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 Olsona living legend among Supreme Court lawyersfought it out against Barack Obamas Justice Department. During argument, the Obama administrations 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.
...Its 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 peopleeither 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 ...
Yeah, I mean, what kind of president signs such a law? Oh, wait...
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 détat 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 governments surrender; or the acquiescence of the populace and the non-participant military forces.
Typically, a coup détat uses the extant governments 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 dÉtat.
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.
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.
The Founding Fathers probably never smiled when they were alive. And it’s been downhill for the republic since then.
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.
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!
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.’
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.
As a poster pointed out on another thread, if a corporation can be TAXED, then a corporation deserves its free speech rights.
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.
There are plenty of left leaning corps out there we see no complaints about those only the hypothetical right wing ones.
Elena Kagan, Obamas pick for supreme court. He wants to find a way around this law.
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.