To begin, kudos to John Marshall for being on of the few outlets to pick up on this.
Insane idea? Yes. Under the current Congress, it could possibly pass the House. Not the Senate. And with 30+ State houses under Conservative leadership, again a possible close to 2/3’s.
But John, this is not just about the ‘free press’.
“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.”
There is not a single ‘true’ Christian (see Mike Pence) that doesn’t drool over the prospect of making America a real ‘christian’ Nation.
Yes any dictator would jump for joy over reversing all the First Amendment protections and yes Trump only talks about this thinking “governing is so easy” that he could benefit financially by being able to sue the press over stories he doesn’t like.
He has no concept of how or why Government works.
*Thinks people should lose citizenship if they burn the flag.
*Sitting quietly while the President of China gives him a 10 minute history lesson of China/Korea relations.
*Just ‘take’ a country’s oil.
*Other countries should have nuclear weapons to protect themselves.
*Inviting a murdering dictator (Duterte) to the White House.
The effort is doomed. Just as Trump’s place in history is doomed or of being a possible ‘statesman’.
But Trump didn’t win, didn’t campaign on the ‘Art of the Deal’.
He campaigned and won on ‘squeezing the toothpaste out of the tube’.
Planting the seed of a ‘christian Nation’, legislated speech, press, assembly and petition – the ‘christian Nation’ dream.
Sound hyperbolic? Look at the actual exchange –
KARL: I want to ask you about two things the President has said on related issues. First of all, there was what he said about opening up the libel laws. Tweeting “the failing New York Times has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change the libel laws?” That would require, as I understand it, a constitutional amendment. Is he really going to pursue that? Is that something he wants to pursue?
PRIEBUS: I think it’s something that we’ve looked at. How that gets executed or whether that goes anywhere is a different story. But when you have articles out there that have no basis or fact and we’re sitting here on 24/7 cable companies writing stories about constant contacts with Russia and all these other matters—
KARL: So you think the President should be able to sue the New York Times for stories he doesn’t like?
PRIEBUS: Here’s what I think. I think that newspapers and news agencies need to be more responsible with how they report the news. I am so tired.
KARL: I don’t think anybody would disagree with that. It’s about whether or not the President should have a right to sue them.
PRIEBUS: And I already answered the question. I said this is something that is being looked at.
From : http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/priebus-trump-considering-amending-or-abolishing-1st-amendment
I wouldn’t be surprised at Republicans opening just 1 more BENGHAZI investigation.
Less then a week after the sitting President Trump – accused the former President – Obama – of spying on him while offering zero evidence – now Trump is going to use every department he can to dismantle and/or discredit the Social Contract and Obama.
And all democrats do is wring their hands……
And all journalists do is chase the next shinny object – CIA leaks and Trumpcare.
I have yet to hear even 1 single Democrat to call it Trumpcare.
‘Sessions is openly musing about appointing a special prosecutor to investigate former President Barack Obamas DOJ’.
‘Sessions left the door open for a special counsel to take the lead on the investigation into alleged Obama-era scandals during an interview with conservative talk radio host Hugh Hewitt on Thursday.’
‘The right-wing commentator pressed the embattled attorney general on his plans to investigate the departments probe of Hillary Clintons use of a private email server under former attorney general Loretta Lynch’.
‘Hewitt also asked Sessions about two other favorite conservative boogeymen: what Republicans argue was politically-motivated scrutiny against Tea Party organization seeking non-profit status by the IRS, and the scheme in which federal law enforcement allowed gun dealers to sell firearms to illegal straw buyers known as Fast and Furious’.
It seems Republicans would not have approved of the Boston Tea PArty – but just 8 short years ago – came the tea party.
Oh I see. Only Republicans can protest………
Thomas Jefferson – “[And] what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?”
February 24, 2017 By Taegan Goddard
“Since the election of President Trump, Republican lawmakers in at least 18 states have introduced or voted on legislation to curb mass protests in what civil liberties experts are calling ‘an attack on protest rights throughout the states,’” the Washington Post reports.