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

Schumer: Citizens United Worse than Racial Segregation Case Plessy v Ferguson
By Matt Cover
April 20, 2012

The Senator Really pours it on with this accusation !!

He is comparing the controversial Supreme Court decision "Citizens United" to a decision from 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson that upheld States rights to segregation laws.

Actually one has nothing to do with the other, but Chuck seems to find some correlations anyway.

His "intellect" is visible in the video from the article.

(CNSNews.com) – Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United was the “worst” decision since the court upheld racist segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson.

“The point I’d make here – and that’s why a constitutional amendment shouldn’t be necessary but is – there’s balance in every amendment. The First Amendment is not absolute. You can’t falsely scream fire. We have anti-pornography laws. We have libel laws, and what more important balance than to keep the wellspring of our democracy?

He continues:

“Citizens United was an outgrowth of this. It is the worst decision since Plessy v. Ferguson – I believe that – of the United States Supreme Court,” Schumer said Wednesday at a conference of Democratic members of Congress and liberal groups focusing on amending the Constitution to repeal Citizens United.

Plessy v. Ferguson is the 1896 case in which the court upheld the constitutionality of racist segregation laws in the states.

Schumer said that Citizens United was an “outgrowth” of an earlier case – Buckley v. Valeo which ruled that Congress could restrict how much money a person gives to a candidate, but not how much of a candidate’s own money can be spent on their campaign.

This week we have apparently seen the "official" launch of a Democrat attack on the Supreme Court.

Nancy Pelosi and a few House Democrats are attempting to get support for a new constitutional amendment that seems to undermine the 1st Amendment itself !!

Related Threads:
Pelosi: Amend the First Amendment !!!

‘Posse of Radicals’ Want to 'Overturn the First Amendment,' Says Citizens United Founder

How will they get away with this one ??

First, Obama tries to question the court's decisions, now it's Pelosi and the gang.
Hmmm, seems like a concentrated effort to get them out of the way.
Getting desperate or just cocky?

reply to post by xuenchen

How will they get away with this one ??

Through lying, obfuscation, and if these Congressional power grabbers are correct in their perception of the American people, then they will get away with it because We the People let them get away with it.

The "Plessy v Ferguson" hat trick is just a deflection in hopes that when Schumer begins yammering on about First Amendment rights not being "absolute" no one will notice. He hopes no one will see that he deftly hid "anti-pornography laws" in between inciting a riot and libel laws. Schumer thinks that a clever magic trick is all that is needed to convince people that the right to speech is something that government gave them, and is really counting on the hope that most people do not understand that rights are those actions - outside of reasonable defense - that cause no harm. Inciting a riot and lying about someone to destroy their lives are demonstrable harms, pornography? Not so demonstrable, but by slipping pornography into the mix Schumer thinks he can further cement the notion that government gets to piss all over unalienable rights whenever they craft an Amendment saying they can.

If big business were on their side and they could count them as allies, they'd be calling this decision the very example of free speech and the need for American freedom in politics.

I'm as much against money buying politicians as anyone...I wouldn't mind seeing the entire system of campaign finances moved out of the private sector donation realm and 100% locked and limited to Government supplied funds. The same amount plus personal funds they want to toss in to lose, for every one of them beyond a fixed point in the process.

The crying and whining over this isn't about fairness though because they say NOTHING of Union control of the election process in areas where Big Business has been put down pretty well. Detroit would be a local example of the balance running radical to the other side.

Restrict them ALL equally...or as it is now..allow it all equally. The court made the right call when they couldn't make the correct policy. That just isn't their place..and given the case? I liked the outcome, personally.

It's enough to scare me half to death !!

Every voting citizen needs to exercise extreme caution this Nov 6th.

"Pours it on with the accusation"???????

Are you serious?

You accuse Obama of being Malcolm X's secret son! You are unreal I tell ya.

Originally posted by spinalremain
"Pours it on with the accusation"???????

Are you serious?

You accuse Obama of being Malcolm X's secret son! You are unreal I tell ya.

You got it backwards.

I accuse Malcolm X of being Obama's secret Father.
(it wasn't Obama's fault)

Vote Obama 2012

(then watch what they do)

You do realize it's just a matter of time before someone slams the Supreme Court for activism on this forum right?
Perhaps we can use this as a tracking method for a possible shill.

Here is another thing that Democrats like the idiotic Pelosi and Schummer just seem to forget their cash cow the unions all work for corporations and invest all their pensions in Wall street.

More rules more regulations all effect the bottom line that put people out of work devalue their pensions and move jobs overseas.

The citizens united ruling is just what is not just is mob rule mob stupiidity when Democrats all just love to live by considering this is a constitutional republic that ruliing was in sync with.

Everyone on the stupid train come on now how many liberals support that fascism?

Quite a few.

Actually it is segreation to to end corporate personhood and leave union and their special interests because the left is in no shortage of cash just stack the deck to their favor.

this stuff is so transparent.

Corporations and Billionaires were given a pass to completely control our election process through this ruling.

This ruling stifles the 1st amendment for anyone who isn't wealthy.

Corporations own all the media

They have bought most of the politicians.

Most of you must love how our politicians are bought and paid for.

Here you are, championing it. Really, I don't think it matters to most of you anyway. Just more political debauchery from the usual suspects.

Corporations should not have the same rights as a human being.

Max out contributions to 20 dollars per individual. Make it fair for everyone. No more hidden mega donations from international corporations who have interests outside of the United States.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

If big business were on their side and they could count them as allies, they'd be calling this decision the very example of free speech and the need for American freedom in politics.

Big Business is on the side of many Democrats.
The healthcare bill was proof.
No public option.
No single payer despite filibuster proof Senate.
Many many corporate Dems.
It will only get worse as the unions get weaker. The only large entities with money will be corporations who can outspend nearly any other american. A corporation does not care about wages or benefits. This nation is headed for a steep decline.

Oligarchy. That is what the United States is turning into. Some on ATS seem to love it though, championing corruption as free speech.

This ruling stifles the 1st amendment for anyone who isn't wealthy

It essentially gives business extra rights, which dilutes our constitutional voting rights.

All the supposed liberty and constitution loving "patriots" would be against this if they weren't lying fakes.

reply to post by MiddleClassWarrior


A Supreme Court ruling that upholds the First Amendment as Supreme does not undermine that same Amendment. This is always the same with the Marxist set who employ Orwellian newspeak, or double speak, they think they can point to wealth and rile the masses envy long enough to not notice the absurdity of declaring an upholding of the First Amendment as being a ruling that "undermines" that Amendment.

No doubt some out there will let their knee jerks at your pointing to wealthy people and declaring only they get to use their right to free speech, but thankfully the world is not lacking intelligent people who will see your nonsense for what it is and call you on it.

Originally posted by MiddleClassWarrior
Corporations and Billionaires were given a pass to completely control our election process through this ruling.

This ruling stifles the 1st amendment for anyone who isn't wealthy.

Corporations own all the media

They have bought most of the politicians.

Most of you must love how our politicians are bought and paid for.

Here you are, championing it. Really, I don't think it matters to most of you anyway. Just more political debauchery from the usual suspects.

Corporations should not have the same rights as a human being.

Max out contributions to 20 dollars per individual. Make it fair for everyone. No more hidden mega donations from international corporations who have interests outside of the United States.

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

Yes all good points.

But HOW do you stop the "cash" donations that would be considered illegal ?

How does a solution get enforced ?

What did they do before "Citizens United" ?

reply to post by CB328

It essentially gives business extra rights, which dilutes our constitutional voting rights.

Right.

I am not a billionaire or a corporation. I cannot give a SuperPac 20 million dollars. We had 2 Republican candidates funded by their own personal billionaire, and should one of them became President, they would owe their office to them. It is blatant corruption.

They both had their ONE billionaire. Romney has many, most of Wall Street in fact, and has reportedly know have the backing of both Gingrich's and Santorum's billionaires. The banks love him too. They are loading him with money, money they made by gambling our deposits on oil futures, raising the prices of gas at the pump.

reply to post by xuenchen


Just shows how little he knows about law. IMO, upholding Obamacare would be the modern day equivalent of Plessy. Obamacare is clearly against constitutional principles (like Jim Crow laws were post Reconstruction Amendments).

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

No doubt some out there will let their knee jerks at your pointing to wealthy people and declaring only they get to use their right to free speech, but thankfully the world is not lacking intelligent people who will see your nonsense for what it is and call you on it.

Ha. Do you think your speech is equal to that of Mitt Romney or Obama?

Power of speech is dictated by money. Money controls speech and can stifle or silence it. I can turn on the television everyday, i don't see poor people or middle class people dictating their views on the news. I see rich people. I see people who are payed by multinational corporations to spread a point of view that is beneficial to those who own it.

Do you have your own media empire? How about an unheard of 30 min show? Anything? Can you run hundreds of thousands of ads promoting any idea you want?

In a capitalist country, power of speech (and freedom to use it) is far greater for those who have more than those who have nothing.

reply to post by xuenchen

But HOW do you stop the "cash" donations that would be considered illegal

Ban SuperPacs. Right now, a foreign entity can easily funnel money into one. For instance, Iran could easily be funding money into Romney's SuperPac, you would never know because it doesn't have to be made public.

Originally posted by MiddleClassWarrior
reply to post by xuenchen

 

But HOW do you stop the "cash" donations that would be considered illegal

Ban SuperPacs. Right now, a foreign entity can easily funnel money into one. For instance, Iran could easily be funding money into Romney's SuperPac, you would never know because it doesn't have to be made public.

And,

Who enforces this ?

We all know of at least one super pac that originates from a foreign country.

Of course there are more than one.

Who do we as commoners trust ?

How do you know the "trustees" are not bought off ?

Someone tell me where the problem is really?

Obama rasied 1 billion dollars to become potus not seeing the problem by the way how about getting him to disclose his doners?