- Joined
- Feb 15, 2014
- Messages
- 19,599
- Reaction score
- 11,565
- Location
- South Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Hillary Clinton announced on Saturday that she would introduce a constitutional amendment within the first 30 days of her presidency to overturn the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision
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.
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 of others is way more corrosive to democracy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
It will never get out of congress.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.
(not sure if you are upset with my sarcastic comment or just missed the sarcastic intent)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)
It will never get out of congress.
My wife always is reminding me...Sarcasm does NOT translate well on the internet...I missed it.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?