You can see examples of this all over.

Such as a proposed constitutional amendment to limit free speech:

“We need a constitutional amendment that would allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations,” Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) was quoted as saying by CNS News.

Now my question is whether it would effect the unions as well? Because if you think they don't have as much money as corporations, you're fooling yourself.

Regardless -- any time you hear anyone say about restricting liberties for a group, ask how would you feel if they are talking about your viewpoint as well.

Now I will admit that I have a list of certain individuals that I think should not be allowed to speak in public; on either side of a debate. But that is personal and I would never want a law made off it.

I agree. Things like this that "don't affect me" really are in fact targeted at me, because liberty is for all, and to take it away from a few is to threaten the remainder. This is true also with taxing the rich or the philosophy that "no one needs more than _________ in order to _________," whether it be guns, bullets, dollars, gallons of gas, etc.

Congress should never enact legislation for things they want to do. They should have the proposed legislation in one hand and the Constitution in the other. Then they should stand up in front of the people and say, "See this here Constitution thingy? Well, this here proposed legislation thingy is designed to protect and/or enhance your individual sovereignty under the Bill of Rights. If it didn't do that we wouldn't have proposed it."

I saw a tweet from a young'n that claimed that high taxes could not be opposed as infringing your property rights because taxes don't affect your private property. I can only imagine how many congresspeople are this ignorant.