Skip to comments.The utterly moronic "Peoples Rights Amendment"
Posted on 04/21/2012 7:07:38 AM PDT by SumProVita
"...my friend and colleague Eugene Volokh makes much the same point in his usual erudite way:
So just as Congress could therefore ban the speech of nonmedia business corporations, it could ban publications by corporate-run newspapers and magazines which I think includes nearly all such newspapers and magazines in the country (and for good reason, since organizing a major publications as a partnership or sole proprietorship would make it much harder for it to get investors and to operate). Nor does this proposal leave room for the possibility, in my view dubious, that the Free Press Clause would protect newspapers organized by corporations but not other corporations that want to use mass communications technology. Section 3 makes clear that the preservation of the freedom of the press applies only to the people, and section 2 expressly provides that corporations arent protected as the people.
Congress could also ban the speech and religious practice of most churches, which are generally organized as corporation. It could ban the speech of nonprofit organizations that are organized as corporations."
(Excerpt) Read more at professorbainbridge.com ...
The idea is that "the people" shouldn't have to worry about an old dusty constitution and can have anything they want.
What is so amazing is that this is all blatantly OBVIOUS...and the general public seems unaware.
Nancy Pelousy ping. Thanks SumProVita.
Only if THEY control the state.
It is about power.
They wish to deny free speech to people who run companies because they do not want free and open debate concerning the legislation they propose that would force these corporations to do their bidding.
Free and open debate exposes the costly non-sense that is all of this environmental controls that the left continues to impose in violation of the law and common sense.
And let’s not forget churches. They would REALLY like to control speech connected with authentic Christians (many of which are generally organized as corporations).
“The public” remains in rectal defilade most of the time.
The Sunday before that he was raising funds for Handgun Control Inc.
The commies have been highly influential in mainstream religion for decades.
These are the issues and opportunities that the spineless GOP refuses to seize and demagogue with the efficiency and effectiveness that the DNC and media did with the SS reform (Robbing S from old people), The contraceptive mandate (War on women), the Bush tax cuts (Tax cuts for the rich) etc.
This is another golden opportunity to show the tyranny and control inherent in the socialist ideology of democrat control.
The GOP will punt. They’ll make a few shallow comments and then reach across the isle and pet someone.
For the enemies of religion cannot leave it alone. They laboriously attempt to smash religion. They cannot smash religion; but they do smash everything else. ...GK Chesterton
This for all practical purposes would nationalize the media. Also, as noted, it would censor churches because most churches are big bad corporations. So the right of free speech is atomized - you as an individual may privately speak but people joined together in an organization or corporation have no freedom of speech. But the people are supposed to have the right to “peaceably assemble” and speak. Here our communists want to make it so only you as an isolated individual can speak and you can speak only in ways that would be ineffective. Four more years of Obama - no more First Amendment.
The Methodist Church took part in the founding of handgun Control Inc.
Much earlier I can recall sitting in Sunday School with literature praising leaders of the Chinese Revolution.
First thing that comes to mind is The Heritage Foundation.
Governed by an independent Board of Trustees, The Heritage Foundation is an independent, tax-exempt institution. Heritage relies on the private financial support of the general publicindividuals, foundations, and corporationsfor its income, and accepts no government funds and performs no contract work. Heritage is one of the nations largest public policy research organizations. More than 710,000 individual members make it the most broadly supported think tank in America.
The Heritage Foundation is the nations most broadly supported public policy research institute, with nearly 700,000 individual, foundation and corporate donors. Heritage, founded in February 1973, has a staff of 255 and an annual expense budget of $75.3 million.
Our mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
“Men have forgotten God; thats why all this has happened.” ...Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Even among conservatives.
Yes, the repercussions of such an amendment are compelling.
By the way, I love this from your home page:
“How do you tell a communist? Well, its someone who reads Marx and Lenin.
And how do you tell an anti-Communist? Its someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”
Unfortunately, you are correct...but this is not nearly to the extent that you find among liberals.
No further need to distort the Commerce Clause or circumvent the enumeration of powers in Article I, Section 8. Call it the Freeway Amendment. No stop signs, no speed limit. Idiocracy, here we come.
Hammer - nail - POW!
Same my church. Decades ago they,started raising money to be sent to Idi Amin, S.E Asia and communist groups. When I asked the minister he defended it by saying while most of the money went to dictators, communists, and military, a little would make it’s way to the people who needed it.
I rarely attend that church now.
Incidentally, Chuckie Schumer recently called Citizens United the worst SCOTUS decision since Plessy v. Ferguson. Since Plessy was decided in the 1890s, that's really covering a lot of ground. Does Schumer really think, for instance, that the SCOTUS allowing corporate entities to make public comments about political candidates running for office is worse than the SCOTUS upholding President Roosevelt's power to send innocent Japanese Americans to detention camps during WWII (Korematsu case, 1944)? And would Schumer be forced to change that statement when and if the SCOTUS strikes down Obamacare?
The time period I am talking about was the early 60s. I was in high school until 1960. The preacher was raising funds for gun control not very long after that, maybe not under the specific name HCI, but gun control just the same. The Methodist Church did play a role in anti gun activism along with the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches. The NCC and WCC are leftist anti American to the core and have been for decades. No American church had or has any business being affiliated with either.
In 1973 I was 31 years old and had been fighting the gun control agenda for 16 years. I joined the NRA when I was 14.
Corporations and soilent greens is both peoples. All corporations are formed by people. Their stock is owned by people, or by other corporations whose stock is somewhere along the line owned by people. People serve as directors and officers. They employ people, and they provide goods and services to people. All an evil corporation is (most are not evil) is a reflection of the evil people hiding behind it. If their evil gets sufficiently egregious, they go to jail anyway, and the corporations gets liquidated. These are the facts of life. Corporations do not love or hate. They do not mate or date. They simply are. And the people who make it run have as much right to speak through the corporation as they do in person.
Chuck Schumer is one of the worst as I’m sure you already know. As stated above all these people really want is control, they like power over others and they like that they can skirt the very same rules and regs that they want to impose on everyone else. Things like this absurdity are transparent. They somehow convinced the GOP to go along with campaign finance reform that exempted corporations but allowed unions to finance campaigns. And they still lost. It wasn’t until Obama swept them in that they regained control and they thoroughly abused that power, upset longstanding congressional precedent in order to cram down our throats the largest federal power grab since FDRs presidency. And they did it just after an election which was a referendum n that very idea and which saw them lose more seats than they had seen in a generation. So of course they are want to silence critics.
More than that though, it is against the very idea of a free country and a free people that the entities affected by laws and regulations should have no political voice to protest those very rules and regulations. Only a control freak would want a law that allows them to silence their critics, and the fact that the people keep sending men and women like Schumer back to represent them is sad and scary.