Pelosi: Amend the First Amendment

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gilliam

Guest
“We have a clear agenda in this regard: [DISCLOSE], reform the system reducing the [role] of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to use secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns,” Pelosi said at her Thursday press briefing.

“I think one of the presenters [at a Democratic forum on amending the Constitution] yesterday said that the Supreme Court had unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system, and that, indeed, is not an exaggeration,” said Pelosi. “Our Founders had an idea. It was called democracy. It said elections are determined by the people, the voice and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. This Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our Founders’ vision and we want to reverse it.”

…

“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.

Rep. Donna Edwards (D.-Md.) explained the basic principle this move to amend the Constitution is advancing.

cnsnews.com/news/article/pelosi-amend-first-amendment
 
I have to admit that I think they have a point. Treating soulless corporations as “persons” with rights is absurd.
 
St_Francis said:
I have to admit that I think they have a point. Treating soulless corporations as “persons” with rights is absurd.
Click to expand...
In other words, news organizations should not have recourse to the freedom of the press outlined in the First Ammendment.

I suppose that a journalist could just stand out on the street corner themselves handing out their own person articles. But it would mean that the government could tell a news org, like the NYT or Wash Post what it could, and could not publish.

After all, a corporation would have no rights under the First Ammendment.

Sorry, I’d rather not live in a world like that.
 
What a hoot this is. Here is Ms. Pelosi, from the article:

“We have a clear agenda in this regard: Disclose, reform the system reducing the roll of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to use secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns,” Pelosi said at her Thursday press briefing."

Now, this is the woman who, because of her control of vast funding, made many Democrats “walk the plank” to pass Obamacare, and threatened them with financing their opponents if they didn’t.

One has to wonder how she differentiates between corporations and mega-rich people who own corporations and fund organizations that are entirely political in their nature; people like Buffett and Soros. One might be forgiven for imagining that she will carve out exceptions that allow them and their PACs and their “grass roots organizations” to continue their political actions unabated.
 
I wonder how many currently serving elected officials would go for something like this… I can’t think of a politician who would benefit by such an amendment. Not to sound jaded… but alot of these politicians talk a good game, but the final score usually indicates just whose side they’re on.
 
How interesting that Democrats only seemed to turn against the Supreme Court after the ObamaCare hearing.
 
“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.
Click to expand...
I can also see this as being a response to the Stop HHS Mandate movement. After all, every diocese, Catholic university and Catholic hospital are registered a non-profit corps, as well as most parishes and schools.

So the Catholic Church itself would not have any protection under the First Ammendment.

Gee, Pelosi seems to want to get rid of a lot of political opponents in one fell swoop, doesn’t she.
 
As long as the Democrat Party is slicing up the Bill of Rights, surely they wouldn’t stop with the corporate contributions issue – given that freedom of religion is already under governmental attack, as is the right to bear arms.

To erode rights of corporations would seem to open the door to governmental take-over of any business a socialist regime might want to target - nationalizing oil companies, power companies, any industry whose operations didn’t fit the narrative of whatever administration might be in power. Talk about a slippery slope.
 
said Pelosi. “Our Founders had an idea. It was called democracy. It said elections are determined by the people, the voice and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. This Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our Founders’ vision and we want to reverse it.”
Click to expand...
No, the Founding Fathers founded a Republic, not a Democracy. They were anti-Democracy.

United States Was Founded as a Constitutional Republic and Not a Democracy
In a democracy, observed James Madison in The Federalist Papers , “there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention [and] have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.”
Click to expand...
An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic
These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.
Click to expand...
Nor did they believe that the government should be chosen by all the people. When the Constitution was written, voting was restricted to white, male property owners.

It is a ploy, allegedly aimed at corporations, to eliminate the First Amendment.

It is corporations law that gives corporations the rights of persons. If you want to take these rights away from corporations, then amend corporations law.

The fact that she is aiming rather at the First Amendment which protects the rights of persons looks, to me anyway, like she is really after taking away everyone’s right to free speech.
 
Nothing she says surprises me. Ms. Pelosi quite obviously became untethered from reality a good long time ago.
 
Pelosi, once again exhibits unmittigated gall when she rants against corporations and large organizations like the NRA having the financial clout to oppose her party. Especially when Obama has raised close to a Billion dollars in his war chest!!!
Far more than any organization or group of corporations can spend during the forthcoming campaign.
What no one has brought up yet is that an important part of the First Amendment is Religious Freedom; that is, the separation of church and state.
Obama and Pelosies “Obamacare” clearly violates this by requiring Catholic, Orthodox Christian and many Jewish charitable and medical organizations to provide medical insurance that clearly violates their religious beliefs.
Bear also in mind, the Pelosi is one of the key Anti-Second Amendment (pro Gun Control) members of Congress.
When is Pelosi’s constituancy in the Peoples Republik of Kalifornia going to realize that any politician who wants to tamper with The Bill of Rights should forfeit their right to hold public office?
The danger lurking within the Obama left-wingers is the first possibility of a political coup in the history of the United States…and it will probably be attempted by the Department of Homeland Security.
 
Brendan said:
In other words, news organizations should not have recourse to the freedom of the press outlined in the First Ammendment.

I suppose that a journalist could just stand out on the street corner themselves handing out their own person articles. But it would mean that the government could tell a news org, like the NYT or Wash Post what it could, and could not publish.

After all, a corporation would have no rights under the First Ammendment.

Sorry, I’d rather not live in a world like that.
Click to expand...
First, I am against corporations being treated as persons at all. I do not believe that multiple remote ownership of business entities is a good idea because it dissipates moral responsibility.

Linda Marie actually understands my point, and suggests that it be addressed through corporate law rather than through a Constitutional amendment. Thanks, Linda Marie!

From what was described, I thought Pelosi was reacting to Citizens United v FEC. The problem is that multinational and other large corporations, by virtue of the fact that they have a ton of money, have a disproportionate influence on US politics. There are already restrictions on political speech for non-profit corporations such as the Catholic Church and other Catholic non-profits.

If the Catholic Church cannot tell its members who to vote for, then why should Exxon be able to? If the Catholic Church cannot participate in politics, why should WalMart be able to exert its influence politically?

Corporations which are publishers of books or newspapers should, imo, be in a different category, because they are the press whose rights are to be protected under the First Amendment.

So I will amend my statement to agree with Linda Marie’s–we need to have changes in corporate law, not in the Constitution.
 
Pelosi needs to read the whole document first without using Cliffs Notes.
 
Linda_Marie said:
No, the Founding Fathers founded a Republic, not a Democracy. They were anti-Democracy.

United States Was Founded as a Constitutional Republic and Not a Democracy

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

Nor did they believe that the government should be chosen by all the people. When the Constitution was written, voting was restricted to white, male property owners.

It is a ploy, allegedly aimed at corporations, to eliminate the First Amendment.

It is corporations law that gives corporations the rights of persons. If you want to take these rights away from corporations, then amend corporations law.

The fact that she is aiming rather at the First Amendment which protects the rights of persons looks, to me anyway, like she is really after taking away everyone’s right to free speech.
Click to expand...
Nancy’s reply?
youtube.com/watch?v=Dx32b5igLwA

This is the most anti-American administration in our history. If Obama’s not tripping over himself to help the OIC attack our free speech, it’s this?..or the 2nd amendment?..or religious freedoms?

Unbelievable…

:mad:
 
Caldera said:
Nancy’s reply?
youtube.com/watch?v=Dx32b5igLwA

This is the most anti-American administration in our history. If Obama’s not tripping over himself to help the OIC attack our free speech, it’s this?..or the 2nd amendment?..or religious freedoms?

Unbelievable…

:mad:
Click to expand...
At least some of these progressives are starting to openly show their contempt for the Constitution
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
At least some of these progressives are starting to openly show their contempt for the Constitution
Click to expand...
Right… but are people listening? This is such a scary time right now. It really is. When our own government seeks to implode everything that this country stands for. I love my country but at this point I do truly fear my government.
 
Brendan said:
In other words, news organizations should not have recourse to the freedom of the press outlined in the First Ammendment.

I suppose that a journalist could just stand out on the street corner themselves handing out their own person articles. But it would mean that the government could tell a news org, like the NYT or Wash Post what it could, and could not publish.

After all, a corporation would have no rights under the First Ammendment.

Sorry, I’d rather not live in a world like that.
Click to expand...
You do live in a world like that. You don’t live in a country like that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top