The 28th amendment

[Truthmatters]

Amendment XXVIII

Section 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, the First Amendment shall not be construed to limit the authority of Congress and the States to define, regulate, and restrict the spending and other activity of any corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity created by state or federal law or the law of another nation.

Section 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

 

[rightwinger]

good luck

 

[Truthmatters]

It sure would match the founders intentions

 

[ihopehefails]

Amendment XXVIII

Section 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, the First Amendment shall not be construed to limit the authority of Congress and the States to define, regulate, and restrict the spending and other activity of any corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity created by state or federal law or the law of another nation.

Section 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

Basically we are going to write an amendment that cuts into the first amendment? And free democracy...WTF? Isn't disallowing anyone from participating in the political process for whatever reason violate a 'free democracy'.

Even NAMBLA has the right to express their views...

 

[Avatar4321]

You seriously want to try to pass an amendment that will limit free speech? Good luck. But Im going to be opposed to you.

 

[Darkwind]

Amendment XXVIII

Section 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, the First Amendment shall not be construed to limit the authority of Congress and the States to define, regulate, and restrict the spending and other activity of any corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity created by state or federal law or the law of another nation.

Section 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

No.

 

[beowolfe]

Amendment XXVIII

Section 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, the First Amendment shall not be construed to limit the authority of Congress and the States to define, regulate, and restrict the spending and other activity of any corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity created by state or federal law or the law of another nation.

Section 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

Basically we are going to write an amendment that cuts into the first amendment? And free democracy...WTF? Isn't disallowing anyone from participating in the political process for whatever reason violate a 'free democracy'.

Even NAMBLA has the right to express their views...

Let me try this one more time. The CEO of IBM, its employees and its shareholders will not have any of their rights infringed upon. But IBM would have no rights because it is not human. So, the CEO would not be able to dip into IBM's corporate checkbook and pay directly for political ads. That would take us back to where we were before this cockeyed decision by the SCOTUS. BTW, you used the word 'anyone'. A corporation isn't 'anyone'. It's a thing. So, you see, noone would be denied participation in the political process.

 

[Truthmatters]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


This would be completely in line with the constitution.

 

[Darkwind]

Amendment XXVIII

Section 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, the First Amendment shall not be construed to limit the authority of Congress and the States to define, regulate, and restrict the spending and other activity of any corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity created by state or federal law or the law of another nation.

Section 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

Basically we are going to write an amendment that cuts into the first amendment? And free democracy...WTF? Isn't disallowing anyone from participating in the political process for whatever reason violate a 'free democracy'.

Even NAMBLA has the right to express their views...

Let me try this one more time. The CEO of IBM, its employees and its shareholders will not have any of their rights infringed upon. But IBM would have no rights because it is not human. So, the CEO would not be able to dip into IBM's corporate checkbook and pay directly for political ads. That would take us back to where we were before this cockeyed decision by the SCOTUS. BTW, you used the word 'anyone'. A corporation isn't 'anyone'. It's a thing. So, you see, noone would be denied participation in the political process.

Again, no.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

There is no 28th amendment. God your stupid.

 

[Annie]

There is no 28th amendment. God your stupid.

Seems she's advocating the next amendment, one that limits the first.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

There is no 28th amendment. God your stupid.

Seems she's advocating the next amendment, one that limits the first.

Love the preciseness. I think she is hoping that we're all so stupid we now think that the SCOTUS was wrong.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

There is no 28th amendment. God your stupid.

Seems she's advocating the next amendment, one that limits the first.

Given your assumption, wouldn't that be unconstitutional as well? Seems the 1st amendment is pretty clear on that subject.

 

[ihopehefails]

Amendment XXVIII

Section 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, the First Amendment shall not be construed to limit the authority of Congress and the States to define, regulate, and restrict the spending and other activity of any corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity created by state or federal law or the law of another nation.

Section 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

Basically we are going to write an amendment that cuts into the first amendment? And free democracy...WTF? Isn't disallowing anyone from participating in the political process for whatever reason violate a 'free democracy'.

Even NAMBLA has the right to express their views...

Let me try this one more time. The CEO of IBM, its employees and its shareholders will not have any of their rights infringed upon. But IBM would have no rights because it is not human. So, the CEO would not be able to dip into IBM's corporate checkbook and pay directly for political ads. That would take us back to where we were before this cockeyed decision by the SCOTUS. BTW, you used the word 'anyone'. A corporation isn't 'anyone'. It's a thing. So, you see, noone would be denied participation in the political process.

We know a corporation is not a person! We get that but are you aware that first amendment starts out with "congress shall pass no law..."? It means that congress can't pass a law restraining the speech of anything and that includes animated and inanimated objects such as a corporation or a chair.

A law that bans the free speech of a pile shit is still unconstitutional because it refers to the actions that congress may take not what objects it is being applied to.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Basically we are going to write an amendment that cuts into the first amendment? And free democracy...WTF? Isn't disallowing anyone from participating in the political process for whatever reason violate a 'free democracy'.

Even NAMBLA has the right to express their views...

Let me try this one more time. The CEO of IBM, its employees and its shareholders will not have any of their rights infringed upon. But IBM would have no rights because it is not human. So, the CEO would not be able to dip into IBM's corporate checkbook and pay directly for political ads. That would take us back to where we were before this cockeyed decision by the SCOTUS. BTW, you used the word 'anyone'. A corporation isn't 'anyone'. It's a thing. So, you see, noone would be denied participation in the political process.

We know a corporation is not a person! We get that but are you aware that first amendment starts out with "congress shall pass no law..."? It means that congress can't pass a law restraining the speech of anything and that includes animated and inanimated objects such as a corporation or a chair.

A law that bans the free speech of a pile shit is still unconstitutional because it refers to the actions that congress may take not what objects it is being applied to.

The 1st amendment forbids any law that limits freedom of speech.. PERIOD. The 1st amendment does not get into who/what is protected. It matters not, for obvious reasons.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Could you imagine the Bushies proposing an amendment limiting free speech?

Jesus.... these wingnuts would be shitting themselves! They'd require hospitalization!

 

[Avatar4321]

What makes me seriously laugh is the idea that somehow it was the original intent of our founders to not want everyone to have free speech and that's why we should pass this amendment. What kind of stupid person could possibly believe that?

 

[Father Time]

It sure would match the founders intentions

I'm sure if the founders wanted it to only apply to individuals they would've said it was a right of the people not a general right.

What part of 'no law' don't you understand?

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

What part of 'no law' don't you understand?

So there should be no laws that proscribe slander or libel. Perjury, fuck that shit, I can say what I want to. Any commercial speech should obviously be impervious to any kind of regulation or laws. I can see it now; Viagra: Get a hard on and cure cancer at the same time!!! And there should be no law against the whole yelling fire in a movie theater scenario or threatening language.

Yeah, I do believe that there are some forms of speech that can be regulated.

 

[slackjawed]

Amendment XXVIII

Section 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, the First Amendment shall not be construed to limit the authority of Congress and the States to define, regulate, and restrict the spending and other activity of any corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity created by state or federal law or the law of another nation.

Section 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOGpyz2F2t4]YouTube - The Incredible Laughing Midget!!!!!![/ame]