It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pelosi: Amend the First Amendment !!!

page: 2
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


The DNC is a (you guessed it) "corporation". All news sources are (you guessed it) "corporations". This is so transparent it's scary a single American would be for this. Time to start kicking these Teachers back sides for dumbing down the whole country to the level people like this can fool them this easy.

That quote from Roberts I posted from the article is from Obama's attempt to control political speech in the media to silence his opposition.




posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 



They want state run media now who are the fascists?

Second says zeig heil may the sun never fade or a bad word ever be said about the Potus it is all about stacking the deck this election cycle to make sure there are 4 more years.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
This is legal book burning. History which is happening anywhere would be illegal, unless it comes from the MSM. I have forwarded to OccupyBoston, OccupyWall street, Occupy food, Occupy Corporatism, The Daily Paul, RT news, and The constitution society.

This is beyong, SOPA, ACTA, and CISPA.

An Amendment is adding to the problem, not removing the problem of corporate personhood. It's making Government The ONLY witness to all Legal Events.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
And just when we thought She was sincere !!

Right on schedule .........

By Nancy Pelosi
April 19, 2012
!!!!!

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


Nancy Pelosi Wrote the Article !!




:



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Maybe I'm wrong about this but in order to change an Amendment to the constitution doesn't that need to be ratified by a whole bunch of states? Which is why the constitution is almost never changed? And with the current climate of nothing getting done because no one agrees about anything wouldn't this be impossible?



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
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...



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Here's an update from the sour grapes intelligentsias themselves.


(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.




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.”
see a video ... warning: idiots are visible in the video !!
Democrats Call for New Amendment to Limit First Amendment Rights


Sour Grapes




posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Exactly right, we don't need taxpayers footing the bill for our own screwing any more than we already are. They've all lost their friggin minds. Yet amazingly people still see things as one side better than other and I can only say this because I had the same tunnel vision not so long ago.

I bet the toilet paper in all their offices has the Constitution printed on it.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   

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.


No, that would be disturbing the peace! Trust me, someone could be found to complain!



edit on 19-4-2012 by Jameela because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 06:49 AM
link   
They ignore or degrade every other amendment to the Constitution so why bother with this? Give Congress the power to restrict corporate "speech" (when it's a Democratic majority?) and Obama already has his money lined up? Sounds more like they want to ensure an Obama re-election more than anything else to me. We know this has absolutely zero to do with protecting the rights of average citizens.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   
And this will be heralded by some as a logical step, "the removal of some freedoms for the greater good is sometimes necessary". Just wait and see.

What a train wreck...though I agree the lobbyists and "Citizen's United" needs to go, not at the price of my rights and liberties. This is sad. Instead of directly tackling the issue, the Dems want to attack the rights of the people...makes total sense...right? Craziness....total madness.

Remember this quote from a very clever man many-many-many years ago...

“The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men”. Plato



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
it's simple nancy, just amend the laws that treat corporations like individuals, because they are not individuals and thus shouldn't afford the protections and rights of such.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle
 

Our founders had an idea, its called democracy
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?


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.
tenthamendmentcenter.com...

Is Nancy wearing sheep's clothing over something else?



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Well now everybody knows.

Time to toss this old bag into the home. Gone all the way nuts apparently.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
OK..Just because I think that facts are helpful...I know...I know...radical thinking!

On the OP Source...CNS "Conservative News Service"..tagline "The right news, right now"

Just sayin...

Second, WHAT DID SHE ACTUALLY SAY? Transcipts anyone? I don't trust spin. GIVE ME HER ACTUAL FULL STATEMENTS...CUZ I CAN"T FIND THEM...ONLY RIGHT WING MEDIA TELLING ME CRAP...QUOTES? TRANSCRIPTS?

As best I can tell...they both spoke along with other congresspeople at the same summit. I am not denying she endorsed the Amendment...but please show me where..Facts matter.

Third
The text of the amendment


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.

freespeechforpeople.org...

The Bills Author


“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.


So far Montana's supreme court has defied the Federal ruling and held that Corporations are not people...

The legislatures of New Mexico, Vermont and Hawaii have passed resolutions calling for an Amendment and di so by largely bi-partisan votes.

11 Attorney Generals have signed on in support of this..
Delaware, Hawaii, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia.

I know...I know....it's inconvenient that they are all not "blue states"...it unfortunately suggests that this is not simply a left vs. right thing ripe for name calling and partisan ignorance.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   


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

freespeechforpeople.org...



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

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.



Are not corporations considered people, and vice versa?

wouldn't regulation of political speech, by corporations, effect every single person in America? considering we are incorporated at birth with the registration of our birth certificate and registration into the Social Security System?



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

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...


In these conversations you often cite these definitions of "speech" while willfully ignoring the fact that each law in it's application defines it's terms specifically. It is illogical, if not dishonest to pretend that there is a single resource and single definition that is applied to all laws and then to cherry pick those definitions most favorable to your line of defense and present them as the singular authority to define those terms.

Such logic seems an unusual failure when applied to the constitution.

With such clear and absolute defintions of corporations as people, how did Citizens United ever arrive at the SCOTUS?

In short..it arrived there because it is the SCOTUS's responsibility to interpret what the constitution meant by "speech".

I tend to assume given the time period, that they meant the actual product of PEOPLE as opposed to legal constructs structured for the sole purpsose of profit.

This definition is supported when they also secured the "Freedom of the Press"...if "speech" was meant to encompass corporations and entities...why did they need to elaborate and include "the press"??? Would that not have been covered under "Speech" already?

I suspect that most people in the debate understand in thier heart that the founders were referring to actual, living people and not legal constructs who have no interest in "life", "Liberty", "happiness" or the "welfare of the people" or "common good" etc. A corporation is an entity on paper designed to maximize profit...and that is it.

When folks opt to claim "corporations are people too"...they must know somewhere beneath thier idealogical agenda that is not the truth.
edit on 20-4-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Just so we get it out of the way....

We are a Republic....which is the Rule of Law. Anything less is a bad thing. The Rule of Law is fair and equal to the many and the few...even the one.

A Democracy is "Majority (aka the Mob) rules" and it silences the voices of the few and the one.

What we are "technically" is a democratic (lower case d) Republic in which the Rule of Law is decided, governed and applied by democratically elected representatives of the People. We choose those that will interpret, add to and define the "Law" which is the Constitution.

Nancy wanting to change the fundamentals is a bad idea....the Constitution is one of the Wisest documents ever written...it's ability to "live" is second only to the religious texts. It never ceases to amaze me how "living" the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence actually are. They transcend time and apply to all ages. The Gentlemen that composed these literary works of art were far wiser than anyone living today....sorry.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join