It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Respect for the independence of the judiciary is a principle deeply embedded in our Constitution and reaffirmed by case law for more than two centuries.
As I wrote in a 2005 Tribune op-ed, "an independent judicial branch was integral to our Founding Fathers' inspired design of government."
It is with respect for the fundamental American value of judicial review that Democrats wrote and Congress passed health care reform. We believe it is constitutionally sound.
On the other hand, Republicans have had a long-standing opposition to judicial review — until now.
Respecting the Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court
(CNSNews.com) – Democratic Representatives Donna Edwards (D-Md.) and John Conyers (D-Mich.) renewed their call for a constitutional amendment that would limit the First Amendment rights of political action groups and corporations by overturning the Citizens United decision.
see a video ... warning: idiots are visible in the video !!
Edwards and Conyers are the chief sponsors of an amendment that would repeal Citizens United and restrict the free-speech rights of political groups. They, along with several House and Senate Democrats appeared at a conference of liberal groups on Wednesday focused on amending the Constitution to repeal Citizens United.
[color=cyan]When asked by CNSNews.com what type of political speech the government could control, Edwards said that since Citizens United it could not regulate political speech and that was the problem.
“In Citizens United what the Supreme Court said was that Congress has no authority to regulate this kind of political speech,” she said. ‘And so all these constitutional amendments go to this question of giving Congress the authority that the Supreme Court, I think, wrongly decided, isn’t within Congress’ constitutional purview.”
Originally posted by tkwasny
So if your in talk radio you are a spokesman or rep. for that corporate, thus you cannot speak while an employee of the corporation that is needed to provide the means to put your voice on the air. Using a Bible thingie, when "two or more are gathered..." they will be deemed a corporation and will not be allowed to speak when gathered together. Only if one person all alone on a soap box when no one is near, on their own time, not employed by anyone can they speak freely.
What founders does she speak of? Our founding fathers of this United States of America specifically rejected "Democracy" as a form of Government. Is Nancy trying to covertly change our form of government like so many before her?
Our founders had an idea, its called democracy
The Founding Fathers universally rejected democracy and hoped that posterity would never turn the United States into one. The word they used was Republic, which is not synonymous with Democracy. The word Democracy is not in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. Even the Pledge of Allegiance is to the Republic for which it stands.
Benjamin Franklin defined democracy as two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.
Section 2. People, person, or persons as used in this Constitution does not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.
Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.
“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.
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), the original sponsor of the People’s Rights Amendment in Congress, spoke at the Congressional Summit on Overturning Citizens United, held on Capitol Hill today.
His complete remarks follow.
· I want to thank the other Members who spoke before me, Marge, all of the panelists and everyone who had a role in making today’s summit happen. It is a testament to how important it is to overturn Citizens United.
· The Citizens United marked the most extreme example of the so-called corporate personhood movement, where corporations assert fabricated rights under the Constitution to strike down public interest laws protecting the environment, health care, consumer rights, civil rights, and now elections.
· Corporations are not people. They do not breathe. They do not have children. They do not die in war. They are artificial entities which we the people create and, as such, we govern them, not the other way around.
· My “People’s Rights Amendment” is simple and straightforward. 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 non-profits, in the same way: as artificial creatures of the state that we the people govern, not the other way around.
· Let me make clear - the People’s Rights Amendment preserves all of the individual rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Individual members of corporations have free speech and constitutional rights like everyone else.
· I am proud that the People’s Rights Amendment has bipartisan support in the House and I look forward to working with all of you to lift up the promise of American self-government: of, for and by the people
Originally posted by xuenchen
Pelosi: Amend the First Amendment
allow Congress to regulate political speech when it is engaged in by corporations as opposed to individuals.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
If Pelosi is so concerned about taking corporations out of the realm of "person" then she would have a hell of an easier time just repealing Section 7343 of Title 26 U.S.C.,and Section 7701 of Title 26 U.S.C., as well as Section 30 of Article I from the U.C.C.. Of course, Pelosi knows this and is not stupid, nor is she a nut job, this is what she thinks of you, and you, and you, and you over there, and you, you too, and you...