Pelosi: Amend the First Amendment !!!

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by Indigo5

 

It would go at the end of the list...you can't re-write an amendment. The first stands. You can repeal an amendment, but that takes some heavy listing and an overwhelming majority of the public to make happen.

Do you think the "new" amendment would create a "double negative" ?
(conflicting language with the 1st)

No. That assumption is based on "Speech" being intended by the founders to include corporations.

This would not be conflicting language with the first amendment unless you first assume that the founders were not specifically referring to "the people" when the enshrined "speech".

This amendment would be affirming the intent of the word "speech" and those proposing the amendment would argue that neccessary given the activist interpretation of the SCOTUS.

No one has addressed the obvious. If the Founders intended "speech" to include entities at large and all things, then why did they immediately follow up with protecting "the press" as well?

If someone says...The rights of dogs to run free are never to be infringed upon...and then follows it with also extending those rights to lions...we can assume that the author obviously did not intend the word "dog" to include all four legged animals.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
and satisfying yourself that all Pelosi, et al, want to do is limit free speech to "natural born persons".

In as much that that I would like to limit the definition of "person" to living, breathing, human beings, yes...I would like to limit the definition.

You have yet to answer my basic question, here or in past threads.

If the founders had intended "free Speech" to include media originating from legal entities, why then did they also choose to include "freedom of the press" in the firrst amendment?

Would not that have been covered under "Speech"?

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
I'm not sure if Pelosi or the ATS members understand that over 2/3rds of all Corporations in the United States are S-Corps. namely individual citizens that have incorporated for various reasons, such as to protect private assets, or for tax purposes. Enacting such legislation would then prohibit free speech for such INDIVIDUALS.

A patently false statement.

It would limit those legal entities they created from funding political campaigns and ads.

Their ability to contribute, speak or campaign as persons remains entirely untouched. Their individual rights to free speech are wholey intact. The S-Corp that they created is not them. If it was they would not have created that legal entity to shield themselves from personal liability and offer themselves the best construct for profit. I own 3 S-Corps...they are not me, they are legal constructs.

Their ability to contribute, speak or campaign as persons remains entirely untouched.

reply to post by Indigo5


Believe what you wish. The ENTIRE PROBLEM with Pelosi and the current administration is that they IGNORE the law, or twist it to suit their purpose, then manage to get a sympathetic judge to rule in their favor. Until the Supreme Court decides to uphold the Constitution of the US, something they have ignored in large part(just take a look at Eminent Domain rulings and how they have twisted their interpretation), no law or definition of law is safe.
Wake up and smell the roses. The Law and Constitution are being systematically destroyed, piece by piece.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus

Their ability to contribute, speak or campaign as persons remains entirely untouched.

reply to post by Indigo5

 

Believe what you wish.

Beliefs have nothing to do with your last post being entirely false...and your unsubstantiated rant of a rebuttal was unrelated to either your original claim or my responding post showing it as false. So I will choose to "believe" you are unable to defend the claim that anyone owning a Sub-S corporation would have thier right to "free speech" eliminated.

reply to post by xuenchen


Unreal! Agree to do one thing, and then proceed to do another.

Keep their fingers off!!!
Irresponsible people with authority must be watched closely...

So I will choose to "believe" you are unable to defend the claim that anyone owning a Sub-S corporation would have thier right to "free speech" eliminated.

reply to post by Indigo5

Nancy Pelosi is trying to:

allow Congress to regulate political speech when it is engaged in by corporations as opposed to individuals

as quoted in the OP.
Since:

By granting corporations the same generous provisions of rights given to citizens, they are protected from government action to restrict them that might otherwise be popular with the voting public.

www.ehow.com...

Pelosi wants to overturn that provision, and since an S-Corp is an individual, their right of free speech would be restricted. One cannot separate the individual from the S-Corp. Furthermore, all the government has to do, to pierce the veil in your S-Corp is claim commingling of funds with political activity, if Pelosi succeeds.

Furthermore, I won't respond to someone who makes comments like this:

and your unsubstantiated rant

because you do not accept what I said, so have a nice life. I don't bother with rude people. I suggest you tone down your rhetoric. It certainly won't bring you any business as an S-Corp.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


The S-Corp issue brings another question.

What about business owner(s) who file Sch C or Partnership tax returns.

And what about Trusts and Real Estate Trusts that own things and have incomes and file tax returns.

How are they affected by this new proposal ?

Many Trusts contribute to politicians.



I am beginning to think this whole "proposal" is a P.R. stunt to appease their targeted supporters and voters.

I truly am not convinced these people are genuinely interested in the concept.


They leave too many questions with no clear answers. Not the best way to "sell" something as important as a Constitutional Amendment !!

And I would question their judgment also. Did they think the conservative groups would just sit still


If I didn't know better, I would say this looks like a tank job to rally the conservatives !!

Many Democrats have been using that tactic lately. Hmmm.

reply to post by xuenchen


Don't kid yourself, conservatives are no friend of the First Amendment, hence the protests at all the mosques around the united states lately.

Don't act all offended when liberals do the exact same thing that conservatives have done. That's just hypocrisy.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


Considering that corporations are not owned exclusively by U.S. citizens, or controlled by U.S. citizens, they should not participate in our election process.

Participation in the U.S. election process should be limited to living breathing U.S. citizens,

and we are foolish if we don't do something to keep the ICBs from running our election process.

Considering that corporations are not owned exclusively by U.S. citizens, or controlled by U.S. citizens, they should not participate in our election process.

reply to post by poet1b

What does that have to do, with the issues I brought up? Your point has nothing to do with what we are talking about, either way.A non-resident S- Corp participant(with a green card or substantially present at least 183 days a year(a REQUIREMENT to participate in an S-Corp)) , or a non-resident as a NON-participant of an S-Corp, has no right to participate in the election process. The S-Corp issue does not affect that.

If I didn't know better, I would say this looks like a tank job to rally the conservatives !!

reply to post by xuenchen

Let me get this straight. You believe that Pelosi has brought this issue up to rally conservatives? I'm beginning to wonder about what is going on, in this thread, with logic.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus

Pelosi wants to overturn that provision, and since an S-Corp is an individual, their right of free speech would be restricted. One cannot separate the individual from the S-Corp.

This is either ignorance or dishonesty? It is a "flat earth" statement.

The precise nature of an S-Corp is to create a legal entity seperate from an individual, soley for the purposes of profit, taxation and liability.

An "S-Corporation" is a regular corporation that has between 1 and 100 shareholders.

Those shareholders may consist of individuals, estates, organizations, and trusts.

Is an estate, organization or trust an "Individual"?

Those shareholders are not liable for the corporation's debts merely because of their ownership.

Are "individuals" liable for their own debts? Cuz the individuals, estates and organizations that are shareholders are not liable for the debt of the S-Corp

For that matter...are 1-100 shareholders consisting of individuals, organizations and trusts...an "Individual"?

The personal assets of the shareholders of an S Corporation are separate from the business's assets and are therefore protected in case any judgments occur against the business.

Do the courts view an S-Corp as an individual? Does the IRS? Are the owners of an S-Corp liable for the S-Corp debts or court judgements? Does an S-Corp vote? Does an S-Corp eat? Respirate?

When an S-Corp is disolved...do the shareholders die?

AN S-CORP IS PRECISELY NOT A PERSON OR AN INDIVIDUAL...THAT IS WHY PEOPLE CREATE THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

"S-Corp is an individual" "One cannot separate the individual from the S-Corp"

Is just as credible as...

"An Automobile is an individual" "One cannot seperate an automobile from an individual"...therefore Automobiles are people.

It amazes me how often folks abuse thier own logic centers to defend thier "feelings".

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
I suggest you tone down your rhetoric. It certainly won't bring you any business as an S-Corp.

This is like saying "I suggest you drive slower so you don't strain a hamstring"

I speak as an individual and I conduct business, very sucessfully through my various S-Corporations.

Your inability to understand the fundemenatal difference between a business or corporation and an individual is frankly shocking.

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
I am all for disclosure, would like to see where the money is coming from on both sides. But the Koch Brothers supported right will fight this tooth and nail. Koch Brothers motto "Give us no regulations, and we will pollute the world better than BP"

the republicans do not want a democracy anymore, they want an oligarchy, they want the middle class to disappear and become poor, and they want the poor to die off. they want only the wealthy to rule.
every piece of their own legislation in the last 30 years has been pointing in this direction, i don't listen to their words, i see what laws they pass, and they all favor the above.

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by ProfEmeritus

 

The S-Corp issue brings another question.

What about business owner(s) who file Sch C or Partnership tax returns.

And what about Trusts and Real Estate Trusts that own things and have incomes and file tax returns.

How are they affected by this new proposal ?

Many Trusts contribute to politicians.

It does not effect those "Business Owners" at all...they may contribute and be as politically active with thier money and speech as they choose.

That "Trust" or Partnership (LLC)..(Limted Liability Corporation)...will not be treated as an individual excersising free-speech....cuz they AREN'T

Originally posted by xuenchen
I am beginning to think this whole "proposal" is a P.R. stunt to appease their targeted supporters and voters.

I truly am not convinced these people are genuinely interested in the concept.

I think they ARE interested in the "concept" AND it is largely a PR stunt...no more than Paul Ryan's budget proposals etc. etc. The goal is often to create a launching pad.

To Amend the constitution requires 2/3 majority agreement from both parties and both houses as well as the individual states. OF COURSE this is not going to happen in the most partisan climate in 50 years. OF COURSE the goal is to raise awareness, provoke debate and get politicians to commit to a position and defend that position etc.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


That corporations are not people, and not U.S. citizens, has everything to do with the issue. It is the crux of the issue.

You just don't like the fact that you have been proven wrong.

fundemenatal

reply to post by Indigo5

I'm sure you impress your customers of these alleged S-Corps you have, with your spelling and grammar. Your logic and your cohort poet1b, are not worth my time anymore. YOU are NOT addressing the OP issue, but have diverted the conversation to the point of "gotchas". Have a nice day.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus

If I didn't know better, I would say this looks like a tank job to rally the conservatives !!

reply to post by xuenchen

 

Let me get this straight. You believe that Pelosi has brought this issue up to rally conservatives? I'm beginning to wonder about what is going on, in this thread, with logic.

Relax. Relax.

It was pseudo sarcasm.

But the issue and the way it is being presented is riling up conservatives !

Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may sue and be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. This doctrine in turn forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are "people" in the literal sense, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights attendant on individuals.

en.wikipedia.org...

So what the hell are liberals and Pelosi crying about?