Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights

[frigidweirdo]

I recall 'Her Thighness Clinton' calling for this as well.

Seems Obama is going after the Constitution again

-Geaux
-------------------------------
(CNSNews.com) –President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations.

“Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United,” Obama wrote during a question and answer session on the website Reddit on Wednesday.

“Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”

In its decision, the Supreme Court said that the government could not restrict the free-speech rights of organizations during elections, striking down key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

That law restricted how much money independent political organizations could spend and banned them from engaging in election-related speech 60 days prior to a general election.

Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights

Is it free speech if and when it's bought and paid for? That sounds like advertising to me. In fact, it may very well be better classified as false advertising if false and intentionally defamatory claims are being made in the process. Tell me, since when is false advertising considered sacrosanct?

All they need to do is shout out "free speech is under threat" enough times, with their massive amounts of money, and people just decide to believe it. Stick in Obama and they're sure to believe it.

Perfect example of why we need to stop money controlling politics.

 

[Staidhup]

Money has been and always will play a role in politics, the key is transparency? So who owns you? George Soros, the Unions, PAC's, special interest groups.....How can you restrict one voice and not all? What you are saying is that political contributions can buy your vote, sounds rather pathetic, doesn't it!

 

[Flopper]

That are limits to any constitutional right.

Who will enforce this suppression of speech?

-Geaux

Ultimately SCOTUS.

Corporate personhood is for the most part an American invention, one that will allow corporatocracy to control economic and political systems in the 21st century. The Supreme Court's ruling that corporations are entitle to individual rights will go a long way to insure this.

Obama who is well aware of the power corporations have over congress and our elections knows such an amendment is very unlikely. He makes that clear when he refers to the proposal as "long term" and "even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight on the super-PAC phenomenon." The future is already written; read and weep.

If we get more candidates like Trump, this discussion becomes moot

Wait, maybe he can't speak for 60 days prior to the election since he is a corporation so to speak

-Geaux

If we get enough candidates like Trump, the constitution will be moot.

Which president has infringed most on the Constitution since FDR? Right, Obama.

Most presidents ignore the constitution. Beginning with John Adams, and proceeding to Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush, Congress has enacted and the president has signed laws that criminalized political speech, suspended habeas corpus, compelled support for war, forbade freedom of contract, allowed the government to spy on Americans without a search warrant, and used taxpayer dollars to shore up failing private banks.

 

[Flopper]

I recall 'Her Thighness Clinton' calling for this as well.

Seems Obama is going after the Constitution again

-Geaux
-------------------------------
(CNSNews.com) –President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations.

“Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United,” Obama wrote during a question and answer session on the website Reddit on Wednesday.

“Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”

In its decision, the Supreme Court said that the government could not restrict the free-speech rights of organizations during elections, striking down key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

That law restricted how much money independent political organizations could spend and banned them from engaging in election-related speech 60 days prior to a general election.

Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights

Is it free speech if and when it's bought and paid for? That sounds like advertising to me. In fact, it may very well be better classified as false advertising if false and intentionally defamatory claims are being made in the process. Tell me, since when is false advertising considered sacrosanct?

All they need to do is shout out "free speech is under threat" enough times, with their massive amounts of money, and people just decide to believe it. Stick in Obama and they're sure to believe it.

Perfect example of why we need to stop money controlling politics.

And the Supreme Court Citizen's United decision opens the door for corporate control of the political process.

 

[Mustang]

I recall 'Her Thighness Clinton' calling for this as well.

Seems Obama is going after the Constitution again

-Geaux
-------------------------------
(CNSNews.com) –President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations.

“Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United,” Obama wrote during a question and answer session on the website Reddit on Wednesday.

“Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”

In its decision, the Supreme Court said that the government could not restrict the free-speech rights of organizations during elections, striking down key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

That law restricted how much money independent political organizations could spend and banned them from engaging in election-related speech 60 days prior to a general election.

Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights

Is it free speech if and when it's bought and paid for? That sounds like advertising to me. In fact, it may very well be better classified as false advertising if false and intentionally defamatory claims are being made in the process. Tell me, since when is false advertising considered sacrosanct?

All they need to do is shout out "free speech is under threat" enough times, with their massive amounts of money, and people just decide to believe it. Stick in Obama and they're sure to believe it.

Perfect example of why we need to stop money controlling politics.

And the Supreme Court Citizen's United decision opens the door for corporate control of the political process.

Middle class conservatives are daft if they believe that very wealthy conservatives who grease the skids of the political process by giving large sums of money to political groups who push their interests give a tinker's damn about them and their concerns.

 

[The Rabbi]

Who will enforce this suppression of speech?

-Geaux

Ultimately SCOTUS.

Corporate personhood is for the most part an American invention, one that will allow corporatocracy to control economic and political systems in the 21st century. The Supreme Court's ruling that corporations are entitle to individual rights will go a long way to insure this.

Obama who is well aware of the power corporations have over congress and our elections knows such an amendment is very unlikely. He makes that clear when he refers to the proposal as "long term" and "even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight on the super-PAC phenomenon." The future is already written; read and weep.

If we get more candidates like Trump, this discussion becomes moot

Wait, maybe he can't speak for 60 days prior to the election since he is a corporation so to speak

-Geaux

If we get enough candidates like Trump, the constitution will be moot.

Which president has infringed most on the Constitution since FDR? Right, Obama.

Most presidents ignore the constitution. Beginning with John Adams, and proceeding to Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush, Congress has enacted and the president has signed laws that criminalized political speech, suspended habeas corpus, compelled support for war, forbade freedom of contract, allowed the government to spy on Americans without a search warrant, and used taxpayer dollars to shore up failing private banks.

You are right that Lincoln and Wilson violated the Constitution. So did FDR. Bush? No, of course not.
But that is irrelevant. That is "they all do it", one of four arguments leftists bring up to defend Obama.

 

[The Rabbi]

I recall 'Her Thighness Clinton' calling for this as well.

Seems Obama is going after the Constitution again

-Geaux
-------------------------------
(CNSNews.com) –President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations.

“Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United,” Obama wrote during a question and answer session on the website Reddit on Wednesday.

“Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”

In its decision, the Supreme Court said that the government could not restrict the free-speech rights of organizations during elections, striking down key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

That law restricted how much money independent political organizations could spend and banned them from engaging in election-related speech 60 days prior to a general election.

Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights

Is it free speech if and when it's bought and paid for? That sounds like advertising to me. In fact, it may very well be better classified as false advertising if false and intentionally defamatory claims are being made in the process. Tell me, since when is false advertising considered sacrosanct?

All they need to do is shout out "free speech is under threat" enough times, with their massive amounts of money, and people just decide to believe it. Stick in Obama and they're sure to believe it.

Perfect example of why we need to stop money controlling politics.

And the Supreme Court Citizen's United decision opens the door for corporate control of the political process.

LOL!!! You have no idea what the decision did. Go read it instead of getting your facts from Maddow.

 

[nat4900]

Is it free speech if and when it's bought and paid for? That sounds like advertising to me. In fact, it may very well be better classified as false advertising if false and intentionally defamatory claims are being made in the process. Tell me, since when is false advertising considered sacrosanct?

Well stated and right on point.....Here's a recent example regarding the Iran deal.....

There is an "ad" that keeps on popping up every half hour on most of the networks, claiming that from this deal, "Iran will receive $100 billion to buy additional nuclear materials...."

Now, to the uninformed, that ad sounds like the U.S. is forking over that huge amount of money to Iran just because..... what???? That Obama is a closet Muslim? That the state department is anti-Israel??

Anyway, I don't want to steer this important thread from its initial objective, but one can see that given the abject ignorance and biases among the electorate, FALSE and amply money-backed "free speech" can turn to demoralizing and anti-democratic propaganda.

 

[nat4900]

I'll ask again......

Will ANY right winger have the guts to define the term PLUTOCRACY and state whether the Citizen United decision enhances the onset of plutocracy.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Money has been and always will play a role in politics, the key is transparency? So who owns you? George Soros, the Unions, PAC's, special interest groups.....How can you restrict one voice and not all? What you are saying is that political contributions can buy your vote, sounds rather pathetic, doesn't it!

Transparency? Well I can go onto OpenSecrets and I can see what people get. It doesn't tell me everything, a lot of it is funneled into PACs and stuff and you can see who put in, but not necessarily what the money did, or which person it went to.

Even with this so called transparency, politicians are still bought and the majority of voters don't care.

 

[hortysir]

When you hear, "The SCOTUS has ruled. Live with it. It's the law of the land" It IS hypocritical to not say the same for another ruling the SCOTUS has made.

Dare I guess which SCOTUS rulings/decisions that somewhat reversed each other your ilk agrees with or opposes?


Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

Decreed a slave was his master's property and African Americans were not citizens; struck down the Missouri Compromise as unconstitutional.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

The Court stated that segregation was legal and constitutional as long as "facilities were equal"—the famous "separate but equal" segregation policy.


Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)

Reversed Plessy v. Ferguson "separate but equal" ruling. "egregation [in public education] is a denial of the equal protection of the laws."

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

This decision ruled that the prohibition on interracial marriage was unconstitutional. Sixteen states that still banned interracial marriage at the time were forced to revise their laws.

My "ilk"?
Which would that be?
Don't be shy. Say what you mean, bitch

 

[nat4900]

When you hear, "The SCOTUS has ruled. Live with it. It's the law of the land" It IS hypocritical to not say the same for another ruling the SCOTUS has made.

Dare I guess which SCOTUS rulings/decisions that somewhat reversed each other your ilk agrees with or opposes?


Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

Decreed a slave was his master's property and African Americans were not citizens; struck down the Missouri Compromise as unconstitutional.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

The Court stated that segregation was legal and constitutional as long as "facilities were equal"—the famous "separate but equal" segregation policy.


Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)

Reversed Plessy v. Ferguson "separate but equal" ruling. "egregation [in public education] is a denial of the equal protection of the laws."

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

This decision ruled that the prohibition on interracial marriage was unconstitutional. Sixteen states that still banned interracial marriage at the time were forced to revise their laws.

My "ilk"?
Which would that be?
Don't be shy. Say what you mean, bitch

The "bat-shit-crazy" ilk ???? LOL

 

[Syriusly]

I recall 'Her Thighness Clinton' calling for this as well.

Seems Obama is going after the Constitution again

-Geaux
-------------------------------
(CNSNews.com) –President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations.

“Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United,” Obama wrote during a question and answer session on the website Reddit on Wednesday.

“Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”

In its decision, the Supreme Court said that the government could not restrict the free-speech rights of organizations during elections, striking down key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

That law restricted how much money independent political organizations could spend and banned them from engaging in election-related speech 60 days prior to a general election.

Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights

My own personal feeling is if you can't put the 'person' in jail for violating the law- than that person shouldn't be allowed to buy off politicians.

I have no problem with either corporations or Unions not being able to 'engage' in political speech- they can't vote, they can't serve on jury duty, they can't be sent to jail- why should they be able to buy off politicians?

 

[Sallow]

Good.

 

[Mustang]

I recall 'Her Thighness Clinton' calling for this as well.

Seems Obama is going after the Constitution again

-Geaux
-------------------------------
(CNSNews.com) –President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations.

“Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United,” Obama wrote during a question and answer session on the website Reddit on Wednesday.

“Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”

In its decision, the Supreme Court said that the government could not restrict the free-speech rights of organizations during elections, striking down key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

That law restricted how much money independent political organizations could spend and banned them from engaging in election-related speech 60 days prior to a general election.

Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights

Is it free speech if and when it's bought and paid for? That sounds like advertising to me. In fact, it may very well be better classified as false advertising if false and intentionally defamatory claims are being made in the process. Tell me, since when is false advertising considered sacrosanct?

All they need to do is shout out "free speech is under threat" enough times, with their massive amounts of money, and people just decide to believe it. Stick in Obama and they're sure to believe it.

Perfect example of why we need to stop money controlling politics.

And the Supreme Court Citizen's United decision opens the door for corporate control of the political process.

LOL!!! You have no idea what the decision did. Go read it instead of getting your facts from Maddow.

I don't watch any cable news programs simply because too often there's very little information offered, and because what used to be debate has morphed into different sides offering up talking points with people on both sides considerably less concerned at what's factually true than they are at scoring some kind of transient momentary televised victory. It makes a mockery of debate and discussion. Talk radio is worse, of course, since it's nonstop propaganda which serves to offer up nonsensical arguments in an effort to garner support for phony issues which they can't win if they rely solely on facts and truth.

 

[Flopper]

I recall 'Her Thighness Clinton' calling for this as well.

Seems Obama is going after the Constitution again

-Geaux
-------------------------------
(CNSNews.com) –President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations.

“Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United,” Obama wrote during a question and answer session on the website Reddit on Wednesday.

“Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”

In its decision, the Supreme Court said that the government could not restrict the free-speech rights of organizations during elections, striking down key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

That law restricted how much money independent political organizations could spend and banned them from engaging in election-related speech 60 days prior to a general election.

Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights

Is it free speech if and when it's bought and paid for? That sounds like advertising to me. In fact, it may very well be better classified as false advertising if false and intentionally defamatory claims are being made in the process. Tell me, since when is false advertising considered sacrosanct?

All they need to do is shout out "free speech is under threat" enough times, with their massive amounts of money, and people just decide to believe it. Stick in Obama and they're sure to believe it.

Perfect example of why we need to stop money controlling politics.

And the Supreme Court Citizen's United decision opens the door for corporate control of the political process.

LOL!!! You have no idea what the decision did. Go read it instead of getting your facts from Maddow.

I've read it and know exactly what it said. Corporations, are an associations of individuals, therefore they have speech rights under the First Amendment.

 

[nat4900]

Question:

If corporations have the same rights as an individual, and since rights also carry responsibilities, what should happen when a corporation, through abject neglect of the public welfare, knowingly causes deaths?

Who should be charged, tried and convicted?

 

[Flopper]

I recall 'Her Thighness Clinton' calling for this as well.

Seems Obama is going after the Constitution again

-Geaux
-------------------------------
(CNSNews.com) –President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations.

“Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United,” Obama wrote during a question and answer session on the website Reddit on Wednesday.

“Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”

In its decision, the Supreme Court said that the government could not restrict the free-speech rights of organizations during elections, striking down key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

That law restricted how much money independent political organizations could spend and banned them from engaging in election-related speech 60 days prior to a general election.

Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights

Is it free speech if and when it's bought and paid for? That sounds like advertising to me. In fact, it may very well be better classified as false advertising if false and intentionally defamatory claims are being made in the process. Tell me, since when is false advertising considered sacrosanct?

All they need to do is shout out "free speech is under threat" enough times, with their massive amounts of money, and people just decide to believe it. Stick in Obama and they're sure to believe it.

Perfect example of why we need to stop money controlling politics.

And the Supreme Court Citizen's United decision opens the door for corporate control of the political process.

LOL!!! You have no idea what the decision did. Go read it instead of getting your facts from Maddow.

I don't watch any cable news programs simply because too often there's very little information offered, and because what used to be debate has morphed into different sides offering up talking points with people on both sides considerably less concerned at what's factually true than they are at scoring some kind of transient momentary televised victory. It makes a mockery of debate and discussion. Talk radio is worse, of course, since it's nonstop propaganda which serves to offer up nonsensical arguments in an effort to garner support for phony issues which they can't win if they rely solely on facts and truth.

Absolutely. Cable news is terrible at providing real information. What they provide is selected information that they feel will be of interest to viewers. That translates into sensationalism, opinions, and exaggerations.

 

[kiwiman127]

"President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations."

Good. Money isn't speech, and corporations aren't people. Not all that difficult to understand if you think about it, which you don't.

Then ban Trade Unions from contributions. Money isn't speech, and unions aren't people. Not at all difficult to understand if you think about it, which you don't.

Of course being an idiot hack, and unions being democrat supporters, you won't agree with this.

I have no problem banning union money at all.
What exactly we are addressing is bribing elected officials who are suppose to representing each and every constituent, instead they end up representing "dark money" from who knows where.
Of course the right is all for it as they are the bigger whores and have no problem at all with politicians for sale to the highest bidder. How patriotic of these folks.

 

[bripat9643]

Question:

If corporations have the same rights as an individual, and since rights also carry responsibilities, what should happen when a corporation, through abject neglect of the public welfare, knowingly causes deaths?

Who should be charged, tried and convicted?

Do you think all the stock holders should be charged with murder? How about if the EPA dumps pollution into a river? Should all the employees go to prison?