Palin Gets the First Amendment Wrong

ImageOnce again, Sarah Palin showed her fragile grasp of the Constitution when she claimed that media attacks on her violate her First Amendment right to attack Barack Obama. The problem is that the First Amendment deals with Congress passing laws regulating speech, not the media.

According to ABC News, Palin asserted to WMAL-AM in Washington D.C. that the media is protecting Obama, “If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations, then I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.”

Palin kept up her attack on what she called the mainstream media and elites, “It’s sort of perplexing to me, because I’m a practical person and plainspoken also, but just cutting to the chase and calling things like I see them, just like most Americans. But this has not left a bitter taste in my mouth, the bitter shots taken by the mainstream media and by some of the elitism there in Washington.” Let’s start with the obvious, the media has nothing to do with supression of speech in the First Amendment.

Here is the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Someone really needs to sit Sarah down and explain to her that the First Amendment is about government suppression of speech, not media commentary.

Palin has no idea what is in the Constitution, yet she wants to run for president in 2012. She should not even be running for vice president. Anybody who doesn’t know what the vice president does, can’t name any Supreme Court cases, and then gets the First Amendment wrong, does not belong in national politics. Heck, she probably isn’t qualified to be governor of Alaska. Look long and hard Republicans, and remember when this buffoon was supposed to be your savior.

10 Replies to “Palin Gets the First Amendment Wrong”

  1. Palin “Obama is an jerk”
    Media “You are the jerk, lady”
    Pailin “Stop infringing my freedom of speech!”

  2. There are no different between the Two MORONS,except that Palin is worst than Bush.Over and over again she showed her stupid answered.SHAME ON YOU PALIN! GIVE 15,000 dollars(your wardrobe and ect.)BACK TO THE DONORS.THAT IS CORRUPTION!!!AND STOP YOUR DOG ATTACK,IT’S USELESS.

  3. It’s one of the big reason why Mccain will loose this election because,he was never sincere about putting his Country First. He is a gambler,and very erratic. He thought choosing a woman as a running mate will help him rather than thinking of the worth of the running mate if in event that he dies as the president for his country. He is a loser already.
    Accepting to be the running mate of Mccain has completely destroy the political ambition ofSarah palin.She is a chaff that the wind will blow away soonest and will not be heard again in American Politics.

  4. “Look long and hard Republicans, and remember when this buffoon was supposed to be your savior.”

    Awesome comment.

    I *guess* it is easy to misconstrue the meaning/purpose behind the Constitution when you’re loyalties are with only one party and only “Real Patriots” (both of which happen to be ideological abstracts). No need for a Constitution when you’re definition of what it means to be American has the bandwidth of a tightrope.

  5. The Constitution provides for limited government, granting the Federal government the right to legislate in about two dozen areas. Universal health care is not one of them, nor is legislation to “spread the wealth” from “selfish people” to people whom the Federal government thinks are deserving. Those areas, as well as all other areas over which power is not explicitly granted to the Federal government by the Constitution, are reserved to the States or the people.
    Raquo has evidently never read the Bill of Rights (few Democrats get past the 5th amendment), and should not present him/herself as a constitutional expert until he does. But then again, neither should Obama, who is not running for President in 2012. He is running for President right now.
    Everyone, from Toqueville to the founders, understood that this political theory, grasped firmly by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, destroys civilizations. The last time that we had a similar international mandate for socialism (as it is today advocated by Obama) was in 1933. Following the same protectionism then that is advocated by Obama now, within 6 years, by 1939, the world was in a decade-long global depression and moving into a world war. The last time Democrats had the mandate in the White House and Congress that is promised by the upcoming election was in 1964. That led to the “Great Society”, which destroyed family structure and created the hard core poverty that remains in America’s inner cities, as well as the Vietnam war. The most recent time we have come close to the mandate that Obama-Pelosi-Reid appear to be about to get is in 1976, when Jimmy Carter had a filibuster-proof Senate. This created near 20% inflation, 20% interest rates, and the capture of American embassy staff as hostages in Iran.
    In 1980, at least we had a candidate-in-waiting (Ronald Reagan) who understood enough of the Constitution (and had political skills) to bring America back from the disaster similar to that of the 1930’s. Reagan (with help) set the stage for the end of the Cold War, balanced budgets, and the largest peacetime economic expansion in American history. The succeeding presidencies of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton are based on what Reagan achieved, as they themselves have sometimes admitted.
    Unfortunately, we are no so lucky now. The Republicans are, arguably, as bad as the Democrats, as undivided government from 2000 to 2006 has shown. Further, there is no Reagan on the horizon who stands ready with both the political skills and the Constitutional compass that will be needed to rescue the United States in 2012 from the global catastrophe that Obama-Pelosi-Reid will bring to us.
    We can, however, offer some hope that the move to socialism in the United States is matched by a move away from socialism in countries that have experienced it. There is no stomach in former satellites of the Soviet Union for a government that “spreads the wealth”. So unlike in 1933, when the entire world was moving in Obama’s direction, we might see civilization in 2012 saved by the Chinese, the Indians, or perhaps even the Latvians, Lithuanians, and Estonians.
    But it will be close. Raising taxes on wealth generation and subsidizing leisure and indolence, is the promise of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, just as in 1976. Inflation and unemployment will follow, just as in 1980. Protectionism is also promised by the Obama-Pelosi-Reid trio, with economic collapse, hunger, and war to follow. Remember: It has all happened before, when people turned to government to steal from someone else what they wanted someone to give them (like a “right” to health care).

  6. I think Sarah Palin is right to be concerned about the First Amendment guarantee to a “free press” infringing on her right to freedom of speech. The authors of the Constitution intended for the press to be objective and present all sides of an issue equally. If every time someone speaks out they get ridiculed, mocked, and investigated, that is intimidation, and is a borderline infringement on free speech. The unprecedented bias in the mainstream media favoring Barrack Obama creates an environment of fear among people with opposing viewpoints. The incessant attacks by a liberal ideologically enslaved “free press” on Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber proves the point. Did the media challenge, investigate or criticize Obama anywhere near as virulently or as often as it has the Republicans? According to JOHN F. HARRIS & JIM VANDEHEI of Politico, “The Project for Excellence in Journalism’s researchers, found that John McCain, over the six weeks since the Republican convention, got four times as many negative stories as positive ones. The study found six out of 10 McCain stories were negative. What’s more, Obama had more than twice as many positive stories (36 percent) as McCain — and just half the percentage of negative (29 percent). You call that balanced?” Now that Congress is reconsidering the “Fairness Doctrine” and The Obama Campaign is excluding access from media with the “audacity” to ask tough questions or endorse his opponent, conservatives have a real concern for protection of their First Amendment Right to Speech free from intimidation or its logical extension, restriction and regulation by Government.

  7. While the plain reading of the consitution suggests limited federal government, there are two gaping holes – the general welfare clause and the commerce clause – that can be (and have been) used to justify the federal government doing just about anything it wants that does not trample on constitutionally protected individual rights. Everybody has long accepted this as legal reality.

  8. Your premise falls apart when you match up the phrase “the Constitution intended for the press to be objective” and the phrase “The study found six out of 10 McCain stories were negative. What’s more, Obama had more than twice as many positive stories (36 percent) as McCain”. Your facts do not prove your conclusion, as objective reporting does not mean presenting both sides in an equally positive or negative light, but in presenting both sides in an equally factual light. It is called false equivalency.

    Think about it like the reporting of sport. If one team of an NBA game plays poorly, we don’t expect the sports pages to give them the losing team the same glowing print as the team that sunk hoop after hoop.

    It’s childish to expect equal treatment from unequal candidates.

Comments are closed.