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: 4
30
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


YES. See above. edit...last page now.
edit on 20-4-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)


Ok...see below


“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

freespeechforpeople.org...



edit on 20-4-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Personal attacks against other members ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE

I hope thats clear. Any more of that will result in post bans being issued.

First and ONLY warning.


What specifically was taboo? I looked back over the thread prior to your input and find myself lacking the answer. Can you please specifically point out the transgression so that we might all learn from it? Not wanting to cause an issue...just trying to educate oneself for future moments....



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by beezzer
I would just like to point out something to my liberal collegues here.

If this were a conservative president in office and a conservative group trying to abridge free speech, especially for liberals, then you may not be so enthusiastic about this proposal.


I would like to point out that this is an iniative that has been called for by several conservative leaning states, both through thier attorney generals as well as resolutions at the state level and this also would exclude unions groups from the definition as well as corporations.

I know it is difficult sometimes, but comming at without the partisan glasses is the most honest route.


So the media is not affected.
(liberal)
Unions are not affected.
(liberal)

Yeah, I can see how the progressives would be behind it.

edit on 20-4-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by xuenchen


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




Well this would equate out to any news source being essentially silenced.

Thats right, I dont know of one "news" agency on the net, print or TV that is not
a corporation.


You are confused. "The Press" is still protected under the first amendment, which this proposal would not alter.

This proposal only looks to define "speech" as originating with living, breathing, people as opposed to corporate legal constructs structured with a sole duty to profits.


Sorry, I dont know if you are personally trying to spread misinformation.
This would clearly put limits of free speech on the press, especially the press!


The constitutional amendment the Democrats seek would reverse the Supreme Court’s 2010
decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

In that decision the court said that the First
Amendment protects a right of free speech for corporations as well as for individuals,
and that corporations (including those that produce newspapers, films and books)
have a right to speak about politicians and their records just as individuals do.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Nope...Read my last two posts or the top of this page...



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

So the media is not affected.
(liberal)
Unions are not affected.
(liberal)


Beez, dont fall for it. He has posted very misleading statements,
and not backed them up.

Basically his is posting misinformation.

This would apply to the media. It says it right in the article!



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships

Sorry, I dont know if you are personally trying to spread misinformation.
This would clearly put limits of free speech on the press, especially the press!


Sorry...don't know if you have actually read any of the posts on this thread?

The press are already protected in the first amendment. This would be a NEW amendment defining "speech" as originating with actual people...the press are covered.




Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


This can ONLY been seen as partisan.

When corporations, the press, the MSM, Hollywood were all gaga for Obama (Pals Of Obama's Presidency: POOP) this would have never been brought up.

But. . . . ooops! Now they ain't.

So Pelosi is saying ST#U!!!

Yeah. Completely non-partisan.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by beezzer

So the media is not affected.
(liberal)
Unions are not affected.
(liberal)


Beez, dont fall for it. He has posted very misleading statements,
and not backed them up.

Basically his is posting misinformation.


All of my posts have included sources and citations originating at the source of this discussion rather than the article which provides none...you can correct your post or I can have a mod weigh in on the veracity of that attack?
edit on 20-4-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Here's some Non Partisan for ya.......




posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 
Actually half truths.

You haven't addressed the dichotomy in the bill that would differentiate between freedom of the press and controling what a corporation (media) says.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Indigo5
 
Actually half truths.

You haven't addressed the dichotomy in the bill that would differentiate between freedom of the press and controling what a corporation (media) says.



The Amendment would define the word "Speech" as PEOPLE VS. CORPORATIONS...THE LANGUAGE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT REMAINS IDENTICAL...WHICH INCLUDES PROTECTING "THE PRESS"

Honestly...posted it several times now, are you not reading my posts?

Media Companies are excluded for Media Content...Murdoch can run all the Obama hit pieces he likes, true or not, but FOX NEWS can't take 50 Million and start a PAC to slam Obama.
edit on 20-4-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Well, see, here's the thing: a lot of the things that people hear about are from the media, which are corporations. AKA what little truth and freedom of the press still exists in the U.S. would be dead.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 
Thank you. I took the time to watch.



I don't want to get too off-topic here, but what is the line betweene the 10th Ammendment and federal supremacy?



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
So the minute ANYONE forms a Corporation,they lose their rights?

Nice.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
Well, see, here's the thing: a lot of the things that people hear about are from the media, which are corporations. AKA what little truth and freedom of the press still exists in the U.S. would be dead.


And that Media company can report on anything in any manner they choose. The couldn't however take 100 Million of those corporate funds and create the SUPER PAC TO IMPEACH BUSH and run ads.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5
, but FOX NEWS can't take 50 Million and start a PAC to slam Obama.
edit on 20-4-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

Yet unions can to slam Romney?

How is that fair?

Confused bunny again.




posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1
So the minute ANYONE forms a Corporation,they lose their rights?

Nice.


NO...THAT CORPORATION CANT SPEND FUNDS AND PROFITS FOR POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS. THAT INDIVIDUAL CAN DO AS THEY LIKE.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Wish I was a Constitutional scholar........to give you the answers Beez..........






posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Sorry, however I must say it appears you are here to drum up support
for this "The Peoples Rights Amendment".

Which is specifically against the terms and conditions.
edit on 20-4-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
30
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join