Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Founding Fathers Smiling After Supreme Court Campaign Finance Ruling
Fox News ^ | January 22, 2010 | Ken Klukowski

Posted on 01/26/2010 8:10:01 AM PST by opentalk

In the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling on Thursday, every American should be worried when the president of the United States starts threatening the highest court in the land.

...The group Citizens United made a documentary about Hillary Clinton during the 2008 campaign. The Federal Election Commission did not allow it to be distributed, and David Bossie, president of Citizens United, decided to fight back.

The case went to the Supreme Court, where former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson—a living legend among Supreme Court lawyers—fought it out against Barack Obama’s Justice Department. During argument, the Obama administration’s lawyer, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, made extravagant claims about the extent to which government can censor its critics, outlawing books, movies, and other methods of informing the public. Olson pushed back hard, pointing to the terrible power that this part of BCRA gives the government against private citizens banding together to speak out during election season.

The Supreme Court agreed that such power is frightening. In an opinion written by moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy, he noted that the Court upheld regulations decades ago on corporate speech, on the theory that corporations could amass vast sums of money to drown out ordinary citizens, distorting public debate.

...It’s nothing short of Orwellian that many on the left argue that the First Amendment protects pornography and obscenity, but not the right to freely speak out about candidates for the presidency of the United States. History is clear that the Founding Fathers’ purpose in writing the Free Speech Clause was to ensure that people—either individually or as a group (which includes corporations)—have the right to share and spread their ideas and opinions of the government, its policies and its candidates for office.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS: elenakagan; freespeech; obama; supremecourt; threats
This article highlights the lack of respect the Obama administration has for the constitution and balance of powers.
1 posted on 01/26/2010 8:10:01 AM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: opentalk

Yeah, I mean, what kind of president signs such a law? Oh, wait...


2 posted on 01/26/2010 8:13:15 AM PST by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
Stop the Federal Usurpation

Time to tell Washington to STFU - Stop The Federal Usurpation. Federal usurpation of individual state rights continues to erode and to limit the ability of state governments to operate according to their own citizen's directives. Since, as the original intent of the Constitution directed, the best government is one which governs closer to the people and Federal Usurpation is the greatest threat we face today, it is time to tell Washington to STFU.

A coup d'état (pronounced /ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/, us dict: kōō′·dā·tâ′), or coup for short, is the sudden unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government, usually by a small group of the existing state establishment — typically the military — to replace the deposed government with another, either civil or military. A coup d’état succeeds when the usurpers establish their legitimacy if the attacked government fail to thwart them, by allowing their (strategic, tactical, political) consolidation and then receiving the deposed government’s surrender; or the acquiescence of the populace and the non-participant military forces.

Typically, a coup d’état uses the extant government’s power to assume political control of the country. In Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook, military historian Edward Luttwak says: "A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder”, thus, armed force (either military or paramilitary) is not a defining feature of a coup d’État.

Be not that far from me, for trouble is near; haste Thee to help me. Blessed be the Lord my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight. My goodness, and my fortress; my high tower, and my deliverer; my shield, and he in whom I trust; who subdueth my people under me. O my God, I trust in thee: let me not be ashamed, let not mine enemies triumph over me.

3 posted on 01/26/2010 8:14:36 AM PST by jessduntno ("If you lose MA and that's not a wake-up call, there's no hope of waking up." - Evan Bayh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

This and the “fairness” doctrine were the main tools that leftists use to push their anti-capitalist, pro-communist agendas. They’re squealing like stuck pigs because now all these industries (PEOPLE!) they’ve been demonizing over the years get to fight back.


4 posted on 01/26/2010 8:15:02 AM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

The Founding Fathers probably never smiled when they were alive. And it’s been downhill for the republic since then.


5 posted on 01/26/2010 8:22:20 AM PST by the invisib1e hand (denial springs eternal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
They plan on using the FCC to regulate.
From American Spectator,

Yet for the first time, the federal government has launched a war against an entire -- and completely legal -- industry: broadcast television.

The Federal Communications Commission has made little effort to hide its goal of ending free television. The recent -- and perhaps most brazen -- act was the appointment by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski of a Duke University Law Professor to serve as the commission's architect to dismantle the nation's 1,600 television stations.

This is what should most alarm the public. Moving broadcast television to subscription-only platforms such as cable and satellite or shutting down the service altogether eliminates a free, mass media First Amendment vehicle.

The FCC's War on Broadcasting

6 posted on 01/26/2010 8:41:19 AM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

SCOTUS is well aware that 0bama is unlawfully in the White House.

Y’all recall back when Bush was President and he called a lot of independent talk radio hosts and media representatives for a “secret meeting?” I think it was right after the election.

Listen to this . . . http://www.blogtalkradio.com/askshow/2009/10/09/the-andrea-shea-king-show . . . just over an hour into the show, Charles Kershner explains WHY.

I won’t force you to listen . . . President Bush told Rush Limbaugh and the others NOT EVER to mention the Birth Certificate Question . . . yes, Rupert told his crew, too, which is why no one on FOX will investigate. President Bush’s reasoning . . . it would cause unimaginable riots.

Better then than now, but President Bush had no idea how unqualified 0bama is and how little 0bama regards the job. All 0bama wanted was the glory, the freebies, the jet planes. He didn’t know he was actually going to have to WORK!


7 posted on 01/26/2010 9:45:02 AM PST by HighlyOpinionated (The left have become lawless. Every strangling edict they issue carries an exemption for themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HighlyOpinionated

I got off on a tangent there.

What I failed to mention is that at least THIS WAY, SCOTUS is trying to make up for what they did in not questioning 0bama’s Citizenship status for fear of ‘riots.’


8 posted on 01/26/2010 9:46:57 AM PST by HighlyOpinionated (The left have become lawless. Every strangling edict they issue carries an exemption for themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Yeah, I mean, what kind of president signs such a law? Oh, wait...

The kind of president who gets political advice, ("Just sign this so you don't look like you're standing in the way of populist reform...") and is assured that the Supreme Court will get rid of it anyway, ("...and don't worry, the Court will declare this idiocy unconstitutional.").

Well, it took a few years but it turns out the advice was correct.

9 posted on 01/26/2010 9:53:44 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

As a poster pointed out on another thread, if a corporation can be TAXED, then a corporation deserves its free speech rights.


10 posted on 01/26/2010 9:59:11 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
The left fails to realize that indeed, suppressing the right of people to use their resources to communicate their views is a gross suppression of the First Amendment. Wealthy people have always had more influence than the poor. Don't like it? Earn money and use it however you see fit.

It was after all, one of the very wealthiest of our founders that boldly asserted his views toward the crown in his mere signature...

...The modern leftist would roundly criticize him for using more signing space than less wealthy signatories.

11 posted on 01/26/2010 10:01:01 AM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

There are plenty of left leaning corps out there we see no complaints about those only the hypothetical right wing ones.


12 posted on 01/26/2010 10:53:28 AM PST by scottteng ( IMPEACH OBAMA and elect Snitker as Florida Senator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
--Obama’s Justice Department. During argument, the Obama administration’s lawyer, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, made extravagant claims about the extent to which government can censor its critics, outlawing books, movies, and other methods of informing the public. Olson pushed back hard, pointing to the terrible power that this part of BCRA gives the government against private citizens banding together to speak out during election season.--

Elena Kagan, Obamas pick for supreme court. He wants to find a way around this law.

13 posted on 05/11/2010 5:54:38 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson