Pelosi: Amend the First Amendment

[William Joyce]

Pelosi: Amend the First Amendment | American Renaissance

wow.

 

[Oddball]

“I’ve introduced a People’s Rights Amendment, which is very simple and straightforward,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D.-Mass.) said at the forum. “It would make clear that all corporate entities, for-profit and non-profit alike, are not people with constitutional rights.

“It treats all corporations, including incorporated unions and nonprofits, in the same way, as artificial creatures of the state that we, the people, govern, not the other way around,” said McGovern.

Appears as though these tools are too stupid to realize that this would include the congress and every other federal bureaucracy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

“I’ve introduced a People’s Rights Amendment, which is very simple and straightforward,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D.-Mass.) said at the forum. “It would make clear that all corporate entities, for-profit and non-profit alike, are not people with constitutional rights.

“It treats all corporations, including incorporated unions and nonprofits, in the same way, as artificial creatures of the state that we, the people, govern, not the other way around,” said McGovern.

Appears as though these tools are too stupid to realize that this would include the congress and every other federal bureaucracy.

Interesting but government is not a business organization as are corporations. Such an objection would be laughed out of court,

 

[Oddball]

“I’ve introduced a People’s Rights Amendment, which is very simple and straightforward,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D.-Mass.) said at the forum. “It would make clear that all corporate entities, for-profit and non-profit alike, are not people with constitutional rights.

“It treats all corporations, including incorporated unions and nonprofits, in the same way, as artificial creatures of the state that we, the people, govern, not the other way around,” said McGovern.

Appears as though these tools are too stupid to realize that this would include the congress and every other federal bureaucracy.

Interesting but government is not a business organization as are corporations. Such an objection would be laughed out of court,

The District of Columbia Corporation is......a corporation.

From the Federal Archives:

351.1 ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY

Established: Effective June 1, 1871, by an act of February 21, 1871 (16 Stat. 419), abolishing the Corporations of the City of Washington, DC, and Georgetown, DC, and the Levy Court of Washington County, DC; and replacing them with a municipal corporation known as the District of Columbia.

Records of the Government of the District of Columbia

You are now officially laughed out of court.

 

[Oddball]

so what? Amending it is an issue, but repealing whole amendments is A-OK?

Okie dokie

Where is the constitutional provision for amending an amendment?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Totalitarians will not tolerate Free Speech

 

[JakeStarkey]

So the answer is that government agencies that are incorporated are exempt from the proposed amendment.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Every person on the planet should always be very wary when they hear anyoone in power say the words "people's rights"....which historically is the opposite of what they are saying.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Interesting but government is not a business organization as are corporations. Such an objection would be laughed out of court,

Most municipal governments are corporations.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Interesting but government is not a business organization as are corporations. Such an objection would be laughed out of court,

Most municipal governments are corporations.

Oddball pointed that out above and I suggested an amendment to the concept of an amendment to the amendment.

 

[Jackson]

The constitutional amendment the Democrats seek would reverse the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In that decision the court said that the First Amendment protects a right of free speech for corporations as well as for individuals, and that corporations (including those that produce newspapers, films and books) have a right to speak about politicians and their records just as individuals do.

And we wouldn't want that especially in this election, would we Nancy?

 

[George Costanza]

"Reducing the role of money in campaigns" is mentioned as one of the aims of this proposed legislation.

Anyone care to argue FOR the role of money in campaigns?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"Reducing the role of money in campaigns" is mentioned as one of the aims of this proposed legislation.

Anyone care to argue FOR the role of money in campaigns?

Except for prohibitions against foreign sources of contributions, insofar as they can be enforced, and, subsequently, the need for disclosure, there are no good reasons for limiting the amount of money that a free people may contribute to any cause, particularly one that touches on the free-expression of ideas and the pursuit of political goals; attempts to limit the amount of campaign contributions are arbitrary and corrupting. Criminalization of that which is not criminal or contrary to the integrity of our national sovereignty is stupid and, ultimately, motivated by a lust for power and control over the dissemination of information--to usurp or quash.

 

[George Costanza]

"Reducing the role of money in campaigns" is mentioned as one of the aims of this proposed legislation.

Anyone care to argue FOR the role of money in campaigns?

Except for prohibitions against foreign sources of contributions, insofar as they can be enforced, and, subsequently, the need for disclosure, there are no good reasons for limiting the amount of money that a free people may contribute to any cause, particularly one that touches on the free-expression of ideas and the pursuit of political goals; attempts to limit the amount of campaign contributions are arbitrary and corrupting. Criminalization of that which is not criminal or contrary to the integrity of our national sovereignty is stupid and, ultimately, motivated by a lust for power and control over the dissemination of information--to usurp or quash.

The thing is, money BUYS stuff - like political influence. Not everyone out there wants things that benefit everyone else. Some folks want things that only benefit them and actually hurt others. Such folks have been known to give large amounts of money to politicians who get elected and then reciprocate, by giving the original guys what they wanted to begin with.

Seems to me this is one very good reason for limiting the amount of money people can contribute to a cause.

 

[Staidhup]

What next, the czar of political information and education appointed by the president during the next recess named Joseph Goebbels? Freedom of speech is essential in the preservation of one's freedom. But then again what would we ever do with out Pelosi telling us how to live and think. Just another example of where the real nut cases are in politics.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What next, the czar of political information and education appointed by the president during the next recess named Joseph Goebbels? Freedom of speech is essential in the preservation of one's freedom. But then again what would we ever do with out Pelosi telling us how to live and think. Just another example of where the real nut cases are in politics.

You would make sure free speech existed? Laughter rings through the universe.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"Reducing the role of money in campaigns" is mentioned as one of the aims of this proposed legislation.

Anyone care to argue FOR the role of money in campaigns?

Except for prohibitions against foreign sources of contributions, insofar as they can be enforced, and, subsequently, the need for disclosure, there are no good reasons for limiting the amount of money that a free people may contribute to any cause, particularly one that touches on the free-expression of ideas and the pursuit of political goals; attempts to limit the amount of campaign contributions are arbitrary and corrupting. Criminalization of that which is not criminal or contrary to the integrity of our national sovereignty is stupid and, ultimately, motivated by a lust for power and control over the dissemination of information--to usurp or quash.

The thing is, money BUYS stuff - like political influence. Not everyone out there wants things that benefit everyone else. Some folks want things that only benefit them and actually hurt others. Such folks have been known to give large amounts of money to politicians who get elected and then reciprocate, by giving the original guys what they wanted to begin with.

Seems to me this is one very good reason for limiting the amount of money people can contribute to a cause.

Well, sure, but it's impossible to stop that sort of thing in any event. All attempts to do so will fail.

 

[Cecilie1200]

so what? Amending it is an issue, but repealing whole amendments is A-OK?

Okie dokie

Where is the constitutional provision for amending an amendment?

It's the same process. An Amendment to the Constitution is, by definition, part of the Constitution. It gets changed the same way any other part of the Constitution does: you add an Amendment changing those provisions you want changed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Reducing the role of money in campaigns" is mentioned as one of the aims of this proposed legislation.

Anyone care to argue FOR the role of money in campaigns?

You have a problem with the right to support political candidates and issues you believe in?

 

[California Girl]

Interesting but government is not a business organization as are corporations. Such an objection would be laughed out of court,

Most municipal governments are corporations.

Oddball pointed that out above and I suggested an amendment to the concept of an amendment to the amendment.

So basically, you think the government should legislate who gets the right of free speech? Uhhhhmmmm, no. Rights are not for the government to decide. They are.... what's that phrase..... 'endowed by our Creator'. The government - and you - can go fuck yourselves and your plan to destroy free speech.