Maine Democratic Congressional Candidate Claims Free Speech Is Unconstitutional

in Politics by
   

As the primary wraps up, political candidates are setting their sights on the general election. We now know that Hillary Clinton will likely be the Democratic nominee, because the Associated Press called it after a survey of people who haven’t voted yet was taken. The attempt to unify the party will begin, as Democrats are now ready to stop Donald Trump, who has essentially sealed the Republican nomination for himself.

The problem Maine Democrats have is their entire strategy is Trump related. Want to stop an incumbent Republican congressman? Keep bringing up Trump. While our elected officials try to focus on issues facing Mainers, the Democrats remain persistent with the gotchas.

It’s politics. Democrats play the game, and so do their candidates.

The latest attack is to allege that Donald Trump has violated the Constitution. How did Trump do this? He hasn’t been elected yet and he doesn’t even hold any elected office.

image  Maine Democratic Congressional Candidate claims free speech is unconstitutional wp 1465397428040

Maine Democratic congressional candidate Emily Cain lost last election against incumbent Congressman Bruce Poliquin. She has now returned with a lack of education on the Constitution and gotcha politics.

If Cain hopes to serve in the Congress and be a productive member of the federal government, it would be beneficial to be aware of the document that created said government. The United States Constitution governs the federal government and provides its framework. The Bill of Rights was then added to calm the fears of antifederalists who believed the federal government would have too much power.

The Constitution does not however, criminalize free speech.

The idea that free speech is an unconstitutional act is the only conclusion one can reach when reading Cain’s tweet regarding the topic. Does Emily Cain want to become a United States Congresswoman to oppose the free speech rights of Americans everywhere?

Donald Trump’s comments may have been insensitive and he could have criticized the Judge in a more productive manner. In an ideal world, we should be able to disagree without resorting to insults. But is disagreeable speech unconstitutional?

This is perhaps an even more disturbing position. Does Emily Cain want to become a United States Congresswoman with the position that free speech is limited to what she deems appropriate?

Electing Emily Cain could be the beginning of the thoughtcrime in America. She has taken the position that an individual’s free speech is unconstitutional. It is apparently unconstitutional because it was inappropriate. Ultimately, disagreeing with Cain’s standards of decency is the litmus test for free speech. That is a disturbing position for a major party’s Congressional candidate to take.

Perhaps worse is that Maine Democratic Party chairman Phil Bartlett apparently agrees.

image  Maine Democratic Congressional Candidate claims free speech is unconstitutional wp 1465397453387

Has the Maine Democratic Party’s desperate gotcha attempts resorted to them labeling free speech as an unconstitutional act?

This all is obviously not to excuse Donald Trump’s antics and language. Anyone running for office should have a certain level of decency and it’s only respectful of adults to do. But if you’re a candidate running for office, you should at least be aware of related laws. As a Congresswoman, the key law for Emily Cain to know would be the Constitution.

Emily Cain and Phil Bartlett’s Constitution states that free speech is unconstitutional and disagreement is illegal. Is this where Maine Democrats stand?

Chris Dixon is a liberty activist and writer from Maine. In addition to being Managing Editor for the Liberty Conservative, he also writes the Bangor Daily News blog "Undercover Porcupine" and for sports website Cleatgeeks.

  • Dan Ouellette

    It should be noted that although not very eloquent Donald Trump’s point is valid! Let me quantify that statement! Trump could have worded it better, but the point he was trying to make, was about the Judge’s affiliations. The fact that the Judge is affiliated with La Raza(Spanish for The Race), a radical racist organization and the Hillary Clinton campaign alone should be grounds for the Judge to recuse himself! Trump’s argument is that because of his statements about illegal aliens and building a border fence, that the Judge belonging to a racist group automatically makes him bias!