And articles like this are not helpful.

it is thus posted.

I just think what the Trump people say is bad enough without trying to make it sound worse, as he does here with this headline.

And it's disingenuous to claim otherwise.

I know he didn't say it. Neither did I. Case closed.

I meant to reiterate that TPM's headline and article were disingenuous (not that you are).

I appreciate you sharing the clip so people can view it for themselves if they so choose.

is what I heard.

Whatever that means.

What he doesn't mention is looking at abolishing the First Amendment (which obviously involves a lot more than libel laws).

Anyway, it's just part of the whole "the press is unfair against me" schtick that Trump and company like to use to their rhetorical advantage among his fans.

Direct question was about a constitutional amendment.

Really, this is quite cut-and-dried.

He's wrong.

Libel laws are set by the states.

RP gives the "We're looking at it" non-response, and then pivots to complaining about unfair press coverage of Trump.

There is no indication from this interview that "Trump is considering abolishing the First Amendment".

Let's stick with the real stuff.

Fair enough on libel laws.

But the First Amendment restricts how much libel laws can restrain speech. And that makes libel law a deeply federal constitutional topic. Most libel law is carefully constrained by SCOTUS, because of the first amendment.

See
http://plaza.ufl.edu/bshields/caselaw.html

I guess my argument is just that there are many very seriously messed up things that Trump and his minions have actually said (and done), that I hate for them to get lost among the things he or his minions might have sort of implied. You know what I mean?

Yup. I see callous disregard for the Constitution in what Priebus said, though there are certainly a lot of things to be worried about - many that are more immediately pressing. Have a good evening-

Need a grunt smilie.

Along with a little poke at the rest of us.

This is scary stuff. TPM is right to make a big deal of it.

Pence was asked if he was talking about a constitutional amendment! And he said it was being evaluated.

That is a Big. Deal.
The first amendment is a cornerstone of our democracy.

In fact, he never mentions the First Amendment.

Also, it's not Pence.

If you keep denying facts.

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.

There is nothing in the First Amendment involving libel.

Libel is governed by state laws.

As evidenced by that exchange.

But you're projecting your understanding onto them.

Clearly the libel laws could be changed to run afoul of the first amendment. Priebus, if he cared about freedom of the press, would have expressed such a sentiment. He declined.

The things Priebus said during that interview show clearly that they see the 1st as a roadblock to their goals. And as been said before, his statements were affirmative responses to very direct questions. They aren't so stupid that they're going to use the word abolish, which is why such pedantic nitpicking is only playing their side for them. They can nod their heads, yep! Didn't say we're going to do that! While all the while that's exactly what they're planning to do. Trump wants to be able to successfully sue anyone who said something he didn't like. That is tantamount to abolishing the 1st Amendment.

"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 [constitutional amendment] gets executed or whether that goes anywhere is a different story."

That is a huge deal.

Priebus could have said "no". He chose not to. Marshall is right.

It is BS for this source to claim that he said they are considering abolishing the First Amendment.

We are lucky the interviewer asked such a good question and let Priebus hang himself.

Why? Because it literally takes years to amend the constitution and thats assuming he could even get the votes for it as any politician in office that had hopes of running for another term or for some other office that agrees with amending (which isnt abolishing) the first amendment would be well advised to start looking for another job for when the voters kick them out.
Now if they tried to actually abolish it and not amend it then any politician in office that supports it had best start running before they are tar and feathered.

He's never going to get 2/3rds of the Federal legislature to pass it and 2/3's of the states to ratify it.

He's talking out his ass again, which is why it stinks so bad...

An amendment can be proposed by 2/3 of Congress or by 2/3 of states who have called a constitutional convention.

Either way, 3/4 of the states are required to ratify the amendment so proposed.

I was going from memory. Bedly it turns out...

Any attempt to minimize or fuck with it whatsoever needs to be taken seriously.

The left wing media has as much of a right to exist as the right wing media does. And I think the sooner these fucking assholes realize this the better.

It'd require adoption of a constitutional amendment, no matter what anyone in the drumpf maladministration says. Drumpf would likely be out of office before this could be accomplished. Plus, I doubt that the required percentage of state would supposed it.

The President, no President can abolish or amend ANY amendment or any part of the Constitution.

Their words as spoken are bad enough; I don't know what some insist on exaggerating what is actually said.

Not aimed at the OP, but rather at TPM.

This is as clear as it gets. TPM is right.

where was the word "abolishing" used?

....restricting the Second Amendment?

he acts like he has been unofficially doing so for 100 days on far.

And all of the Bill of Rights except of course the 2nd Amendment. It won't happen, but I think Priebus was trying to say that without, you know, really saying it. Priebus, of not Dump, knows that there would be an immediate outcry if he said Dump wants to abolish the 1st Amendment. "Looking at" changing the libel laws sounds less threatening.

Dump has repeatedly attacked the media, even calling them an enemy of the people. If he could abolish freedom of the press, he would. I wonder if anyone has told him what that would require. I'd be amazed if he knew.

He will learn

Impeach this treasonous scumbag

if they take more states in 2018

They're already working on voter suppression as we all know, and purges,
and restrictions

trying to get that accomplished. I don't remember how many states to go but it's not many then we will all be pawns for the rich because that's who will make the changes.

reveals to me cycles of enlightenment, perhaps a monarch or stern leader,
oppression, rebellion. Just plot the big events beginning with about 1400 ...
Renaissance, Revolutions - Glorious, American, French, 1848, Italian,
Russian - they have a lot in common, people fighting for their land and
livelihood. Irish Rebellions. Even on this continent, the Civil War, the French
fleeing Lower Canada and migrating to the US.

The rich grab money, power, assets, the poor rebel or flee. A new
governmental organization emerges.

Trump can't abolish or amend the First Amendment. There's a process for amending the Constitution and the president's role in it is negligible.

Hyperbole on the part of Josh Marshall. Pure and simple.

SCOTUS (the one with Antonin Scalia) de facto erased the "well regulated militia" phrase from the Second Amendment. A sufficently right-wing SCOTUS could simply declare that 1A does not allow anyone to say nasty things about the President and that would be that.

Yes, the Supreme Court could reinterpret the Constitution. But that's not what Priebus was suggesting.

BTW - the Court that ruled that the First Amendment protected Phelps in Snyder v. Phelps (with Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas joining Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer (concurring)) isn't going to rewrite New York Times v. Sullivan.

Guys,

When you are asked if your goal is to change the First Amendment , the correct answer is "No."

Don't say you're evaluating that change.

What more do you want? TPM is right - big deal.


If Priebus had said

"No"

Or

"Changing the first amendment would require amending the Constitution so we are looking at federal law"

In these cases you would have a point. In the present case this is a big deal.

not in keeping with his oath of office, which is to "protect and defend the Constitution," then this conversation is distraction, fluff, and Marshall is making a mountain out of a he-said/she-said mole hill.

To keep readers on edge or set off their alarm bells over potential wrongdoing isn't good journalism.

Painting the president as stupid, malevolent and crazy is beating a dead horse.

TPM needs to focus on the military's and FBI's movements.

Interview asked about a constitutional amendment.
Priebus responded "they" were looking at that.


That's as cut-and-dried as you get.


Now, Priebus may later backtrack. But he was talking about a constitutional amendment, on free speech. That would be the First Amendment.

This TPM piece is not about a runaway train coming down the track that we need to be warned about.

This is Priebus keeping Karl climbing up Bullshit Mountain while Karl forgets how far from actuating any explicit desires this president and his chief of staff have been after 100 days.

If they can't defend the First Amendment, the cornerstone of our Constitution and the American experiment, where will they stop????



Down that road lies tyranny. The First Amendment requires a line in the sand.

with my second amendment tucked under my arm . fuck it !I am an old man and don't have much to loose.

y'all think there is resistance NOW?
keep talkin asshole.

The stupid is strong with the GOP.

"We the People" would NEVER EVER allow it! PERIOD!!!!

Fuck the GOP if they even attempt to do this.

keep falling for this bait? "Is looking at," "Has discussed," "might consider thinking about discussing," it's all distraction BS that sucks up energy and makes us look hysterical. This one in particular is so transparent you could grind a fine lens out of it. It should be ignored. Let's stick with what they ARE doing or at least what they are close to trying to do. And this goes for their periodic announcements that a new Obamacare repeal may be in the works sometime after next January.

Russia, Russia, Russia. Forget all this horse shit thetford spew

Our disintegrating government is in control of a megalomaniac president, his fascist cohort, fascist congress, fascist supreme court, mercenary army, militarized police, fundamentalist religion and a heavily armed racist mob. Together, they will do whatever they can get away with unless stopped by any means necessary.

Just skimming the news, lately one can find repeated references to changing the constitution, nationally and locally. That has always been the goal of the right wing. If you think it cannot happen here, think again. We are all in very real danger.