Trevis Posted May 19, 2014 at 05:03 AM Share Posted May 19, 2014 at 05:03 AM http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/05/18/Harry-Reid-Vote-to-Amend-U-S-Constitution-to-Limit-Political-Speech See my signature... called it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFC Stu Posted May 19, 2014 at 02:20 PM Share Posted May 19, 2014 at 02:20 PM This old buzzard needs to go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted May 19, 2014 at 02:32 PM Share Posted May 19, 2014 at 02:32 PM Looks like he's getting the cart ahead of the horse. Doesn't he know he has to deal with #2 before he can move on to the others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tompo Posted May 19, 2014 at 02:47 PM Share Posted May 19, 2014 at 02:47 PM The amendment is to repeal/overturn Citizens United. Which said that it is OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defaultdotxbe Posted May 20, 2014 at 12:05 AM Share Posted May 20, 2014 at 12:05 AM The amendment is to repeal/overturn Citizens United. Which said that it is OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate.The amendment could also be used to limit how much money individuals can spend, as well as how much the candidates themselves can spend (would seem to be able to include travel expenses for campaigning, not just running ads and whatnot) It would seem its geared more to overturn the Buckley v. Valeo ruling than Citizens United, since it would apply to all campaign spending, not just spending by corporations and unions This part is interesting though:``Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grantCongress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.Does that mean as long as you call yourself "the press" you can continue to spend as much as you like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmer Fudd Posted May 20, 2014 at 12:09 AM Share Posted May 20, 2014 at 12:09 AM How about we put a rider on it to repeal the 13A and re-establish slavery in the United States.....think the Democrats could get enough votes for that one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted May 20, 2014 at 12:34 AM Share Posted May 20, 2014 at 12:34 AM The amendment is to repeal/overturn Citizens United. Which said that it is OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate.No, the Citizens United decision affirmed that Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech. Bear in mind this was about banning the showing of a movie about Hillary Clinton, I'm astonished and a bit terrified that 4 SCOTUS justices thought that was OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted May 20, 2014 at 12:37 AM Share Posted May 20, 2014 at 12:37 AM This part is interesting though: ``Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.Does that mean as long as you call yourself "the press" you can continue to spend as much as you like? That is where Congress asserts that they can abridge freedom of the press if they so desired, so long as the press in question was corporate owned as most of it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defaultdotxbe Posted May 20, 2014 at 12:49 AM Share Posted May 20, 2014 at 12:49 AM No, the Citizens United decision affirmed that Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech. Bear in mind this was about banning the showing of a movie about Hillary Clinton, I'm astonished and a bit terrified that 4 SCOTUS justices thought that was OK.The Citizens United decision affirmed that corporations and unions have a protected right to free speech (thus congress can pass no law abridging it) The Buckley v. Valeo in 1976 found that campaign spending and donations fell within the realm of free speech, that is the more relevant case to this proposed amendment That is where Congress asserts that they can abridge freedom of the press if they so desired, so long as the press in question was corporate owned as most of it is.I'm reading it as the opposite, they can abridge freedom of speech (as it pertains to campaign spending) except for the press Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevis Posted May 20, 2014 at 12:55 AM Author Share Posted May 20, 2014 at 12:55 AM I think this whole process of classifying rights inn creative ways is going to get really really ugly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted May 20, 2014 at 12:56 AM Share Posted May 20, 2014 at 12:56 AM I'm reading it as the opposite, they can abridge freedom of speech (as it pertains to campaign spending) except for the pressIf corporations have no free speech rights then neither does corporate-owned press. "The press" in the 1st Amendment didn't refer to the news media or newspapers or professional reporters, it literally meant a printing press. It's been expanded over the years as new technology has come into play, such as radio and television and the internet. But it was never meant to mean only reporters and news media, reporters have no more free speech rights under the Constitution than anyone else does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted May 20, 2014 at 12:58 AM Share Posted May 20, 2014 at 12:58 AM I think this whole process of classifying rights inn creative ways is going to get really really ugly...Exactly! And 4 justices actually went for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defaultdotxbe Posted May 20, 2014 at 01:13 AM Share Posted May 20, 2014 at 01:13 AM I'm reading it as the opposite, they can abridge freedom of speech (as it pertains to campaign spending) except for the pressIf corporations have no free speech rights then neither does corporate-owned press. "The press" in the 1st Amendment didn't refer to the news media or newspapers or professional reporters, it literally meant a printing press. It's been expanded over the years as new technology has come into play, such as radio and television and the internet. But it was never meant to mean only reporters and news media, reporters have no more free speech rights under the Constitution than anyone else does. That's why I'm thinking its in there, to exempt the press (even corporate-owned) Besides, all press is owned by someone and the proposed amendment would allow restrictions to applied to everyone, not just corporations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted May 20, 2014 at 01:47 AM Share Posted May 20, 2014 at 01:47 AM That's why I'm thinking its in there, to exempt the press (even corporate-owned) Besides, all press is owned by someone and the proposed amendment would allow restrictions to applied to everyone, not just corporationsOh, my bad I thought you were quoting the part of McCain-Feingold[/i] that was struck down, not the amendment Reid is pushing. McCain-Feingold exempted the news media from its provisions, which is what I was referring to when I sad they asserted they could censor it if they chose to. I predict this amendment will go nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevis Posted May 20, 2014 at 01:56 AM Author Share Posted May 20, 2014 at 01:56 AM Oh, my bad I thought you were quoting the part of McCain-Feingold[/i] that was struck down, not the amendment Reid is pushing. McCain-Feingold exempted the news media from its provisions, which is what I was referring to when I sad they asserted they could censor it if they chose to. I predict this amendment will go nowhere. I'm thinking it's more political posturing to say he is trying to remove the corporate influence from Washington, which is obviously antithetical to any of the DC ruling class agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defaultdotxbe Posted May 20, 2014 at 02:15 AM Share Posted May 20, 2014 at 02:15 AM I predict this amendment will go nowhere.I just noticed it was introduced almost a year ago (6/18/2013) and no, it hasn't gone anywhere since then http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/19 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted May 20, 2014 at 02:38 AM Share Posted May 20, 2014 at 02:38 AM Let's not forget why pols love limiting money in the first place - the less opponents can spend the more likely the incumbent gets reelected. They still get news media coverage, franking privileges, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tompo Posted May 20, 2014 at 02:40 AM Share Posted May 20, 2014 at 02:40 AM The amendment is to repeal/overturn Citizens United. Which said that it is OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate.No, the Citizens United decision affirmed that Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech. Bear in mind this was about banning the showing of a movie about Hillary Clinton, I'm astonished and a bit terrified that 4 SCOTUS justices thought that was OK. Money should not be equal to speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevis Posted May 20, 2014 at 02:49 AM Author Share Posted May 20, 2014 at 02:49 AM Money should not be equal to speech. I'm with you. Money is a method of exchange, and therefore property. As I said, this reclassification of rights is getting very screwy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defaultdotxbe Posted May 20, 2014 at 02:51 AM Share Posted May 20, 2014 at 02:51 AM Money should not be equal to speech.Which was the finding of the Buckley v Valeo case, not Citizens United The proposed amendment would invalidate Buckley v Valeo entirely, but only parts of Citizens United (presumably corporations and unions would retain first amendment rights not associated with campaign finance) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defaultdotxbe Posted May 20, 2014 at 02:53 AM Share Posted May 20, 2014 at 02:53 AM Money should not be equal to speech. I'm with you. Money is a method of exchange, and therefore property. As I said, this reclassification of rights is getting very screwy. When it costs more money the more people people you speak to (radio/tv/newspaper ads) the line can get pretty blurry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted May 20, 2014 at 03:46 AM Share Posted May 20, 2014 at 03:46 AM Money should not be equal to speech.A bumpersticker slogan that ignores the point that you are not allowed to abridge speech by limiting spending. If the purpose and/or effect is to abridge speech it's unconstitutional. That's like saying limiting spending on firearms, accessories, and ammunition to $10 per year doesn't infringe on the 2nd Amendment. "Money is not arms", right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevis Posted May 20, 2014 at 04:50 AM Author Share Posted May 20, 2014 at 04:50 AM Money should not be equal to speech.A bumpersticker slogan that ignores the point that you are not allowed to abridge speech by limiting spending. If the purpose and/or effect is to abridge speech it's unconstitutional. That's like saying limiting spending on firearms, accessories, and ammunition to $10 per year doesn't infringe on the 2nd Amendment. "Money is not arms", right? But that would ignore the right to be secure in person and property... disallowing control of such is against another amendment, the 4th, and placing money under the first allows for shady playing of the way your rights can be molded. Now, doesn't that paint a different picture of this issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomKoz Posted May 20, 2014 at 09:45 AM Share Posted May 20, 2014 at 09:45 AM Money should not be equal to speech. A bumpersticker slogan that ignores the point that you are not allowed to abridge speech by limiting spending. If the purpose and/or effect is to abridge speech it's unconstitutional.That's like saying limiting spending on firearms, accessories, and ammunition to $10 per year doesn't infringe on the 2nd Amendment. "Money is not arms", right?But that would ignore the right to be secure in person and property... disallowing control of such is against another amendment, the 4th, and placing money under the first allows for shady playing of the way your rights can be molded. Now, doesn't that paint a different picture of this issue?Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tompo Posted May 20, 2014 at 11:54 AM Share Posted May 20, 2014 at 11:54 AM Money should not be equal to speech.A bumpersticker slogan that ignores the point that you are not allowed to abridge speech by limiting spending. If the purpose and/or effect is to abridge speech it's unconstitutional. That's like saying limiting spending on firearms, accessories, and ammunition to $10 per year doesn't infringe on the 2nd Amendment. "Money is not arms", right? In today's politicos, if you have $100 and I have $10....you have more 'speech' than I do. have you noticed the guy with the most money wins 95% of elections? That's not right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karim18 Posted May 20, 2014 at 11:55 AM Share Posted May 20, 2014 at 11:55 AM This is also the same man who pushed HARD to audit the Federal Reserve... until people thought it was a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted May 20, 2014 at 12:04 PM Share Posted May 20, 2014 at 12:04 PM In today's politicos, if you have $100 and I have $10....you have more 'speech' than I do. have you noticed the guy with the most money wins 95% of elections? That's not right.The same was true when the Constitution was written. Ben Franklin and his printing press could afford a lot more speech than the farmer. And you've just admitted that limiting money limits speech, you can't do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted May 20, 2014 at 12:05 PM Share Posted May 20, 2014 at 12:05 PM But that would ignore the right to be secure in person and property... disallowing control of such is against another amendment, the 4th, and placing money under the first allows for shady playing of the way your rights can be molded. Now, doesn't that paint a different picture of this issue?? Not following that at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevis Posted May 20, 2014 at 12:17 PM Author Share Posted May 20, 2014 at 12:17 PM Huh? Not following that at all.Get some sleep and come back to me. What I was saying is that disallowing someone to spend their money as they see fit is a property issue, not a speech issue. The fact that the political world has classified money as speech really changed the whole dynamic, allowing them to manipulate things like campaign funds and such. Really, money as speech makes no sense in the realm of investment, and economics in general. It's more guys in fancy suits changing the rules of the game so they win, and we all keep losing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted May 20, 2014 at 12:29 PM Share Posted May 20, 2014 at 12:29 PM Not following that at all.Get some sleep and come back to me. What I was saying is that disallowing someone to spend their money as they see fit is a property issue, not a speech issue. The fact that the political world has classified money as speech really changed the whole dynamic, allowing them to manipulate things like campaign funds and such. Really, money as speech makes no sense in the realm of investment, and economics in general. It's more guys in fancy suits changing the rules of the game so they win, and we all keep losing. How is limiting money not a speech issue? Speech costs money, this forum costs money. Would you be in favor of this forum being shut down because it goes over some arbitrary limit? Isn't Illinois Carry incorporated? eta: just woke up actually, now off to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.