Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights

[bripat9643]

Guess he had to go look it up? This will help: Bill of Rights - Bill of Rights Institute

More baseless opinion.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Guess he had to go look it up? This will help: Bill of Rights - Bill of Rights Institute

More baseless opinion.

Nope...

 

[bripat9643]

Guess he had to go look it up? This will help: Bill of Rights - Bill of Rights Institute

More baseless opinion.

Nope...

Yep.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Guess he had to go look it up? This will help: Bill of Rights - Bill of Rights Institute

More baseless opinion.

Nope...

Yep.

Maybe this will help you:

“You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.”
― James Madison, The Federalist Papers

And oddly enough that's exactly what they did. They formed the government first, then passed amendments telling it to behave itself.

 

[regent]

This is like Romper-Room, imagine a teacher trying to teach how the Court slowly made corporations into people. Once the Court had discovered corporations were just people, then bingo the corporations were protected by various rights such as the Bill of Rights, and, just as importantly, corporations could now continue contributing to the political party of their choice.

 

[candycorn]

The only thing interesting about Geaux is how outlandish the lies get.

 

[nat4900]

A company isn't a human being and money isn't speech.

I am most certainly in support of going BACK to the law not recognizing a company as a human.

For over 200 years companies weren't human beings. Now, the conservatives on the supreme court have ruled that a company is human and has the right to spend as much money as they want on ads and politics without much of any oversight or disclosure.

If they're humans then they should have to follow the same laws as us humans.

From this thread alone, one would think that right wingers have never heard (or know the meaning) of such terms as oligarchy, plutocracy....or even fascism.

 

[David_42]

A company isn't a human being and money isn't speech.

I am most certainly in support of going BACK to the law not recognizing a company as a human.

For over 200 years companies weren't human beings. Now, the conservatives on the supreme court have ruled that a company is human and has the right to spend as much money as they want on ads and politics without much of any oversight or disclosure.

If they're humans then they should have to follow the same laws as us humans.

From this thread alone, one would think that right wingers have never heard (or know the meaning) of such terms as oligarchy, plutocracy....or even fascism.

Bripat has, he thinks we're living under a fascist dictatorship. (Thanks Obama)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights"

Another ridiculous lie from the right.

If the Constitution is amended to render void Citizens United, then free speech rights haven't been 'limited,' because laws regulating political campaign contributions would in fact be Constitutional.

The irony of this, of course, is that conservatives whine about the Constitution being 'changed' by court rulings – which of course is ignorant idiocy – and insist that if the Constitution is to be changed it should be done by amendment.

Now that an amendment is being proposed, conservatives are still whining and lying.

 

[Obiwan]

So Obama recommended something stupid that will never happen, sounds like a typical day for him.

Someday you'll realize that you should have hated Obama less and loved the US just a bit more.

Why???

Did his hippy momma be a true Democrat and abort his ass???

 

[Obiwan]

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

Hell...

Let's go one step further...

Let's frame a Constitutional Amendment, preventing corporations and businesses (including unions, nonprofits, etc.) from donating ANY money to politicians and political campaigns, and revoking their charters for engaging in any kind of political activity within a carefully-defined framework...

That should help to take the wind out of Corporate America's sails, when trying to buy our elected officials and lawmakers...

One of the few times that Obumble has actually come-up with a good idea...

When do we start?

Can we include the foreign governments that paid Hillary off???

 

[Moonglow]

The Founding Fathers wanted to limit corporations and never consider them persons, for the very reason that we see today...Government overly influenced by corporate interest....

And how do you feel about Unions doing this? Do you think the FF wanted Unions corrupting the Government?

You claim that an organization that consist of 7% of the workforce holds more sway on the government than the voting populace?

 

[bripat9643]

Guess he had to go look it up? This will help: Bill of Rights - Bill of Rights Institute

More baseless opinion.

Nope...

Yep.

Maybe this will help you:

“You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.”
― James Madison, The Federalist Papers

And oddly enough that's exactly what they did. They formed the government first, then passed amendments telling it to behave itself.

How does that prove that the free speech portion of the First Amendment doesn't refer to people?

 

[bripat9643]

"Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights"

Another ridiculous lie from the right.

If the Constitution is amended to render void Citizens United, then free speech rights haven't been 'limited,' because laws regulating political campaign contributions would in fact be Constitutional.

The irony of this, of course, is that conservatives whine about the Constitution being 'changed' by court rulings – which of course is ignorant idiocy – and insist that if the Constitution is to be changed it should be done by amendment.

Now that an amendment is being proposed, conservatives are still whining and lying.

So if they passed an Amendment that said the government can determine what can be said and what can't be said, would you claim that wasn't a limitation of free speech since it was now constitutional?

You really are a special kind of moron, Clayton.

 

[Obiwan]

"Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights"

Another ridiculous lie from the right.

If the Constitution is amended to render void Citizens United, then free speech rights haven't been 'limited,' because laws regulating political campaign contributions would in fact be Constitutional.

The irony of this, of course, is that conservatives whine about the Constitution being 'changed' by court rulings – which of course is ignorant idiocy – and insist that if the Constitution is to be changed it should be done by amendment.

Now that an amendment is being proposed, conservatives are still whining and lying.

So now you tell the truth...

The hell with our rights...

Bookmarked.

 

[Slyhunter]

What about the Muslim who refused to serve alchohol on the plane. If she isn't fired for it then the lady who refused to marry gays shouldn't be fired either. BTW they both should be fired not jailed.

Not even close. assuming that the Airline didn't fire him, that's kind of their perogative as a private company not to do so. This is a public official refusing to carry out a court order.

If the court ordered her to jump off the cliff you would require that she do so? Fuck this court.

 

[PredFan]

So, I guess he would include unions, and super pacs such as his own was, as well? Not likely.
Quit messing with the Constitution, period.

That is just a speculation you are making with absolutely no support for it's accuracy or truth other than your fantasy and mission to mislead and misinform.

Right. Fantasy land is where you must reside. Not once, ever, have I heard Obama, or any Dem elected officials state they want the unions to quit supporting them, because it should be illegal, as they have with Citizen's United. Try again.

I don't really care what Obama and the Democrats want. I have no problems with Unions and others being restricted the same way corporations and billionaires should be restricted.

That is fine and admirable, but that isn't what Obama wants to do. And that is what this thread is about.

Actually, that's exactly what Obama is trying to do. Unions are governed by the same campaign finance laws as corporations and other PACs.

I don't think that is true. The court case that gave free speech rights to corporations was recent yet unions have been able to contribute for decades. I'm pretty sure Obama is only talking about Citizens United.

 

[Slyhunter]

"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.

So, you're in favor (not surprised) preventing a company from airing commercials endorsing a candidate? No editorials etc,,, books....... you get my drift

Scary stuff

-Geaux

A company isn't a human being and money isn't speech.

I am most certainly in support of going BACK to the law not recognizing a company as a human.

For over 200 years companies weren't human beings. Now, the conservatives on the supreme court have ruled that a company is human and has the right to spend as much money as they want on ads and politics without much of any oversight or disclosure.

If they're humans then they should have to follow the same laws as us humans.

The company's stock holders are humans and the company is acting in their interest. Just like Unions.

 

[nat4900]

Now that an amendment is being proposed, conservatives are still whining and lying.

Whining and lying is what right wingers have "mastered" during the last 7 years.

 

[PredFan]

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

You mean he wants an amendment that brings democracy to the US?

No, he is calling for an amendment that gives his party an unfair advantage over his opponents.

How does it provide an unfair advantage exactly? Because big money is less likely to buy Democrats then Republic? Not really, they'll pay who ever is in charge to get them to do what they want. Defense will give to both as will health services and just about any other.

The point being that as long as big money controls politicians, then what will change?

Nothing. it's not democracy.

How does it exactly? He wants to get around or eliminate Citizens United. Leaving the union big money contributions which overwhelmingly go to democrats alone. If he wanted to get rid of the influence of big money entirely across the board is be fine with it. That is not what he wants to do. He wantsto cripple the GOP's ability to raise money to the extent that the democrats do.