Pelosi: Amend the First Amendment !!!

reply to post by Indigo5


"I like rabbits".

Ammended

"I like rabbits, fried, baked, broiled".

*yeah, same meaning*

reply to post by beezzer


Rabbits...

SCOTUS..."Rabbits" include wolves, lions and other creatures with eyes. You may now house them together at the zoo.

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by beezzer

 

Rabbits...

SCOTUS..."Rabbits" include wolves, lions and other creatures with eyes. You may now house them together at the zoo.

Touche'.

Although you can still classify them all as animals.

Unless you actually feel the need to differentiate based on favouratism.

Here is the thing the Pelosi's of this country created "corporate financing" but has no problem with union financing.

Pick any topic incandesent light bulbs are evil then the maker who is a corporation says oh # that is going to cost me billions of money and put me out of business and will have to fire employees or most likely move to other places like China,India or Mexico.

The ideal to go make your voice heard that those curtail those laws or regulations and money exchanges hands that essentially is free campaign financing.

For every pro and con argument basically boils down to pro versus con meaning progressive putting people out of work and destroy jobs and wealth creation to being conservative keeping what you have.

The deal is Both leftand right get paid but there is Pelosi running her mouth amending something that needs not be when her ilk are the ones responsible for creating it.


Every time Governrment grows gets more power has more control there is a corresponding rise in money being funneled to those idiots.

Which brings us back to how i started this post NO NO corporations can't give money unions can and every other special interest can.

They get to sit there and define what a "special interest" is and screw with the constitution.........

Pure evil Pure fascist to silence anyone but them.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Oh OK.

I was misunderstanding.

So they really do want to amend the 1st.

Not easy. Can't have it both ways.

The 1st Amendment language remains intact...this amendment defines "speech" in the 1st, similiar to what the SCOTUS ruling did, but with opposite intent and via Amendment.

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

Interesting.

I wonder where exactly they will place this "amendment" ?

Perhaps as a "new" amendment or within the 1st Amendment itself.

Did the SCOTUS ruling replace any language in the Constitution or the existing Amendments ?
Or just certify and clarify ?

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by beezzer

 

Rabbits...

SCOTUS..."Rabbits" include wolves, lions and other creatures with eyes. You may now house them together at the zoo.

Touche'.

Although you can still classify them all as animals.

Unless you actually feel the need to differentiate based on favouratism.

The need to differentiate has nothing to do with favortism. Capitalism rocks and corporations are superb entities at maximizing profit for shareholders. I am a fan of capitalism and corporations are not "evil"...they just aren't 'people".

When you decide that Rabbits are to be defined to include wolves...and stick them in the same house at the zoo, the kids that visit will learn the difference between a rabbit and wolf in a quick and bloody display.

Put another way...that your persona might understand...Fox and henhouse?

Originally posted by xuenchen

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Oh OK.

I was misunderstanding.

So they really do want to amend the 1st.

Not easy. Can't have it both ways.

The 1st Amendment language remains intact...this amendment defines "speech" in the 1st, similiar to what the SCOTUS ruling did, but with opposite intent and via Amendment.

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

Interesting.

I wonder where exactly they will place this "amendment" ?

Perhaps as a "new" amendment or within the 1st Amendment itself.

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.

Originally posted by Indigo5

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.

Yes, yes they do. As you can see she clearly backs the bill.
So, why run off when it gets interesting?

Originally posted by Indigo5


Aside from the attempted derailment of the topic. Why would you believe Nacy Pelosi endorsed this? Do you have a transcript or video of her making that endorsement?

Nancy Pelosi IS part of the topic......

Her desires to help those benefit,from laws,she and her ilk (Politicians) broker,are for ALL to see.

Claiming she is "FOR" the people,is laughable.

What recession? House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's net worth skyrocketed 62% last year, to a jaw-dropping $35.2 million, according to financial disclosure forms released Wednesday. Pelosi, the former House speaker, wasn't alone. The California Democrat's gavel-gripping successor, Republican John Boehner, also saw his wealth get a boost, with the Ohio GOPer's net worth increasing from $1.8 million in 2009 to $2.1 million last year.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's wealth grows 62% to $35.2M, Boehner, Reid's worth increases too


I think all these Pandering Bums should go.

The only thing the public gets to do in this country is pay taxes that's it.

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)

And / Or then create a new need for a false positive.

It's a catch-22 either way.

That must be why the SCOTUS ruled as they did.

Schumer: Citizens United Worse than Racial Segregation Case Plessy v Ferguson



I think this latest stab is confirming the suspicions.

This whole thing is designed to appease the Obama supporters.

It is clear they are smearing the Supreme Court.

Sour Grapes

reply to post by xuenchen


Yes, not to mention this gives way to questions....

This most certainly would have support from the OWS crowd,
scary as that is. Pehaps that would explain one reason they have fed that
monster. ?

Just saying....

And not for one moment would I think that Montana would support Pelosi in this,
outrageoous assumption that is.

Another question comes to my mind.

If Montana and other States are "refusing to recognize" the SCOTUS ruling,

Does that mean a Montana chartered corporation will be subject to a new State law ?
(If any even exists yet)

Do the States even have that constitutional authority or privilege ?

Maybe those objections are themselves "unconstitutional" ??

Lots of problems here.

reply to post by Indigo5


I don't know why it is you always insist on lying when it comes to replying to my posts, but lying is what you rely upon. I have never once cited Congress' defining of corporations as a "person" as speech. This is your lie, and has nothing to do with me. Further, you go out of your way to undermine your earlier posts on this page by allowing your knee jerk reaction to a JPZ post to get your goat. You seem to want to present yourself at the fact finder of this thread presenting the actual text of the proposed Amendment, and satisfying yourself that all Pelosi, et al, want to do is limit free speech to "natural born persons".

The simple fact of the matter is that the SCOTUS derived their decision based upon the beginning of the First Amendment in relation to "speech", which is "Congress shall make no laws...", so even this proposed Amendment is in violation of the First Amendment...but that is an actual fact that you would find to be an inconvenient truth.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

The simple fact of the matter is that the SCOTUS derived their decision based upon the beginning of the First Amendment in relation to "speech", which is "Congress shall make no laws...", so even this proposed Amendment is in violation of the First Amendment...but that is an actual fact that you would find to be an inconvenient truth.

Here is the 1st:

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..

abridging the freedom of speech

So, I guess they Would have to either amend or abolish the 1st Amendment in order to get a "new" amendment.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Originally, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court has applied the First Amendment to each state. This was done through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court has also recognized a series of exceptions to provisions protecting the freedom of speech.
The 1st

Do these people even understand what they are doing ?

Corporations pretty much control both parties as it is, we don't need to give them any more power. They ahve too much of it already, and they don't give a damned thing about the rights of the individuals, they only care about the bottom line.

I don't know about limiting their speech, but they do have huge influences on who votes for whom. I believe that they can bring huge amounts of pressure on the people that work for them to tell them who vote for, at least as far as I know. And there are huge amounts of people who work for the corporations.

I want to see their influence on our government reduced, but I am just not sure if restricting their speech is the right way to go about it. Limiting how much they can spend might be a far more effective way of keeping them out of circulation.

But I don't have any real ideas on how to limit their power that doesn't really infringe upon the Constitution.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
Corporations pretty much control both parties as it is, we don't need to give them any more power. They ahve too much of it already, and they don't give a damned thing about the rights of the individuals, they only care about the bottom line.

I don't know about limiting their speech, but they do have huge influences on who votes for whom. I believe that they can bring huge amounts of pressure on the people that work for them to tell them who vote for, at least as far as I know. And there are huge amounts of people who work for the corporations.

I want to see their influence on our government reduced, but I am just not sure if restricting their speech is the right way to go about it. Limiting how much they can spend might be a far more effective way of keeping them out of circulation.

But I don't have any real ideas on how to limit their power that doesn't really infringe upon the Constitution.

The "speech" thing has very little to do with corporate influence on politicians actually.

It's the Lobbyist Cartels that make the differences.

And the Democrats have just as much "income" from them as the Republicans.

Stop the free speech and all they will do is use "individual" lobbyists instead.

The campaign money for all candidates comes from many of the same corporations.


Just search for Obama contributors and see who pays the freight.

Top Contributors 2008 Obama

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.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


Excellent point Prof Emeritus. And very relevant to the discussion.
I wonder how many OWS supporters realize that?