Citizens United v FEC Part 1 Clements & Amicus Brief

[BEreadyJESUSiscoming]

All CORPERATIONS ARE FROM THE PIT OF HELL !! SATANIC ! The only reason for their existence is to hide and misdirect the evil they do.  I'm sure you know "The United States" is a corperation by contract law. You are chattel; because of your BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

[laurenmichellekinsey]

"This case has set a record for Amicus Briefs." I didn't realize that. Very revealing. Thank you for the amazing work you're doing to work toward a constitutional amendment.

[YentaY0]

Corporations have DUAL Citizenship. They are motivated by PROFIT.  You can't punish them. You can't control them. They are behind this lawsuit, disguising themselves as Citizens United. Filthy Lying Murdering Bastards.

[YentaY0]

The American people will NOT have a voice, because the individual will no longer be heard above the BULLHORN wielded by corporate America. The consequence of this ruling may be civil war.

[zepper72]

Fine and the New York Times and NBC are also corporations so they have no political rights either. Oh wait I forgot, the left only cares about shutting people up when it's from those they don't agree with.

[jeffclements]

@zepper72 Thanks for the comment. The 1st Amend. protects free speech + press. NYT, NBC, FOX are press; they're corporations but no one suggests that press be less free. "Corporate speech" rights are different. Until the recent fabrication of such rights by an activist Court, corporations had no such rights. For 200 years Americans (left and right) did not think we had to give speech rights to corporations or we would be "shutting up people." Free speech was and is for people not corporations.

[zepper72]

But corporations are organizations made up of people who are promoting their own interests, just as NBC and the rest of them are doing. All of them are in business to make money. To say that some but not all have political rights is outrageous and quite frankly fascistic. It is a violation of not only the First but the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

You counter speech you dont like with more speech, not less. Muzzles were for Stalin and Hitler.

[jeffclements]

It's not about some but not all having rights. All people have rights of free speech and to associate with others. A corporation is not just an organization of people. Corporations are created by state law. Where does the Constitution say the people can't allow use of the corporate form for economic purposes, but limit political activity of the corporation? I would not call the founders and the American people Stalin or Hitler because they left corporate entities out of the Bill of Rights.

[zepper72]

The Founders never mentioned corporations but they never mentioned youtube or the internet either. And even if they had known the future of communications they still wouldn't have because the First Amendment is for everybody and is absolute: "Congress shall make no law", period. It couldn't be plainer.

[jeffclements]

@zepper72 Youtube and the internet are not claiming 1st am. rights or attacking the people's laws; corporations are. People have free speech on the internet, and all other media. That's different than corp rights claims. I agree the 1st Am is for everybody. It's not for every thing. A corporation is a thing. "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech"  People have the power and capacity [physical, moral, etc] for speech; corporations don't. As to "plainer" see below.

[zepper72]

Obama was clearly trying to muzzle Fox News and was about to use CFR to do it. That's an abuse of the law that cannot be tolerated. I don't know what the USSC will do with the Citizen's United case but hopefully they rule on the side of liberty. McCain/Feingold was never constitutional to begin with.

[zepper72]

Also I would like to add that it was quite obvious what Obama's game was regarding Fox News. By declaring them to be a non-press entity as he tried to do he would then be in a position to use campaign finance laws to shut them down before an election. That is the danger of McCain/Feingold and one that I hope the USSC addresses in Citizens United v. FEC.

[jeffclements]

@zepper72 I appreciate and share your passion for the 1st Am. and liberty. I don't want to be presumptuous but you seem to be conservative; don't assume that this is a left-right issue. See the dissents of conservative Justice Rehnquist in the cases creating corporate 1st Am rights, eg "For in a democracy, the economic is subordinate to the political, a lesson that our ancestors learned long ago, and that our descendants will undoubtedly have to relearn many years hence."

[zepper72]

Although you may not personally see it as a left/right issue it's obvious that the left, or many of them will do anything to shut opposing voices down. Just look at their behavior on college campuses, and that includes the professors.

[jamal4]

I agree, but that isn't the issue.

You and I get first amendment rights because we seek "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"; we are accountable to each other, and we genuinely want to make this country better. But corporations are impersonal, profit-seeking entities. I'm not saying they're bad, but they don't have the same stake in America that we citizens do. They will support whoever promises a profitable environment, and without regulations, they will drown you out.

[zepper72]

As Justice Scalia correctly stated imo, the First Amendment is about speech, not speakers. In other words it's for everyone. If you want to deny corporations, groups, associations etc. the right to speak out on political matters you'll have to change the Constitution, good luck with that.

Also this isn't 100 years ago. Today, with the internet, radio, tv, cable, satellite, newspapers just about anyone can have their voices heard. The notion that we'll be "drowned out" doesn't wash anymore.

[jamal4]

1) We're at an impasse. You and I differ in our interpretations of the constitution, so all I can say to that is agree to disagree.

2) The Supreme Court is not meant to write laws, but to establish legal precedents. Precedent must sometimes be broken in order to promote change, as in Brown v Board, but this decision depends on text without considering practical implications. The fact is, you and I don't have to money to run political ads, but corporations do.

[zepper72]

Well maybe someone on the other side will explain what differs in our interpretations? All I see is a First Amendment that says Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.

It doesn't say except for corporations or non-profit groups whose political views we don't agree with. On the other hand unions are free to do whatever they please. I guess on the left's farm some animals are more equal than others.

[jamal4]

In reference to our differences, I implied the invocation of the classic distinction between strict and loose construction. Corporations are not mentioned in the constitution, but while you take that to mean that the government cannot limit them, i take it to mean that they do not have first amendment rights. But the difference goes beyond the words of the constitution: as Mr. Clements has said, a corporation is not a person. It doesn't breathe; it doesn't love this country like you and I do.

[zepper72]

They're not mentioned so their rights can be denied? There are so many holes in that argument I wouldn't know where to begin. Contrary to your assumptions a corporation is not a thing but a group of organized people with interests and since this is a free country they have a right to promote those interests.

[zepper72]

Btw who are we to judge whether corporations love the country or not if we're not even allowed to hear from them? I certainly don't think corporate NBC does with the hatred dished out on MSNBC but they do have a right to their opinions, as vile as they are.

You ignore unions but they're not mentioned either, should they also be denied the right to speak out on political issues?

[jamal4]

interesting point about corps as a group of people promoting interests. no need to get touchy, we're just having a discussion. When words like "vile" get into your political vocabulary, it's time to pump the breaks. For NBC, there is Fox news; the talking heads on either network should never be taken seriously. And unions are not comparable to corporations. Unions do not seek profit, and membership has been steadily declining for the past several decades, so their influence is waning anyway.

[zepper72]

So a group has constitutional rights even if they're not mentioned as long as they aren't making a profit and their influence is waning? Ok gotcha, glad you cleared that up otherwise I'd think you were playing favorites for your preferred speakers...

It seems the left, which you must be a part of believe you can change the rules of the game to suit your beliefs at any given moment however thankfully the USSC begs to differ. The Constitution is not a living document.

And yes MSNBC is vile.

[jamal4]

haha you're a ridiculous terrorist.

[bikinibottom1919]

WHooaaa. this guy knows his stuff. good work Mr. Clements! go get em.