@Blickers,
Political speech is political speech doesn't matter if your dirt poor or millionaire ... by your reasoning you would draw a line at a particular dollar amount that somebody is worth? Or you would determine that you can't spend more than a certain dollar amount... how ridiculous is that. The first amendment is very clear political speech shall not be abridged in any shape or fashion. The First Amendment also protects the Press... By your reasoning if CNN with their liberal bent and bias could spend more money than Fox News (which of course we all know is fair and balanced) then by your reasoning they should be barred from doing so.
@giujohn,
Of course a millionaire can individually speak out on behalf of a candidate. But there should be limits on the amount of money that organizations with tens of millions of dollars raised should be able to contribute to a candidate, that is all. And that is what the Citizens United decision shut down-the limits that various PACs, which are funded by the wealthy, can contribute.
If you're rich and you want to go coast to coast on your private plane and give speeches supporting Trump, go ahead. But PACs should be limited in how much they are allowed to donate, and I support Hillary Clinton saying that she will appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn this poor decision. According to you, anyone who doesn't endorse this bad decision by the Supreme Court wants to overturn the Bill of Rights, which is the usual poppycock.
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
Of course a millionaire can individually speak out on behalf of a candidate. But there should be limits on the amount of money that organizations with tens of millions of dollars raised should be able to contribute to a candidate, that is all. And that is what the Citizens United decision shut down-the limits that various PACs, which are funded by the wealthy, can contribute.
If you're rich and you want to go coast to coast on your private plane and give speeches supporting Trump, go ahead. But PACs should be limited in how much they are allowed to donate, and I support Hillary Clinton saying that she will appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn this poor decision. According to you, anyone who doesn't endorse this bad decision by the Supreme Court wants to overturn the Bill of Rights, which is the usual poppycock.
You're a little confused citizens united is not about making contributions to the candidate which is not allowed it's about political ads in the media and contributing to pacs.
@edgarblythe,
The vote will be very close, either way - For it is not a leader they endow upon you, but a furtherment of division.
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
Quote giujohn:
Quote:She [Hillary] also wants to scrap the First Amendment when she talks about reversing citizens united which is ironic because she's got more money from special interests
Citizens United? You mean the decision that says corporations are people? And you accuse anyone who opposes that and wants to see it reversed as advocating "scrapping the First Amendment"?
Okay, so now we know. Giujohn not only believes that corporations are people, he believes anyone opposed to that principle is guilty of trying to scrap the First Amendment.
It's funny, liberals believe
Roe v Wade is sacrosanct because the Supreme Court decided it. Never mind that it took a tortured search to find a right to privacy, not to mention one that extended to ending the life of the unborn, in the Constitution. However they find
Citizens United so, so ridiculous.
If future courts should breezily overturn Citizens United, irrespective of the virtue of honoring precedent, why shouldn't they do so as respects
Roe v Wade?
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
According to you, a candidate must agree that this decision is correct or the candidate is against the Constitution. You are full of hogwash.
It bothers me not at all that one of Hillary's goals is to appoint judges who don't agree with this decision and will likely vote to overturn it. In my opinion, it is a poor decision and deserves to be overturned.
So if a candidate doesn't agree with
Roe v Wade it's nothing more than a matter of legal opinion?
A Republican candidate who promises to appoint Justices who will overturn
Roe v Wade is not fundamentally a problem for you. You may not agree with them, but you would never launch a hyperbolic attack against them citing the virtue of precedent. Right?
@Finn dAbuzz,
It does not matter if I agree with the candidates on issues of precedent. The conservatives have been openly trying to get Roe v Wade overturned for at least 30 years whether I agree or not. So it they're going to go for it, I don't see why we shouldn't.
@Blickers,
OK - So I can rely on you not to go nuclear on any conservative who argues to overturn
Roe v Wade?
@Finn dAbuzz,
No, I'll go nuclear on them anyway.
Just for the record, and the edification of the many, many loons who post at this site, there are only two ways to amend the constitution (and that includes, of course, "scrapping" the constitution). That is when two thirds of both houses of the Congress approve, and send to the states, an amendment, or amendments; or, when two thirds of the states call for a convention to amend the constitution. Thereafter, any amendment must be ratified by three quarters of the states, which right now, means 38 states. It is a little more complicated than that, as i will presently show--but the point here is that no president, in fact, no member of the executive branch, has any power over the amendment of the constitution in any way.
For the Hard of Thinking members of this site, here is the relevant article of the constitution which covers amendment:
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Talking about what Mrs. Clinton would do to the constitution, or Mr. Trump, for that matter, is glaring evidence of stultifying ignorance.
@Setanta,
Your history lesson seems to be lost on people like Barack Obama and by extension Hillary Clinton because that's exactly what her presidency will be an extension of Obama's presidency... You're right... in order to change and that's the operative word change the Constitution the procedure outlined is correct, but that's not how you scrap the Constitution, its done by ignoring it... By ignoring the separation of powers and legislating from the president's desk... you scrap it by installing activists jurists to the federal bench and to scotus who ignore the Constitution and legislate From the Bench. You scrap it when the loons like those here who will vote for Hillary actually believe that Hillary Clinton doesn't want to take away your gun.
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:those here who will vote for Hillary actually believe that Hillary Clinton doesn't want to take away your gun.
I would vote for Hillary (were I able to) precisely because I want someone to take away your gun.
@contrex,
Thank you for proving my point.
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:
Thank you for proving my point.
That people whyo support Hillary want to see better and more gun control? Surely that is well known already.
@contrex,
I wouldn't let him have a spoon.
@contrex,
Again, that's the point she doesn't want gun control she wants gun confiscation... She's a liar.
OK confiscation then. Sounds good to me.
No, we think that sick individuals shooting up a school is a bad thing. And being stopped by police won't result in a shooting. Guns don't make you free, the ballot box does.
As for dumbass, you've admitted to having comprehension problems and are pig ignorant about your own electoral process.
Hint, not understanding something isn't a sign of intelligence.
@contrex,
Of course you do that's because either you're a dumb ass or you're from a country that doesn't have a constitution and Bill of Rights.
