• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary pledges an amendment to nullify 1st amendment in first 30 days

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
19,149
Reaction score
11,245
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Last edited:

StillBallin75

Salty Specialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
24,315
Reaction score
18,173
Location
Fort Drum, New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
1) Even your link says "Something's gone terribly wrong." Either you linked to something that no longer exists or you screwed up the URL.

2) Hillary, as President, does not have the power to introduce a Constitutional Amendment. That requires members from the House, Senate, or two thirds of the States.

3) To say that wanting to overturn Citizens United is "nullifying the First Amendment" is such idiotic hyperbole I don't even know where to start. Overturning Citizens United is not "denying people an outlet to speak."

4) I'd say that allowing some people's "speech" to matter much more than that of others is way more corrosive to democracy.

Edit: found the actual link that works.

Hillary Clinton Pledges Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Citizens United In Her First 30 Days
 
Last edited:

Abbazorkzog

Zapatista Libertarian
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
12,199
Reaction score
4,081
Location
#TrumpWasAnInsideJob
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist

azgreg

Chicks dig the long ball
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
24,852
Reaction score
23,058
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
For the sake of discussion.

Article V:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
90,123
Reaction score
53,759
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Naturally there will be no such reporting requirements for organizations that primarily support demorats (like unions or NGOs) and the charities (like the Clinton Foundation) can pay them millions (as salaries) to help solicit (foreign?) cash in exchange for political favors. ;)
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
19,149
Reaction score
11,245
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
1) Even your link says "Something's gone terribly wrong." Either you linked to something that no longer exists or you screwed up the URL.

Fixed

2) Hillary, as President, does not have the power to introduce a Constitutional Amendment. That requires members from the House, Senate, or two thirds of the States.

Won't stop her from promising it. Obama has tried to do a lot of things he doesn't have to power to do.

3) To say that wanting to overturn Citizens United is "nullifying the First Amendment" is such idiotic hyperbole I don't even know where to start. Overturning Citizens United is not "denying people an outlet to speak."

Yes it is, very few individuals have the money or resources to get thier message out. So a bunch of people pooling thier money together is a great way to lobby for a cause.

4) I'd say that allowing some people's "speech" to matter much more than of others is way more corrosive to democracy.

Getting rid of Citizens United will only make that problem worse. Charles Koch can buy his own commercials to lobby for whatever, you and I don't have the money to do that.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,844
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
3) To say that wanting to overturn Citizens United is "nullifying the First Amendment" is such idiotic hyperbole I don't even know where to start. Overturning Citizens United is not "denying people an outlet to speak."

This is . . . incorrect, on all counts.

This appears to come from the idea that Citizens United was about campaign financing and that the Court somehow declared corporations to be "people" in it. To be fair to you, this is what most laypeople think the case was about (because it's been ridiculously mischaracterized by its critics).

It wasn't about that. It was about this, and only this -- whether or not the group, Citizens United, could be kept from airing a program critical of Hillary Clinton during a campaign in which she was a candidate. The Supreme Court ruled that they could not be, consistent with the First Amendment.

To overturn the Citizens United decision would indeed be doing great damage to the First Amendment, and not because "money is speech," but because speech is speech. To overturn it would be to uphold a law which prevented the airing of a program critical of a candidate during a campaign. It was an unambiguous victory for free speech.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
90,123
Reaction score
53,759
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Taxation without representation is a founding principle of this nation - just ask Hillary. ;)

Its high time that we demand those evil corporations simply pay up and shut up. They should have no say in how a country should be run - leave that to the professional liars that we call career politicians. ;)
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
19,149
Reaction score
11,245
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is . . . incorrect, on all counts.

This appears to come from the idea that Citizens United was about campaign financing and that the Court somehow declared corporations to be "people" in it. To be fair to you, this is what most laypeople think the case was about (because it's been ridiculously mischaracterized by its critics).

It wasn't about that. It was about this, and only this -- whether or not the group, Citizens United, could be kept from airing a program critical of Hillary Clinton during a campaign in which she was a candidate. The Supreme Court ruled that they could not be, consistent with the First Amendment.

To overturn the Citizens United decision would indeed be doing great damage to the First Amendment, and not because "money is speech," but because speech is speech. To overturn it would be to uphold a law which prevented the airing of a program critical of a candidate during a campaign. It was an unambiguous victory for free speech.

That's correct as far as the specifics of the case. The money is speech part of it is that it cost money to produce to video and buy the air time which is a key component to getting that speech to where it can be heard. And being heard is just as important as the speech itself.
 

StillBallin75

Salty Specialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
24,315
Reaction score
18,173
Location
Fort Drum, New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
This is . . . incorrect, on all counts.

This appears to come from the idea that Citizens United was about campaign financing and that the Court somehow declared corporations to be "people" in it. To be fair to you, this is what most laypeople think the case was about (because it's been ridiculously mischaracterized by its critics).

It wasn't about that. It was about this, and only this -- whether or not the group, Citizens United, could be kept from airing a program critical of Hillary Clinton during a campaign in which she was a candidate. The Supreme Court ruled that they could not be, consistent with the First Amendment.

To overturn the Citizens United decision would indeed be doing great damage to the First Amendment, and not because "money is speech," but because speech is speech. To overturn it would be to uphold a law which prevented the airing of a program critical of a candidate during a campaign. It was an unambiguous victory for free speech.

Wow. Just no. Hell no. This characterization of Citizens United is a complete oversimplification. The ruling wasn't just about whether or not a campaign video being critical of Hillary Clinton could be aired, it was as much, if not more, about what KIND of organization Citizens United was (i.e. a corporation or a union) and whether or not they were entitled to make expenditures involving electioneering activity. To say that the case is about "speech being speech" versus "money being speech" is completely inaccurate, especially given that its primary political impact was to open up the floodgates for Super PACs.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
90,123
Reaction score
53,759
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Wow. Just no. Hell no. This characterization of Citizens United is a complete oversimplification. The ruling wasn't just about whether or not a campaign video being critical of Hillary Clinton could be aired, it was as much, if not more, about what KIND of organization Citizens United was (i.e. a corporation or a union) and whether or not they were entitled to make expenditures involving electioneering activity. To say that the case is about "speech being speech" versus "money being speech" is completely inaccurate, especially given that its primary political impact was to open up the floodgates for Super PACs.

Hmm.. "electioneering activity" as in "political speech" for or against a candidate, party or policy?
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,844
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Wow. Just no. Hell no. This characterization of Citizens United is a complete oversimplification. The ruling wasn't just about whether or not a campaign video being critical of Hillary Clinton could be aired, it was as much, if not more, about what KIND of organization Citizens United was (i.e. a corporation or a union) and whether or not they were entitled to make expenditures involving electioneering activity. To say that the case is about "speech being speech" versus "money being speech" is completely inaccurate, especially given that its primary political impact was to open up the floodgates for Super PACs.

Justice Kennedy said:
If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.

I'm sorry, but no. It's about speech being speech. What you're saying comes chiefly from the dissents, in which the dissenters described what they'd have preferred the case be about and that on which they would have ruled. But what the dissenters wanted the case to be about doesn't make it what the case -- or especially the ruling -- was about.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
90,247
Reaction score
38,938
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Hillary Clinton Pledges Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Citizens United In Her First 30 Days

Money in politics can certainly be corrosive, however denying people an outlet to speak is much more corrosive.

Not only does Hillary betray her ignorance of constitutionally defined procedure in respect to the amendment process...along with Huffpo for assuming she has any ability to introduce any amendment...Hillary also revealed her intention to continue Obama's tactics of using EO's, EA's and regulatory/rule making shenanigans to act in defiance of Congress, our legislating body.

I'm sure those on the left and low-information voters are in complete agreement with her.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavidez TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
83,433
Reaction score
36,855
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
1) Even your link says "Something's gone terribly wrong." Either you linked to something that no longer exists or you screwed up the URL.

2) Hillary, as President, does not have the power to introduce a Constitutional Amendment. That requires members from the House, Senate, or two thirds of the States.

3) To say that wanting to overturn Citizens United is "nullifying the First Amendment" is such idiotic hyperbole I don't even know where to start. Overturning Citizens United is not "denying people an outlet to speak."

4) I'd say that allowing some people's "speech" to matter much more than that of others is way more corrosive to democracy.

Edit: found the actual link that works.

Hillary Clinton Pledges Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Citizens United In Her First 30 Days
Citizens United WAS decided by the SCOTUS based on a 1st Amendment Ruling...and...Hillary Clinton DID declare her intent to overturn the 1st Amendment ruling. She CANNOT submit an Amendment to overturn the RULING...but she can submit legislation to overturn the Constitutional grounds for the decision. And of COURSE Hillary can propose it. She can have it written by Justice's Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsberg (because they arent obviously biased partisan hacks in Supreme Court Robes) and then have democrats in congress submit it for debate and vote.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
90,247
Reaction score
38,938
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Citizens United WAS decided by the SCOTUS based on a 1st Amendment Ruling...and...Hillary Clinton DID declare her intent to overturn the 1st Amendment ruling. She CANNOT submit an Amendment to overturn the RULING...but she can submit legislation to overturn the Constitutional grounds for the decision. And of COURSE Hillary can propose it. She can have it written by Justice's Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsberg (because they arent obviously biased partisan hacks in Supreme Court Robes) and then have democrats in congress submit it for debate and vote.

You were doing fine with your post until you got to that part I highlighted. That statement is total BS.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,253
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It shows how ignorant she knows Americans are. She can do what she wants, but the states have to ratify it.

Citizens United is designed to allow unions, Soros and Clinton type foundations to donate, while cutting republican sources off at the knees.

I'm sure rewriting a few other amendments are in the cards, too.
 

azgreg

Chicks dig the long ball
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
24,852
Reaction score
23,058
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It shows how ignorant she knows Americans are. She can do what she wants, but the states have to ratify it.

Citizens United is designed to allow unions, Soros and Clinton type foundations to donate, while cutting republican sources off at the knees.

I'm sure rewriting a few other amendments are in the cards, too.
It will never get out of congress.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavidez TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
83,433
Reaction score
36,855
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You were doing fine with your post until you got to that part I highlighted. That statement is total BS.
(not sure if you are upset with my sarcastic comment or just missed the sarcastic intent)
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
90,247
Reaction score
38,938
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,844
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
It shows how ignorant she knows Americans are. She can do what she wants, but the states have to ratify it.

Citizens United is designed to allow unions, Soros and Clinton type foundations to donate, while cutting republican sources off at the knees.

I'm sure rewriting a few other amendments are in the cards, too.

The Citizens United case had nothing to do with donations.
 
Top Bottom