USAsians. 1% in tax for defense or the constitution?

[Mr Khan]

Kasz216 said:

Mr Khan said:

Actually I do recall that. However one must be aware that  there is precedent for speech, if sufficiently damaging to the nation, to be curbed.

Not... really.  Or at least if you want to use that... that's about the looooongest stretch arguement that's been made.

 

I mean, you'd have to argue that it directly incites people into doing something specifically damaging to the country and even then you'd have to essentially prove that it caused problems when it happened like....

I can't even imagine anyone making such an arguement with a straight face.

If one could make the argument that the excess of campaign contributions undermines the basis of democracy by putting disproportionate ability to influence outcomes in the hands of the few.

It simply requires acknowledgement of the economic realities of the day, to then realize that it is indeed a "speech" activity that is damaging to national discourse.

Apparently there is a proposal for a 27th Amendment on Citizens United floating around out there.