Hillary calls for First Amendment o be repealed: Dems cheer! (1 Viewer)

[KLATTU]

I believe that our economy isn’t working the way it should because our democracy isn’t working the way it should. That’s why we need to appoint Supreme Court justices who will get money out of politics and expand voting rights, not restrict them. And we’ll pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United!

Read more at: Citizens United & Hillary Clinton -- Overturning Means Repealing First Amendment | National Review

Of course, we can call a constitutional amendment that overturns Citizens United by another name: a repeal of the First Amendment. The consequence of Citizens United, that corporations can spend without limit on independent political advocacy, flows directly from the First Amendment guarantees that free speech and association will not be abrogated by the government. A corporation is a legal entity that represents an association of people. People who associate in the form of a corporation do not lose their First Amendment right to free speech — a right which includes spending money to make a commercial, for instance, about the upcoming election. Citizens United affirms this principle in consonance with the First Amendment. A constitutional amendment that overturns Citizens United would literally be a constitutional amendment that repeals the First Amendment. Clinton’s promise to do so was an applause line.

 

[blaxshep]

I believe that our economy isn’t working the way it should because our democracy isn’t working the way it should. That’s why we need to appoint Supreme Court justices who will get money out of politics and expand voting rights, not restrict them. And we’ll pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United!

Read more at: Citizens United & Hillary Clinton -- Overturning Means Repealing First Amendment | National Review

Of course, we can call a constitutional amendment that overturns Citizens United by another name: a repeal of the First Amendment. The consequence of Citizens United, that corporations can spend without limit on independent political advocacy, flows directly from the First Amendment guarantees that free speech and association will not be abrogated by the government. A corporation is a legal entity that represents an association of people. People who associate in the form of a corporation do not lose their First Amendment right to free speech — a right which includes spending money to make a commercial, for instance, about the upcoming election. Citizens United affirms this principle in consonance with the First Amendment. A constitutional amendment that overturns Citizens United would literally be a constitutional amendment that repeals the First Amendment. Clinton’s promise to do so was an applause line.

Apples to oranges. Corporations are not a citizen, never were, never will be. I'll believe a corporation is a person when Texas hangs one.

 

[BitterPill]

Apples to oranges. Corporations are not a citizen, never were, never will be. I'll believe a corporation is a person when Texas hangs one.

Well put.

For me it's when one comes home in a body-bag, but that's a distinction without a difference.

 

[Carjosse]

They are not US citizens, they cannot vote, they should not be allowed to influence elections along with unions. Only private individuals should be able to donate and there should be strict limits imposed upon that too.

 

[ARealConservative]

They are not US citizens, they cannot vote, they should not be allowed to influence elections along with unions. Only private individuals should be able to donate and there should be strict limits imposed upon that too.

you want to impose strict limits on individuals, but don't see that as a violation of 1st amendment?

 

[Carjosse]

you want to impose strict limits on individuals, but don't see that as a violation of 1st amendment?

No I see it as a reasonable limit.

 

[KLATTU]

All missing the point. It's not whether CU was right or wrong .The case was decided on First amendment grounds . Thus a constitutional amendment to repeal Citizens United would have to to repeal the First amendment.

 

[BitterPill]

you want to impose strict limits on individuals, but don't see that as a violation of 1st amendment?

In my opinion, your analogy will only work if money equals speech. I don't think it does.

 

[blaxshep]

you want to impose strict limits on individuals, but don't see that as a violation of 1st amendment?

Not at all, in fact IMO each candidate should get an equal stipend from the tax payers to run their campaign and no private donations of any kind should be allowed.

 

[DA60]

You want a sound economy?

Simple.

Balance the budget by cutting spending and not from raising taxes (cut from military/non-military programs equally), end/neuter the Fed and never again bail out another bank/corporation.

It will be rough for a two or three years and then it will thrive more then it has in a generation, IMO.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

So pre Citizens United decision the first amendment was being violated? Really now?

 

[jonny5]

Apples to oranges. Corporations are not a citizen, never were, never will be. I'll believe a corporation is a person when Texas hangs one.

Did someone say they were?

 

[blaxshep]

All missing the point. It's not whether CU was right or wrong .The case was decided on First amendment grounds . Thus a constitutional amendment to repeal Citizens United would have to to repeal the First amendment.

Not at all. CU can be overturned without having any effect on the 1st Amendment. SC rulings are not repealed they are overturned. The 1st Amendment would have to be repealed.

 

[BitterPill]

All missing the point. It's not whether CU was right or wrong .The case was decided on First amendment grounds . Thus a constitutional amendment to repeal Citizens United would have to to repeal the First amendment.

It would simply clarify the meaning of speech and whether corporations are people, and there already are limitations on free speech.

 

[JasperL]

All missing the point. It's not whether CU was right or wrong .The case was decided on First amendment grounds . Thus a constitutional amendment to repeal Citizens United would have to to repeal the First amendment.

No it wouldn't. At worst it puts a limit on the 1st Amendment for purposes of influencing elections.

 

[blaxshep]

Did someone say they were?

CU is predicated on the idea the corporations have the same rights as people do. They don't.

 

[ARealConservative]

Not at all, in fact IMO each candidate should get an equal stipend from the tax payers to run their campaign and no private donations of any kind should be allowed.

should I also be limited to only talking about my preferred candidate for a certain amount of minutes a day? can I put up billboards?

 

[jonny5]

Not at all, in fact IMO each candidate should get an equal stipend from the tax payers to run their campaign and no private donations of any kind should be allowed.

Citizens United wasnt about candidates taking donations. It was about people showing videos critical of the candidates. Hillary wants to stop that.

 

[blaxshep]

should I also be limited to only talking about my preferred candidate for a certain amount of minutes a day? can I put up billboards?

You can talk about him/her all day you just cant donate money. You think elections should be bought? Like they are now?

 

[blaxshep]

Citizens United wasnt about candidates taking donations. It was about people showing videos critical of the candidates. Hillary wants to stop that.

Good luck with that. Repealing CU wont stop that.

 

[ARealConservative]

Citizens United wasnt about candidates taking donations. It was about people showing videos critical of the candidates. Hillary wants to stop that.

it wasn't about people showing videos of Hillary - it was about corporations showing videos of Hillary.

the real hypocrisy is for decades, trade unions were doing that very thing.

 

[FieldTheorist]

I believe that our economy isn’t working the way it should because our democracy isn’t working the way it should. That’s why we need to appoint Supreme Court justices who will get money out of politics and expand voting rights, not restrict them. And we’ll pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United!

Read more at: Citizens United & Hillary Clinton -- Overturning Means Repealing First Amendment | National Review

Of course, we can call a constitutional amendment that overturns Citizens United by another name: a repeal of the First Amendment. The consequence of Citizens United, that corporations can spend without limit on independent political advocacy, flows directly from the First Amendment guarantees that free speech and association will not be abrogated by the government. A corporation is a legal entity that represents an association of people. People who associate in the form of a corporation do not lose their First Amendment right to free speech — a right which includes spending money to make a commercial, for instance, about the upcoming election. Citizens United affirms this principle in consonance with the First Amendment. A constitutional amendment that overturns Citizens United would literally be a constitutional amendment that repeals the First Amendment. Clinton’s promise to do so was an applause line.

You think that Citizens United is actually about free speech? Wow.

If money equals free speech, I want more money from the government in accordance with my right to free speech. (Yeah, I know, sorry, I forgot that in the corporate shill principled conservative worldview, rich people are more equal than the poor and middle-class people.)

 

[ARealConservative]

You can talk about him/her all day you just cant donate money. You think elections should be bought? Like they are now?

Citizens United wasn't about donations. it was about PACS

Me putting up billboards is a very close analogy. It would be a major violation of my rights to not allow me to do so.

 

[BitterPill]

You want a sound economy?

Simple.

Balance the budget by cutting spending and not from raising taxes, end the Fed and never again bail out another bank/corporation.

It will be rough for a two or three years and then it will thrive more then it has in a generation, IMO.

To balance the budget will take far more than cutting spending.

 

[jonny5]

CU is predicated on the idea the corporations have the same rights as people do. They don't.

Thats not what you said. You said they werent citizens/people. The idea that an association of people has the same freedom of speech as an individual is a separate idea. And it seems pretty obvious they do given there is no such limitation in the law.

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.