Pelosi: Amend the First Amendment

CNSNEWS ^ | April 21, 2012 | CNS

[SWAMPSNIPER]

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.

[drwoof]

The introduction of such notions to The People via the media is fundamental to attainment of the ultimate goal. While there is far, far too much money involved in politics (from all sources, but in many cases, largely unions, etc.), a revision to “improve” our Constitution's First (and possibly most vital) Amendment would in all probability serve only to make matters much worse. However, if a leader of our Congress suggests that such a dramatic solution should be considered a valid, reasonable response to a timeless problem, The People will be numbed, and finally, unresponsive, when the End Game begins. Ms. Pelosi’s spew is not hysterical or idiotic; it is cool and very purposeful.

[tanknetter]

I, obviously, have a major problem with the idea that the First Amendment should, let alone needs to, be amended in such away. And if it were to start moving I’d oppose it with all my heart.

HOWEVER, I really do have to give SanFranNan props here in that, in the twilight of her political career, she’s FINALLY woken up and realized that this sort of thing can ONLY be done through a Constitutional Amendment ... rather than Act of Congress, Presidential fiat/Executive Order and/or ruling by activist judges.

So I’m willing to give credit where credit is due. Too bad she and her fellow travellers didn’t reach this conclusion earlier. Like 40 years ago.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Thank you !

[geologist]

NO! NO! NO!

NEVER!

[The Sons of Liberty]

Is SanFran Nan afraid some big bad company is going to disagree with Hussein and her communist tactics?

[Chgogal]

Madame you are an idiot and represent all Dummycrats. It is obvious that you have no understanding of America's history and the importance and meaning of the US Constitution. It IS obvious that you have a better understanding of the Communist Manifesto.

You, Madame should be tarred, feathered, hung and then quartered for TREASON (not upholding the US Constitution).

[neverbluffer]

With all due respect, that is the stupidest argument I have heard in a while.

The GOV. does not choose who or what has rights! Rights are God Given, and one has the ability to pursue happiness. If that hapliness evolves into a Corporation thaen so be it.

The very word Corporation (corpus) means a “body of people”, therefore the “body of people” have the same damn rights whether it is indicidual or collective.

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

In the words of Spongebob, “See you next Tuesday” San Fran Nan.

[hattend]

Term limits first.

[Joe Boucher]

It’s really too bad,
We use to “dunk” witches like pelosi.
A grand tradition that should be returned.
That and Keel Hauling which also is good for sea hags like her.

[Iron Munro]

With all due respect, that is the stupidest argument I have heard in a while.
The GOV. does not choose who or what has rights!
Rights are God Given, and one has the ability to pursue happiness.

With all due respect I offer this correction:

Yes, it is God who gave each of us our inalienable rights.

But it was the U.S. Supreme Court, not God, who gave those rights to corporations, labor unions, political parties and other collectives and collections of individuals.

[neverbluffer]

Can you site the SC case please? Thanks