the first amendment to the constitution

[metaphorsbwithu]

***
ACCORDING TO BARACK OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRAT PARTY
AS EVIDENCED BY THEIR ATTEMPT TO RAM THROUGH THE "DISCLOSE ACT"

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition

Comments

[tniassaint]

Without even going into my own thoughts on support on this bill (it might not be what you think)... explain to me how this is in any way a violation of the prohibition against laws that provide...:

an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.*

I have read a summery of the bill. So explain that odd statement. I have heard it several times, but never with any real support for the claim.

[metaphorsbwithu]

I'll make it short and sweet.

The Supreme Court spelled out that corporations, etc. are composed of people and they have the same right to express political speech as UNIONS, "astroturf" organizations like ACORN, SEIU, NEA, OFA, etc. which are EXEMPTED from this Orwellian bill's ban.

It would go into effect within 30 days, just in time to throw the mid-term elections into chaos.

Obama LIED about the meaning of the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United right in their faces, and the Democrats showed their true contemptible selves by jumping up behind them and applauding Obama's crass political LIE!

Funny for someone who tool over $60 million from SEIU in big corporations in 2008 as well as potentially $100 million or more from untraceable foreign sources.

[tniassaint]

Well, frankly, I (and many others) know that the Supreme Court Decision (Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 ) is an absolute travesty. I have been reading on that bit of legal tripe. It is bunk.

I do not think that these organizations should be exempted - EXCEPT for charitable NFPs (mostly because they get a good deal of funding from anonymous donations) - but IMHO it should only apply if they are NOT involved in election activities and lobbying. The exemption removes the transparencies and opens HUGE loopholes that make the rule useless.

That noted - you have not demonstrated ANY infringement on the Constitutional rule quoted.

Also there is NO Constitutional Protection to ones rights of privacy (States often do - FL being one of them).

Also, if it is such a nasty bit of legislation then we will all enjoy the Supreme Court hearings - won't we?

[metaphorsbwithu]

That's because you, Mike, and "many others" do not believe in what the Constitution says.

You, like Obama, think it's flawed and want to ignore the Constitution's true intent that there shouyld be no BIG BROTHER.

You want to control what people say, what they think, where they go, how they get there, what they do, how they live, how much of their money they can keep, who gets what, who wins, who loses ... and on, and on, and on.

If I got together a hundred, or two hundred, or a thousand people to express our political opinions (especially opinions against the Democrat Party) you and the Democrats would FORCE us to be SILENT.

If you don't understand that you don't want to understand so stop with the "I haven't proved" line.

And the House version was WORSE!

Tyranny, Mike! One party rule! This is what you get when the Socialist Democrats get into power!

Congratulations!:-D

A song that was written before it's time ...

[lather2002]

A long long time ago