Comments on: Democrats consider constitutional amendment to combat Supreme Court decision on campaign finance

By: vincep1974

vincep1974 — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 04:32:08 +0000

As if anyone really thinks john gives a crap about what he wrote.

After all.. does he care that Obama turned off all security checks on his campaign website and allowed anyone with a pre-paid credit card to denote to his campaign from around the world?

Of course he doesn’t.

By: Facebook User

Facebook User — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 04:31:37 +0000

If they ban corporations they will have to ban PACs, labor unions, non-profits. The only people left with the “right” to speech in the case proposed by these people would be individuals. Otherwise this will never fly. Thank God this will be VERY HARD to get passed. I for one will advocate against it.

By: langoley

langoley — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:03:44 +0000

And do they REEALLY think that SCOTUS will let it stand anyway???

By: Democrats seek to amend the First Amendment « Internet Scofflaw

Democrats seek to amend the First Amendment « Internet Scofflaw — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:06:01 +0000

[...] seek to amend the First Amendment In the wake of the Citizens United ruling, Democrats want a constitutional amendment to limit the free-speech rights of persons who work for corporations. It will never go anywhere, [...]

By: Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Democrats Seeking To Gut The First Amendment

Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:38:16 +0000

[...] response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United, several Democrats on Capitol Hill are advocating a Constitutional Amendment: Democrats in Congress want to amend the U.S. Constitution to say free speech does not extend to [...]

By: libertyatstake

libertyatstake — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:36:09 +0000

Thank God the founding fathers had the foresight to make Amendments so challenging to ratify. So bring on the proposed amendment and let’s have the real debate – the meaning of the FIRST AMENDMENT.

http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/

By: tinteardrop

tinteardrop — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:31:31 +0000

This is a mater of law. It’s not a Constitutional issue in a Republic. The real reason for going after an Amendment is to open the flood gates of mush-minded thinking and end up with a Constitution that, like the 300+ page EU version, is stuffed with such nonsense as “Everyone has the right to dignity” and other trite and meaningless phrases that can be construed, at will, to mean anything someone wants them to mean.

All in all, it’s hard to imagine, with the requirement of the ratification of the States, an Amendment going through today. And, as I alluded, there’s no way one will be tried. They will go for broke if the door is opened.

By: The future of media, Colbert, The latest Watergate « Radioactive Gavin is Out of Print

Thu, 04 Feb 2010 17:29:46 +0000

[...] Dems consider constitutional amendment to combat campaign finance decision [...]

By: thephranc

thephranc — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:51:04 +0000

Well for these socialist programmes people give away the power of money to the government. Those that don’t want to give have it taken from them with threat of jail and/or physical harm. Cooperate bailouts are wrong and they all had a hand in it. You could at least try to be honest about that but that doesn’t fit your narrow hack views. The government shouldn’t force me to take care of any one else by force. They should allow me to do what I want with my money. As evident in history, freedom from the government leads to the greatest advances in society.

By: thephranc

thephranc — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:42:19 +0000

My point about Soros is that any one with money can already flood as much money as they want into elections. Having it open and free in the light of day will only make it easy to weed out the criminal activities. It is illegal for foreigners to give to campaigns. Well unless you are a Clinton then you can get all the Chinese money you want. So you fears are unfounded. But that wont stop you from wanting freedom taken away.

Why do hate freedom?

By: erick1740

erick1740 — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:43:47 +0000

Obamugabe is turning this country into a banana republic.

By: cl696

cl696 — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:07:41 +0000

OMG the Dems are being such obstructionist…oh wait that only applies to us Repubs

By: cl696

cl696 — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:58:39 +0000

They don’t care about “outside influence”. Libs opened the boarders to “outside influence” in the sixties to get immigration votes, but suddenly they are concerned…what ev

The parties only care about winning. This ruling allows corporations to effectively negate illegal voting and “union” influence.

By: Democrats consider constitutional amendment to combat Supreme Court decision on campa - Political Wrinkles

Thu, 04 Feb 2010 09:01:37 +0000

[...] consider constitutional amendment to combat Supreme Court decision on campa Democrats consider constitutional amendment to combat Supreme Court decision on campaign finance [...]

By: lamecherry

lamecherry — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:00:23 +0000

This is the way to proceed as it is legal. Unlike Mr. Obama unleashing the slobbering Schumer mob attacking the Supreme Court in public in 3rd world thuggery.

There is a reason corporations are treated as individuals under law. Let the debate on that begin and let those who want to reverse the aged right express why they in cutting corners on freedom are more astute than those who preserved liberty for centuries.

By: john10

john10 — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 06:26:48 +0000

Well that is the rethuglican way isn’t it – cold hard capitalism for the masses, warm gushy socialism for the corporations. And what power have people given away in return for the social programs you refer to as “handouts”, which by your own admission offer people the bare-bones necessities of food and shelter?

By: goldbeachbiker

goldbeachbiker — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 05:48:49 +0000

The chances for this would-be Constitutional amendment would require that two-thirds of both houses of Congress or two-thirds of the state legislatures have to call for an amendment. To be ratified, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of the states. The chances for that happening are about as great as Nancy Pelosi voting against health care reform, or successful additional plastic surgery …….. (that wasn’t necessary)

By: thephranc

thephranc — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 05:13:00 +0000

Food stamps is not equal food as it only pays a bare minimum. HUD does not give equal housing it gives some people basic housing and helps facilitate loans to people who can never pay it back.

Neither I nor any of my family has ever lived of the backs of productive tax payers. I come from a long line of hearty, hard working Americans who relied on them selves and didn’t give away power to a government for hand outs. You know the kind of people who made America and made it great.

By: goldbeachbiker

goldbeachbiker — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 05:11:28 +0000

Guys, guys, guys. From a conservative perspective, all of this hubbub over this Constitutional amendment attempt is GREAT timing. The more time we can get Democrat senators spending their time over an impossible feat, the better. There is so much irony here, I want to scream.

Typically, the Dems again have been blinded by their own arrogance, ignorance and inability to see what’s coming their way this November.

The chances of a Constitutional ammendment reversing the Supreme Court’s Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission decision is about as likely as Pelosi voting against the haelth care bill.

Let them waste their time, it’s a good thing!

By: paulie

paulie — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 04:34:25 +0000

Foreign contributions are still prohibited – that provision was never challenged. Oh, that’s right. Foreign contributions are OK if you are a Democrat. The FEC is still refusing to investigate foreign contributions to Obama’s record setting political war chest. I wonder why?