Welcome to PatsFans.com

McConnell: Ammending the Constitution is "radical"

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by wistahpatsfan, Sep 9, 2012.

  1. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    McConnell responds to Obama Citizens United amendment VIDEO | The Daily Caller

    TAMPA, Fla. — Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told The Daily Caller Thursday that President Obama’s call to amend the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling is “an act of genuine radicalism.”

    ...“I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United,” Obama wrote on the website. “Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight on the super PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”

    “It’s an act of genuine radicalism,” McConnell said when asked about his reaction to the president’s statement. “We haven’t amended the First Amendment in 235 years. The First Amendment is the core of not only freedom of religion, freedom to petition the government, and the rest, but most important, freedom of speech,” McConnell said. “And when the founders were thinking of freedom of speech, they were thinking of political speech.”


    So ammending the Constitution is RADICAL? If there was any doubt that McConnell was in the corporate tank, I think this removes it.
  2. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,022
    Likes Received:
    108
    Ratings:
    +188 / 7 / -23

    Corporations are people...
  3. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    For the record, I don't hear a lot from Dems supporting Obama on this. I know my Rep McGovern has been very vocal about it but can't seem to get much traction from his colleagues. Big cash cow at risk here.
  4. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,639
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +126 / 7 / -13

    Curtailing the The First Amendments protection of political speech is radical.
  5. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey

    He is right, just as Dems were right to say the same thing when Republicans were talking about a flag burning amendment. It has only been amended twenty times or so in the last two hundred plus years ( not counting the Bill of Rights)....
  6. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,420
    Likes Received:
    252
    Ratings:
    +357 / 8 / -3

    #11 Jersey

    I don't know about individual politicians but I do know that the Democratic platform supports amending the constitution to reverse Citizens United.

    The Republicans have vowed to fight such a move - in spite of the fact that only 25% of Americans feel that there is an intrinsic right to unlimited campaign spending.

    Democratic Platform Supports Amending Constitution to Reverse Citizens United


    Also all of the following Democrats have introduced bills to either drastically modify or outright reverse the decision in either the house or the senate.

    Senators Tom Udall (D-NM), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), and Mark Begich (D-AK), Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Max Baucus and Senator Jon Tester, Rep. Marcy Kaptur, Rep. Kurt Schrader, Rep. Donna Edwards, Rep. Ted Deutch, , Rep. Betty Sutton, Rep. Jim McGovern, Rep. Keith Ellison, Rep. John Yarmuth and Rep. Walter Jones, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Rep. Adam Schiff, Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT), Tom Udall (D-NM), Michael Bennet (D-C), Arlen Specter (D-PA), Rep. Kurt Schrader Senator Max Baucus, Rep. Leonard Boswell, Rep. Donna Edwards and Rep. Paul W. Hodes.


    There are also numerous bills in state legislatures awaiting disposition.

    Citizens United v. FEC Constitutional Remedies: List of local, state and federal resolution efforts | People For the American Way
  7. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    38,045
    Likes Received:
    291
    Ratings:
    +584 / 4 / -12

    #87 Jersey

    At first I was against the ruling and now I feel the ruling was correct. It is dangerous for the citizens of this country to give corporate media outlets free speech rights and not give them to corporate (other) outlets. One only needs to look at the countries where the government controls the media to see how dangerous it can be.

    As with personal free speech sometimes it's tough to take and certainly that big money is a part of it can be considered dangerous. But I'm not comfortable the Fox, MSNBC, CNN, NYT, Washington Post be given exclusive rights on free speech - there should not be anything exclusive regarding free speech except what is already banned in the free speech category.

    I know some here really like Obama which is their right. I'm on the fence with him - I like some things and others i am just not sure. But one thing I am sure of is Obama is not a free speech man. he may walk the walk but it's just a show. Never has a sitting President spent so much time and money quieting the voices of his detractors - a dangerous thing that even Obama fans should wake up and see. He's a good man with a dangerous side to him.

    One of the reasons our fore fathers created the 3 branches of government in this country. If you agree with free speech you must question Barack Obama's agenda.
  8. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,420
    Likes Received:
    252
    Ratings:
    +357 / 8 / -3

    #11 Jersey

    But Citizens United took "free speech" out of the realm of "free" and put a price on it....which takes away equality since the most heard speech becomes the property of those not with something say but those with the most amount of money to spend.

    I understand not wanting the government to control the media - but why are more comfortable with the idea that big money can control it, instead?
  9. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,639
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +126 / 7 / -13

    The Left is always looking to regulate Political speech.

    The people who wrote the Constitution recognized how dangerous this was.
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2012
  10. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    38,045
    Likes Received:
    291
    Ratings:
    +584 / 4 / -12

    #87 Jersey


    I mentioned the money aspect to it - however IMO balancing the playing field is more important to me. Mrs. PF - corporations with big money are already influencing politics and it's all done out of our reach. Are the people against this going to fight that with the same fervor they fight this. Are those politicians listed above going to fight the money they see in DC from the same corporations they fight in this?

    Perhaps part of it is those in DC like allowing free speech only to those who pay to have it outside of the reach of the American publics ear. They can control the corporations that are willing to pay in DC and they fear they have no control over the speech outside of DC. All the signs are there for everyone to see - politicians are afraid of free speech when money is behind it and it's not controlled in secret meetings outside of the public's reach.
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2012
  11. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,639
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +126 / 7 / -13

    Corporations are owned by human being people, they have a right to exercise their right of free speech through the corp they own by virtue of investing in the company. It is simple a matter of protecting their private property rights.

    Government through it's actions can harm companies the people who OWN those companies expect the companies they invest in to protect the value of that investment.
  12. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,420
    Likes Received:
    252
    Ratings:
    +357 / 8 / -3

    #11 Jersey

    If that were the case why aren't the Republicans also "afraid" of the Citizens United ruling?

    As to "secret" - what's more secret than a super pac which doesn't have to disclose it's donors?
  13. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    38,045
    Likes Received:
    291
    Ratings:
    +584 / 4 / -12

    #87 Jersey

    Free speech is a huge issue amongst republicans - even if they did fear it they know better than to mention it.

    The hypocrisy of both parties is there for all to see isn't it.
    The media is still slanted left and the democrats wish it to stay that way.


    ...........................
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2012
  14. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,639
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +126 / 7 / -13



    Conservatives support free speech.

    You don't see for example the free speech rights of left wing Unions.

    The left wants a situation like 2008 where Obama had a greater than 2>1 spending advantage on McCain.
  15. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,420
    Likes Received:
    252
    Ratings:
    +357 / 8 / -3

    #11 Jersey

    I do see the right wing trying to silence them, however. How is this different?

    And the right wants the same situation - in reverse.

    One is no better than the other - only more hypocritical.
  16. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    38,045
    Likes Received:
    291
    Ratings:
    +584 / 4 / -12

    #87 Jersey

    This topic is one more example that our people in DC are more concerned with themselves than they are working with each other for the benefit of the people. many of them wish to do what they want, how they want and when they want only under the scrutiny of the walls of the room they govern in.
  17. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,639
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +126 / 7 / -13




    Really? What laws have been proposed to limit the Free Speech of Unions even public sector ones?


    Specific examples please.
  18. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,420
    Likes Received:
    252
    Ratings:
    +357 / 8 / -3

    #11 Jersey

    The mere fact that they are trying to get rid of them altogether is enough proof, isn't it?
  19. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,766
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    That's complete b.s. To the extent there have been legislation aimed at restricting freedom of speech, those issues came up during wars, though the Supremes would ultimately weaken them or strike them down. Almost invariably the laws were directed against those who were anti-war. The rights to freedom of speech in private places, by students, by employees of the public sector, etc. has been iffy in numerous cases. To the extent freedom of speech has been impinged on in our society, it's more often by the right than by the left. But, for the most part, the left, like the right, uses freedom of speech to try to discourage offensive remarks. It's still free to use the n-word, but thanks to the left a person who uses it may pay a consequence. It's still free to say happy holidays, but thanks to the right a business that uses that expression may pay a consequence.

    The most powerful organization in the US protecting freedom of speech is one that is generally despised by the right wing, the ACLU.
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2012
  20. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,420
    Likes Received:
    252
    Ratings:
    +357 / 8 / -3

    #11 Jersey

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>