tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976234.post7391220450317477044..comments2023-09-16T04:45:50.404-05:00Comments on Sleeping with The Devil: George W. Bush's Activist Supreme Court Rules For FascismDervish Sandershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976234.post-78141183532464198202010-02-13T20:23:34.593-06:002010-02-13T20:23:34.593-06:00Good dispatch and this fill someone in on helped m...Good dispatch and this fill someone in on helped me alot in my college assignement. Gratefulness you seeking your information.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976234.post-3627754039402873132010-01-30T19:14:57.239-06:002010-01-30T19:14:57.239-06:00Freedom of speech goes to whoever can pay the most...Freedom of speech goes to whoever can pay the most for it now.<br /><br /> Nice post WD.Joe "Truth 101" Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08875151516978133598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976234.post-6514522577875138622010-01-25T19:37:57.834-06:002010-01-25T19:37:57.834-06:00dmarks said... Let's check the actual Constitu...<i>dmarks said... Let's check the actual Constitution, shall we?</i><br /><br />You're quoting from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights" rel="nofollow">Bill of Rights</a> which protects <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_rights#Constitutions" rel="nofollow">individual rights</a>. "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_rights" rel="nofollow">Individual rights</a>" refers to the rights of individuals, not group rights. The press is also covered by the first amendment -- because this group is specifically mentioned. No other group (like corporations) is covered.<br /><br />So, to answer your question: NO, the Founding Fathers were not fascists, because the Bill of Rights applies only to individuals, not groups. Read the quote I opened my post with -- does it sound like Founding Father Thomas Jefferson would have approved of giving corporations free speech rights?<br /><br />As for the petition to amend the Constitution I linked to -- it is only necessary due to the series of extreme right-wing SCOTUS rulings extending "personhood" to corporations -- a concept which is entirely contrary to what the founding fathers envisioned when authoring the Bill of Rights.Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976234.post-51457891270524126382010-01-25T06:22:27.046-06:002010-01-25T06:22:27.046-06:00And let's look at the actual bullets of the am...And let's look at the actual bullets of the amendment, shall we?<br /><br /> "* Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights."<br /><br />Under this, organizations would still be completely free to advertise. As they would be directly speaking, as opposed to paying others to.<br /><br /> "* Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count."<br /><br />The right to vote is already protected. But any legal scholar with half a brain would reject the "participation" wording, since it can refer to anything (and therefore, nothing).<br /><br />"* Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments."<br /><br />Rather clumsy and vague wording here. Most apparent here is a strong "states rights" element. Neo-confederates would love this. So would right-wing militia types wanting the US to have nothing to do with the UN. This could be used for all kinds of tax rebellions. In other words, this clumsily worded bullet is more open to abuse from the far-right than from anyone. It's a blank check for the no-tax, isolationist, states-rights crowd.<br /><br />It also can be used to let localities exempt themselves from global warming initiatives. Which is ironic, considering the global warming activists who signed it. I'm guessing that they did not even bother to read it.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21976234.post-54521813725360778102010-01-25T06:15:20.285-06:002010-01-25T06:15:20.285-06:00Let's check the actual Constitution, shall we?...Let's check the actual Constitution, shall we?<br /><br />"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or <b>abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press</b>; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."<br /><br />I guess the Founding Fathers were all fascists for saying this, right?<br /><br />Note that the limitation is on what Congress can do in regards to who is speaking or "publishing" the press. The protected group includes individuals, organizations, and even foreigners.<br /><br />-------------<br /><br />I do commend you for the amendment effort, since it is completely obvious that such censorship as desired contradicts the Constitution. The only proper way to censor is to alter the Constitution.<br /><br />However, there is still a big problem with the amendment, if your goal is to censor organizations. Even after it is passed, individual people with Constitutional rights still have free speech rights. And that includes individuals (such as ad copy writers) who are paid by organizations.<br /><br />It is also worthwhile to point out that, if this amendment were passed, and the results were as intended (silencing expression of ideas by members of organizations), then the government could at will control the content of the New York Times. The New York Times, is, of course, a corporation.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.com