years to get it through with the needed ¾’s approval of both houses and then passing it through the 38 states. 

However, as previously stated, if the Republicans continue being a far-right & split-party with their internal Tea Party faction; with their denying of science and climate change; with their alienating women, minorities, and the elderly, plus their anti-health care approach, and their efforts to keep citizens from voting, the Democrats have a good chance of holding back the conservatives.

But in any case, Ted, you just keep it up…..please!

Copyright G.Ater  2014