• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Goodbye Free Speech

Status
Not open for further replies.
HankD

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Looks like Nancy We-have-to-pass-the-bill-so-we-can-see-whats-in-it Pelosi is at it again:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pelosi-amend-first-amendment

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday endorsed a movement announced by other congressional Democrats on Wednesday to ratify an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow Congress to regulate political speech when it is engaged in by corporations as opposed to individuals.

The First Amendment says in part: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."
Television and radio networks, newspapers, publishing houses, movie studios and think tanks, as well as political action committees, are usually organized as, or elements of, corporations.
Click to expand...
Enbolding mine...

In a similar case (Citizens United, 2009) already defeated by the Supreme Court:

When the court ruled against the Obama administration's position in this case, Chief Justice Roberts wrote a concurring opinion underscoring the fact that the administration had wanted the court to allow the government to prohibit political speech.

'The government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech,' wrote Roberts. 'It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concerns'
Click to expand...

The "Progressive" left-sided political System will not cease until they muffle the bleating of we the sheeple.

Four more years?

HankD
 
Last edited:
Squire Robertsson

Squire Robertsson

Administrator
Administrator
She want an amendment

First she and her supporters have to get it passed by two thirds of both the House and Senate. Then she needs three fourths of the states to ratify. So, Pelosi is throwing red meat to her supporters. But, it's all flash and no fire.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
S

saturneptune

New Member
Squire Robertsson said:
First she and her supporters have to get it passed by two thirds of bot the House and Senate. Then she needs three fourths of the states to ratify. So, Pelosi is throwing red meat to her supporters. But, it's all flash and no fire.
Click to expand...

If the Democrats ever regain control of the House (which I hope not anytime soon), one would think they would pick someone else for Speaker.
 
Bro. Curtis

Bro. Curtis

<img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter
Besides, this bill will never even get thru the senate. Certainly not the house.

Any silencing of and media will have to be by executive order.
 
HankD

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
billwald said:
Thanks for the good news. A corporation is not a person.
Click to expand...

Only most of the time but strange how that works Bill,
suddenly a corporation becomes a person when it comes time to pay taxes.

Not only that but as the O/P states,
The First Amendment says in part: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."
Television and radio networks, newspapers, publishing houses, movie studios and think tanks, as well as political action committees, are usually organized as, or elements of, corporations.
Click to expand...

Look like Fox news will be off the air...

HankD
 
Squire Robertsson

Squire Robertsson

Administrator
Administrator
Errm, the legal construct of corporate personhood is IIRC at least a 150 years old. It's not like the current SC pulled it out of their ears. They have applied it in a manner not to many folks liking. But the question is were they following or not following the precendents of 150 years of case and statutory law.
Crabtownboy said:
The current activist SC says a corporation is an person ... I guess a person is an individual ... at least in their activist eyes.
Click to expand...
 
carpro

carpro

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Squire Robertsson said:
Errm, the legal construct of corporate personhood is IIRC at least a 150 years old. It's not like the current SC pulled it out of their ears. They have applied it in a manner not to many folks liking. But the question is were they following or not following the precendents of 150 years of case and statutory law.
Click to expand...

Precedent only matters to the left if it favors them.
 
Salty

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
billwald said:
Thanks for the good news. A corporation is not a person.
Click to expand...

The question is "Why is a corporation considered a person?" Think of it this way - Suppose a corporation does you wrong - who do you sue - if not the corporation - then you would sue the individual stockholders.

In addition - a corporation is not entitled to all rights of a natural person - ie the fifth amendment.

For more info, check this link

Hmmm - if a corporation is NOT a "person" - then they should not be required to pay taxes. In fact that should be the case now, as a corp does not have the right to vote.
-Taxation without represenation is tyranny.
Corps pay about 12 of all taxes - (not to mention the Social Security "contribution") so if corps are not persons and do not pay taxes - then your taxes will go up
 
T

targus

New Member
billwald said:
OK, how about an amendment restricting "free speech" to citizens.
Click to expand...

Would you then limit the right to face your accusers in a fair trial to "citizens"?

Would you limit the right to life and liberty to citizens?

As a self professed libertarian why is your solution to take away somebody's rights?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
B

billwald

New Member
>Would you then limit the right to face your accusers in a fair trial to "citizens"?

Don't see the connection between trials and buying politicians. Should corporations be permitted to buy jurors?

>Would you limit the right to life and liberty to citizens?

Yes. Most every other country does. Would you grant these rights to illegal Mexicans?

>Bill, do you believe that coroporations should be exempt from taxes? A simple yes or no would do.

No. Do you think foreign or American or international companies should be permitted to buy American politicians?
 
T

targus

New Member
billwald said:
Don't see the connection between trials and buying politicians. Should corporations be permitted to buy jurors?
Click to expand...

You are all over the place here.

You said that only citizens should have free speech.

Free speech is a right under the constitution.

If you can take away one right then you can take away any or all of them.

>Would you limit the right to life and liberty to citizens?<

Yes. Most every other country does. Would you grant these rights to illegal Mexicans?
Click to expand...

Every person has a right to life and liberty.

To have illegal immigrants return to their own country is not denying them life or liberty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top