Sen. Murphy (D-CT) Proposes Constitutional Amendment to Silence NRA, Newspapers

It’s getting obvious that the ruling class is becoming a little annoyed that the lowly plebes are learning about the misdeeds of the government and are finding ways to make their small voices heard. Whether through the time-honored 4th estate, or through lobbying groups that represent the will of a group of people, one senator from Connecticut is sick and tired of listening to the bitching and just wants to shut them up. And to do it, he’s proposing a constitutional amendment that would remove the protections of the first amendment from newspapers and groups such as the NRA and ACLU . . .

Here’s the full text of the proposed Constitutional amendment (link), but the important bit is here:

The words people, person, or citizen as used in this Constitution do not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected State and Federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

While the amendment would overturn the Citizens United ruling which has ruffled many elitist feathers, it would do so in such a way as to clear the path for direct legislation gagging lobbying groups such as the NRA and ACLU, and would remove many of the protections that keep newspapers like the New York Times open.

The appropriate way to reverse the Citizens United ruling is to change the fair election rules, which doesn’t need an amendment. A constitutional amendment like this seems designed to further chip away at our rights under the not-so-thin veil of “doing something good.”

comments

  1. avatar Greg says:

    American facism at it’s finest.

    1. avatar ensitue says:

      Crypto~Comunism

      1. avatar yellowglider says:

        Isn’t it funny when one comment yells “fascism!!!” and the other “communism!!!”… Makes one wonder if these words have an actual meaning… (or if they have in the heads of some people which maybe have flunked history at mid school…)

        1. avatar J- says:

          They are actually the same political/economic philosophy. Remember Nazi was short for “German Socialists” and CCCP stood for “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.” In the end, they are both totalitarian systems of government that use socialism as an excuse to confiscate private property and put it in the hands of bureaucrats – who are usually friends/relatives of the politicians. Fascism/Nazism are associates with racist policies in a way communism/socialism are not, but that is a minor detail. The reason most people think of Fascism/Nazism and Communism/Socials as opposites is because Hitler and Stalin HATED each other and didn’t want to call their nearly identical political systems and style of governing the same thing.

        2. avatar Michael W Perkins says:

          Facism is closely related to Communism, they are only differing in how much total control of the people & Factories they enjoy over the serfs/slaves. seems YOU flunked history buddy.

        3. avatar Greg says:

          Facism has a meaning. Democrats fit it quite well. Or at least this one does, concentrate power, deny it to “enemies” and silence anyone with opposing opininons. I’ve spoken at length with people who survived facism in Italy and what they spoke about is happening right now. ALL OVER AGAIN. 🙁

      2. avatar Vinnie says:

        Communism, Fascism, Marxism, Oligarchy, the Democratic Party. All Statist elites telling us what we must do to make life wonderful for them.

  2. avatar Mike Taylor says:

    This is frightening, not to mention criminal.

    1. avatar Labman says:

      A rope is a perfect tool. It’s effective and can be used multiple times

      1. avatar DickG says:

        What? A lethal, repeating rope?
        .
        Are you, Sir, advocating an assault rope?
        .
        We have enough deadly weapons of this sort in circulation as it is.
        .
        I suppose you advocate the use of black ropes so as to further frighten the populace!
        .
        You seem to wish for the return of the “Wild West”, where everyone carried a rope, and delighted in using it indiscriminately.
        .
        Think of the children, man!
        .

        1. avatar Vinnie says:

          From now on, rope will only be sold in 4 foot lengths. All rope owners will have to register their purchases and be subject to home inspections by civil authorities. Rope will be stored, coiled up and tied together with… uhhh… umm… rope?

      2. avatar Cocoabird says:

        And it doesn’t need to be re-loaded…

  3. avatar pk in AZ says:

    What do you expect from a “dumbocrat”?

  4. avatar Davis Thompson says:

    Good luck with that.

  5. avatar CharlieKilo says:

    This person should be removed from office and/or tried for treason and as an enemy of the people.

    1. avatar Treize31x says:

      I COMPLETELY agree!!!

    2. avatar Treize31x says:

      I Completely agree!!

    3. avatar DoomsdayJames says:

      +1

    4. avatar racenutz says:

      100% agreed

    5. avatar Hannibal says:

      I really don’t understand all this “treason!” bullshit I keep hearing when a politician does something people don’t like. This is an elected representative, carrying out his duties in a manner he sees fit, attempting to LEGALLY change the constitution. Is it a good idea? Of course not. But he isn’t fomenting a coup, he’s not trying to subvert the constitution even. Words have meanings for a reason, and using the word treason to describe legally presenting an amendment- no matter how misguided- is absurd if you know anything about history.

      1. avatar Hasdrubal says:

        Agree, treason is specifically defined in the Constitution we all know and love. This isn’t it, even if it isn’t right. Time for another recall, I think.

  6. avatar Gtfoxy says:

    Too open ended and allows selectivity by officials.

    Smells like crooked liberal vinegar douchary to me.

    Might look like all the others on the shelf, but once put to use you realize how much it really stinks.

    1. avatar Gunracer1958 says:

      GT –

      “Smells like crooked liberal vinegar douchary to me.”

      Where do I send the bill for my new keyboard??????

      It is currently covered in snot and Diet Pepsi!!!!!!!!!!!!

      1. avatar Gtfoxy says:

        Sry ’bout that.

        Send it to Sen. Murphy, along with what I said explaining that his odoriforous legislation brought certain analogous entities to mind.

  7. avatar Matt Richardson says:

    Lol grandstanding…

    Don’t anybody get your knickers in a wad, the amendment process isn’t exactly short and sweet. This guy is just trying to score points with the more wild-eyed of his cohorts and base.

    1. avatar CharlieKilo says:

      Whether or not it gains traction is irrelevant. It violates the oath he took upon entering into public service. Remove from office, try as enemy of the people. When convicted, not if, deport or whatever.

      1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

        I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

        The guy is clearly a degenerate, but how exactly does it violate the above?

        1. avatar CharlieKilo says:

          I suppose you missed the “support and defend the Constitution” portion. How is this action supporting or defending?

        2. avatar ChRiSiS says:

          I agree. In answer to CharlieKilo, I would point out that the Constitution includes a provision for its own amendment. Proposing an amendment (no matter how stupid or ill conceived) is not a violation of an oath to defend the constitution.

        3. avatar Matt Richardson says:

          @CharlieKilo: I promise I didn’t “miss” ANY part of the oath. I have taken very similar oaths on more than one occasion.

          What you are clearly missing is that this dumbass is doing is NOT failing to “support and defend the Constitution,” it is attempting to make changes to the Constitution through the appropriate methods laid out by our founders.

          I’m not arguing the merits of his proposal, just pointing out that you are wrong in your assertion that he is violating his oath.

      2. avatar pcrh says:

        While I think the amendment is stupid and would be dangerous if it were to pass (unlikely in the extreme), merely proposing to amend the Constitution doesn’t amount to treason. Against our history and political culture? Yes. Treasonous? No.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          EXACTLY. Those of you who fancy it’s “socialist” or “communist” have been duped by the same ones you abhor.

  8. This guy would fit right in with the Third Reich.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      The over-eager SPAM filters are blocking my posts again. FASCISTS, not “socialist” or “communist”.

      Don’t be duped.

  9. avatar Swarf says:

    I’m about as far from “elite” as you can get, and Citizens United is bullshit.

    1. avatar JeffR says:

      For all I know, you may be very well-versed on Citizens United and have a well- founded, thoughtful reason for disagreeing with it. I have good friends who do. But take a look at the Volokh Conspiracy for some very well-done articles on why Citizens United may not be as nutty as some initially thought when it was handed down.

    2. avatar pcrh says:

      Citizens United asked the question: Do corporations enjoy first amendment rights?

      The Supreme Court found that the government does not have the authority to deny corporations first amendment rights. This was the correct decision. To decide otherwise would mean that our government(s) could, for example:
      – ban newspapers and books based on content
      – censor the news, books, papers, magazines, songs, artwork published by corporations (i.e., virtually all such publications)
      – mandate speech that corporations would have to then publish (such as making the New York Times publish government propaganda)

      Citizens United is the most misunderstood and misrepresented court case I have ever come across. People don’t understand what they would be giving up if it had been decided the other way–if the Court had decided that corporations do not enjoy first amendment protection. And remember, the case was decided 5-4. One more Justice going the other way (Scalia is getting very old…) would mean corporations would not enjoy first amendment protection. There would then be no Constitutional basis to prevent government from censoring the news, and every book you read.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        One can differentiate between the press and a shill corporation, and it’s been done for quite awhile; the Citizen’s United decision is an example of creating a broad, damaging solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

        1. avatar SoftwareCowboy says:

          How exactly would you do that? Please explain how a point of view does or does not equal a “shill”.

        2. One can differentiate between the press and a shill corporation …”

          I learned the hard way to not doubt it when someone claims they can do something. I am sure that if you put your mind to it you could determine the First Amendment eligibility of each corporation. We could have a predefined list with a code identifying the press and another code identifying shill corporations. Nobody would have to go to court anymore. It would be a simple administrative finding done efficiently by the proper authorities.

        3. And yes, it’s been done for quite awhile and very successfully in many places around the world.

        4. avatar Ken Hagler says:

          Indeed–a “shill” is someone who says something you diagree with. For example, Senator Murphy no doubt intends that the New York Times would be designated as press, while Fox News would of course be a “shill.”

        5. avatar Joe Wright says:

          Hannibal and Wellington, you guys are trolls right ?? You can’t be that stupid .

        6. Joe, you clearly didn’t understand what I’ve done here with Hannibal’s argument. Why? Ken Hagler and presumably others understood it just fine.

          So just for you and anyone else who may be interested I have posted a longer explanation at the bottom of this thread.

    3. avatar DickG says:

      If so, then you also have to include labor unions of all stripes. The pigs will squeal to the moon if you try that.
      .
      Corporations are “unions” of people associated for their mutual benefit just as are labor unions.
      .
      Corporations merely allow for the raising of large amounts of capitol that would be difficult, if not impossible, otherwise.
      .
      If you exclude one from political activity, you must exclude both.

  10. avatar John says:

    Dear Senator Fascist

    Bad news Clyde, got to get 3/4 of the States to ratify. Good luck with that.

  11. avatar Nelson says:

    …are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected State and Federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

    That is your fascist euphemism for WE get to decide what is or is not ‘free’ speech.

    “As described by law” is the biggest legal fiction; all that means is if you have a fraudulent electoral process (Diebold/ESS/Sequoia eVoting machine company who used to manufacture ATMs but won’t see fit to put in a receipt as a vote integrity function ring a bell?) who get to select the roster of who runs for office, which we clearly do, it’s what THEY say is legal.

    A right CANNOT be prescribed or limited by law.

    We don’t haven’t had a representative govt since post-War of 1812.

    LOL

    This whole ship is about to come unglued: pay attention to bond market y’all…

    $2.5 QUADRILLION in derivatives and counting; tick tock, tick tock, tick tock…

  12. avatar dlj95118 says:

    …and he looks like such a nice young man.

    1. avatar miserylovescompany says:

      Sorta favors Reinhard Heydrich if you ask me. He looked like a nice young man, too.

    2. avatar Swarf says:

      Sometimes totalitarianism pads in on tiny tiger feeties.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Tiny Tiger Feeties. That’s good.

  13. avatar imrambi says:

    Reading it, both sides should be up in arms about this proposal.

    If passes (highly unlikely), it would silence unions, churches, press, any identity that has a voice except for the individual person.

    Also, it makes the elected officials “kings” as the people must obey what the elected official deem “reasonable.”

    1. avatar Ken Hagler says:

      It would silence individual persons pretty effectively too. Want to post something critical of the government on your Blogger account? Oops, Blogger is owned by a corporation. Banned. Decide to set up your own web server to host your blog yourself? Oops, your ISP is a corporation. Banned. Well heck, surely you can just buy a printing press and publish your own newsletter, right? Nope, printing presses are manufactured by corporations. Banned.

  14. avatar reoiv says:

    This would also invalidate trusts, corporations etc from owning firearms through the NFA as those are no longer individuals, so how could they own firearms?

    That said the court decision that said corporations are people is the same stupid court that said segregation (eg separate but equal is a-ok).

    For all the evil doing away with corporate personhood there is a lot of good it would do.

  15. avatar Jim R says:

    What this basically means is if this passes, the papers will only print what the Government tells them to print. The media will essentially be state-run (I know, I know, like it isn’t basically there already). Once that happens, they can lead the public around like dogs on a leash.

    1. avatar reoiv says:

      Nah we’d just have news papers run by Sole or Joint Proprietorships.

      Since it is one or two people in charge and there is no limited liability they can keep printing all they want. But it gets to be very transparent as to who actually owns the news papers at that point.

  16. avatar DerryM says:

    So, would that apply equally to MAIG, MDA, Brady Bunch, and the other anti-rights groups advocating the Socialist Democrat Progressives’ anti-Constitutional Agendas? I’m betting NOT!
    Fortunately this guy has about as much chance of amending the Constitution as he has of poking butter up a wildcat’s ass with a hot awl….unless, of course, We, The People, blow it in the 2014 Elections and let the Demo-commie-rats keep control of the Senate, or (nightmare!) let them get control of the House…\sarcasm…if that happens with Obumble in the White House for two more years you can kiss the Constitution and your Rights good-bye, melt your guns for scrap metal, build your household shrine to “President for Life/Great Leader Barak H. Obama”, and hope you get a good corner in the FEMA Gulag. Might want to learn a little Mandarin, while you’re at it… /sarcasm

  17. avatar Lance says:

    Is this for CT or the federal government????? Nick please be more specific. Rally think it would pass?

      1. avatar Lance says:

        then I doubt this would fly far agree?

        1. avatar Nick Leghorn says:

          Yeah, there’s no chance in hell that it actually passes. But the idea that it’s even being considered? That’s scary shit.

        2. avatar Lance says:

          Yea see the mind set of Kaliforian and New England fascist scares every true American. AGREE!!!!!

  18. avatar MurrDog says:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    I guess that little bit in there about “or of the press” just whooshed right over his head.

    1. avatar Frank Williams says:

      Actually, they should have stopped after the first five words.

  19. Well…first of all, it isn’t illegal, nor would it be illegal, if it’s a change to the constitution. By definition, that would make it legal.

    Second of all, this would affect any group, including unions.

    Third, it still wouldn’t remove the voice of the people. It would, potentially, remove the voice of groups of people together. It would certainly change the dynamic.

    But to be honest, I don’t think the founders ever intended for organizations/corporations to be able to buy elections/votes…which is what they can do. If it was better worded, such as to say that money does not equal speech, then I personally would support it.

    1. avatar Hill Country Dog says:

      Freedom of association means our freedom to join together to petition the government. It is just one more way of voting with our wallets just like picking one store or brand of firearm over another. If a certain issue is extra important to me I don’t have to be one of many voices all vying for the attention of my elected representatives, I can let my voice join with other like-minded individuals to be heard.

      I have no problem with organizations having a voice or contributing to campaigns. Organizations, even unions and businesses are just collections of people with certain interests.

      In a way it’s the flip side of the militia argument. Anti’s say only individuals in actual, formal, sanctioned militias can “keep and bear arms.” Pro-gun people say its an individual right and if someone forms a militia, fine, here I am. If the amendment were passed, free speech would ONLY be an individual right, not a collective right. I think it is both.

      1. Freedom of association means freedom of association. The right to petition the government is as separate of an issue from the right to associate as the militia is to the right to keep and bear arms.

        I have no problem with organizations having a voice. What I have a problem with is the idea that that voice is money. Money corrupts the process when it’s spent on campaigns. And while it certainly benefits me personally when groups I support spend that money, it cheapens and corrupts the system overall, which is ultimately far worse than the loss of the ability of lobbies to influence peddle for causes I believe in.

    2. avatar John in AK says:

      What is congress (the House and Senate), other than the voice of groups of people together? What is a political party, other than the voice of groups of people together? Without sarcasm, can you say that the political parties of this country should not be able to ‘buy’ elections/votes?

      Further, what is an ‘organization/corporation’ in political action, other than the voice of groups of people together, once again? ‘Organizations’ clearly are groups of people banded together for some common cause, using the power of that banding together to create MORE political power by pooled funding and acting as a unit to forward one specific agenda or group of agendas. ‘Corporations’, although intending generally to profit from some industry, are clearly groups of people organized to make money, thus enabling themselves to purchase other goods and services while looking out for their own best interests and (maybe) those of their customers. A citizen with personal wealth is entitled to be as political as he/she desires; Should not a group of citizens with personal wealth who have formed an organization or corporation have the same right to spend their money in their own best interest? Each individual in an organization or corporation still has only one vote; Each congressman or senator has only one vote to ‘sell.’

      If you want political perfection, where no one or no group can sway a vote, buy a vote, or buy an elected official, you’ll need a different system than ours. I suggest a monarchy. Or dictatorship.

      By the way, is not the NRA an ‘organization’? Does it pay its employees? It just MIGHT be one of those evil vote-buying corporations at heart.

      1. Congress is duly elected. Groups you associate with are not. And the people’s voice is expressed by their vote, and their personal contributions.

  20. avatar Skyler says:

    Constitutional Amendments wouldn’t mean anything. The Supreme Court will just rule that they are unconstitutional and were drafted with malice.

    1. avatar reoiv says:

      It doesn’t work that way. They can’t rule the Constitution (eg Amendments) unconstitutional. They can only interpret what that amendment really ‘means.’

  21. avatar the last Marine out says:

    kill the message , that will help !

  22. avatar Aharon says:

    Meanwhile, the elites in Washington want to prosecute Assange and Snowden. Those two men are whistle blowers and have alerted the common man to abuses of power by the political elites. Assange and Snowden should not be charged with espionage and treason.

    1. avatar Roscoe says:

      Despite the shrill screaming of this administration and all their paid mouthpieces, and the parroting MSM, these two are probably more patriotic than Murphy ever will be.

      This administration “can’t handle the truth.” That has been shown over and over again during the last 4-1/2 years.
      😮

  23. avatar MN Matt says:

    Piss off the National Rifle Association AND the ACLU. Brilliant.

    1. avatar Swarf says:

      and the churches and the unions AND the Ladies Auxiliary Flower Lover’s Tea Association.

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      If the ACLU weighs in on this, I’ll swallow my shoestrings.

      1. avatar int19h says:

        Do you doubt that ACLU is very serious about defending First Amendment rights of anyone and everyone in the country? If so, then what do you base your belief on?

  24. avatar rt-texas says:

    Sieg Heil Senator Murphy.

    Next week the capital of Connecticut will be re-named “New Berlin” in your honor.

    1. avatar sagebrushracer says:

      someone send him a arm-band to wear already.

  25. avatar Kirk says:

    Notably, Unions are none of the “persons” described and prohibited. Funny, that.

    1. avatar Chuck Pelto says:

      We’ve got the same ‘business’ going on here in Colorado….silencing of anyone who is not part of a Union.

      All supported by…wait for it….Democrats…..

      I had the temerity to point this out, along with the lies about the election ballot issues in a city/county commission I was on, the 2020 Commission, and was sumarily kicked out.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        Silenced, actually. Fascists populate both sides of the aisle. You folks who think it’s “socialist” and “communist” have been duped by the same effers you so abhor.

  26. avatar Michael B. says:

    Feature, not a bug.

  27. avatar Scoolbubba says:

    Wow…the statists are getting pretty blatant. Fascist much?

  28. avatar Chuck Pelto says:

    TO: All
    RE: Face It

    Democrats are either stupid or evil.

    In this case, I suggest the second.

    And the fools in Conneticutt who elected this monster deserve every bit of our ire.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Be Prepared…..the ‘fun’ is about to begin in earnest…..]

  29. avatar gmgunsmith says:

    If they nullify 2A, there’s nothing left to protect 1A. Then, once 1A is nullified the country will fall to anarchy.

    1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      Not anarchy. Think far, far toward the other end of the spectrum.

  30. avatar Taylor Tx says:

    Ill just keep saying it, I wouldnt mind using this particular politician as a meatshield.

  31. avatar macgearailt says:

    Has Murphy forgotten where his people came from and why? I don’t get the politicians of Irish ancestry who are constantly on the wrong side of issues concerning person freedoms. How many centuries did their ancestors resist oppression, starvation ,denial of religious choice and the right to be armed. Now these forgetful descendants of Irish immigrants have completely lost their way, they no longer value the freedoms and rights for which much blood was spilt ,they are the mirror image of those who denied their ancestors. Shame on them.

    1. avatar Taylor Tx says:

      These are the people who want to refuse to acknowledge the many historical lessons and precedence that still apply today.

    2. avatar Ken Hagler says:

      Sadly, it’s not just descendants of Irish immigrants–take a look at current Irish guns laws sometime. They’re about as absurd to me as the concept of anti-gun Jews, but there’s no shortage of them either.

  32. avatar kalel666 says:

    To quote an interview with Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit:

    Here’s the problem with public officials — because that’s really [Seidman’s] audience — deciding to ignore the Constitution: If you’re the president, if you’re a member of Congress, if you are a TSA agent, the only reason why somebody should listen to what you say, instead of horsewhipping you out of town for your impertinence, is because you exercise power via the Constitution. If the Constitution doesn’t count, you don’t have any legitimate power. You’re a thief, a brigand, an officious busybody, somebody who should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail for trying to exercise power you don’t possess.
    So if we’re going to start ignoring the Constitution, I’m fine with that. The first part I’m going to start ignoring is the part that says, I have to do whatever they say.
    ROBERTS: But his argument is that we already ignore the Constitution; it’s not really much of a binding document.
    REYNOLDS: Oh, well, then I’m free to do whatever I want! And actually, that is a damning admission, because what that really says is: If you believe Seidman’s argument; if you believe that we already ignore the Constitution anyway, then in fact, the government rules by sheer naked force, and nothing else. And if that’s what you believe, then all of this talk of revolution suddenly doesn’t seem so crazy, it seems almost mandatory.
    ROBERTS: Well, he would say – well, I won’t speak for him, but some would say that, well, there’s a social contract, we’ve all agreed to kind of play by these rules…
    REYNOLDS: Oh really?!
    ROBERTS: …of electing officials, and…
    REYNOLDS: Well, the rules I agreed to electing these officials are the Constitution. I thought we were going to ignore that. That’s my social contract.

  33. avatar Quentin says:

    I am fully in favor of a Constitutional Amendment overturning Corporate Personhood, and I support the RKBA.

    I think the whole idea that ANY Corporation or LLC is equivalent to a living human, is utter complete rubbish. The concept of Corporate Personhood began back with SCOTUS in the 19th Century, and has been influencing America in a negative manner ever since. Anyone who thinks for-profit Corporations are not using every penny they can to influence and outright buy politicians and elections is deluded.

    Might the repeal of Corporate Personhood hurt the NRA? It might, in my opinion, but the goal of keeping for-profit Corporations from buying elections is more important.

    I fully support a Proposed 28th Amendment that would overturn Corporate Personhood and Citizens United, and make it clear the US Constitution applies to natural human beings only.

    1. avatar Michael B. says:

      You are willing to throw out basic liberties in order to battle groups of people paying for extra representation. What makes up a corporation? People. It’s not an evil autonomous entity.

      http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/05/political-derangement-threatens-basic-ri

      A quick refresher: Once upon a time a private group, Citizens United, made a political film called Hillary: The Movie. The group wanted to run TV ads for the movie and air it during the 2008 election season. But since the film was partly underwritten with corporate money, under the law in effect at the time this was forbidden. So Citizens United sued.

      The case worked its way up to the Supreme Court, where Chief Justice John Roberts asked if the law also could prohibit the publication of a political book.

      Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, representing the government, said yes – the government “could prohibit the publication of the book.” Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21 and former head of Common Cause, agreed: A book urging the election or defeat of a candidate “can be banned.” A five-justice majority on the court quite correctly recoiled at this, and concluded that corporations and unions could spend money to speak their minds about candidates.

      They assert that corporations have no constitutional rights, period (Arizona); that the constitution protects “free speech and other rights of the people, not corporations” (Florida); that the Bill of Rights applies to “individual human beings” only (Illinois); that the First Amendment does not apply to corporations (Iowa); that the U.S. should “abolish corporate personhood” (Kentucky); that constitutional rights are “rights of human beings, not rights of corporations” (Montana); that constitutional rights “are the rights of natural persons only” (Minnesota); and so on.

      Just so we’re clear: This would strip newspapers, magazines, television shows, and book publishers of First Amendment protection – meaning the government could tell them what to print or say, and what not to. The same would apply to universities. It means the government could order advocacy groups such as NARAL and the Sierra Club to support legislation they oppose, or vice versa. If a legislature wanted to make charitable organizations like the American Cancer Society take dictation, it could. Ditto for unions. And so on.

      Of course, some of the resolutions would strip corporations not only of their First Amendment rights but of all rights. As the Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro explains, that would include the right against unreasonable search and seizure: The “police could search everyone’s [work] computer for any reason, or for no reason at all.” The corporate right to property would disappear as well: “The mayor of New York could say, ‘I want my office to be in Rockefeller Center, so I’ll just take it without any compensation.’ ” And while critics of Citizens United claim (incorrectly) that it overturns a century of precedent, they are trying to overturn two. The Supreme Court first recognized corporate personhood in 1819.

      Your ignorance is very, very dangerous.

      1. avatar Michael B. says:

        Moreover, the hostility to corporations that drives this derangement is curious. In a broad sense, corporations represent almost a communitarian ideal: They are groups of people who have come together voluntarily to pursue a collective interest. The government can put a gun to your head and command you to serve it. But you go to work for Google only if you choose to.

        And in a legal sense, there is a very good reason for corporations to have certain rights. As Shapiro explains, they do so “not because they are corporations, but because they are composed of rights-bearing individuals.” It is strange to think individuals should “lose all their rights” merely because “they come together to work in unison.” Yet that is where some of those suffering from CUDS would have the country go.

      2. avatar int19h says:

        This amendment curtails the right of corporations as distinct entities, and not of people constituting them. It would not restrict your right to speak out about RKBA or any other issues, even if you’re an NRA member.

    2. avatar macgearailt says:

      Quentin, corporations are a post civil war legal creation that provided the industrialist/war profiteers a legal mechanism to avoid tax consequences and governmental interference in their growth. A legal fiction that we have been paying for ever since.

    3. avatar pcrh says:

      If the amendment were to pass, corporations would lose:

      First Amendment protection–no more free speech for them.
      Fourth Amendment protection–cops can come in anytime they want and look at all the data they want
      Fifth Amendment protection–government can take all their stuff without compensation

      Basically, it would make corporations disappear, leaving citizens only able to organize into groups as partnerships. Maybe most importantly, it would mean people cannot go to the public to raise money for business enterprises any more. Why? Because partnerships can’t issue stock. Without public funding of our (still somewhat) capitalist economy, every major corporation in existence would cease to exist. Or become a government slave.

      How many here work for a corporation? Or work for a company that is supplied by corporations? Or have a relative that works for a corporation?

      Corporations are just vehicles for individuals to pool resources. Destroying them, which is the goal of this amendment, is just a way to tip the balance of power against individuals and toward…government. The only big organization that would be untouched by the amendment.

  34. avatar KCK says:

    Citizens United?
    I could give a rip who is behind or pays for tv ads (free speach). When each side of Pres or Senate election spends millions, the more speach the better. It is then the politicians in office giving economic favors (Halliburton, Solyndra) that concerns me.

  35. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    I say pass it!!!!!

    Why?

    Let me tell you….
    Obviously the portion on the 1st amendment is, well… STUPID.
    Pass it, and then fight to redact the portion on the 1st amendment. I am sure the ACLU would join the fight there, and then….
    BAM! Constitutional carry in the state..

    Yeah ok it is a crazy idea, but I am pretty sure the portion on free speech would die pretty quickly in the courts. It wouldn’t take long, and we can use their own stupidity against them, and make the state free again.

    Gutsy move, you betcha, but then again sometimes you need to be crazy to deal with crazy politicians!!!

    Don’t forget this gags MAIG as well. The sword cuts both ways!

    1. avatar sagebrushracer says:

      fight fire with fire…. You are my kind of crazy sir, I like it.

  36. avatar Parnell says:

    I looked at the link and it is called “Tester’s Amendment”. Much as I don’t like Murphy, isn’t Tester the sponsor and shouldn’t we be heating up his office phone lines?

    1. avatar Rokurota says:

      I noticed that, too. No answers, anyone?

  37. avatar KCK says:

    Would Quentin have us do.
    Bust into KCK LLC and search my papers because my business is not a person?
    There goes Nick’s ATF trust because that trust has no 2A rights?
    NO SUPPRESSORS FOR YOU!
    A corporation is not ammune from prosecution when breaking the law just like a person. If the ability to buy media time is the issue that many are talking about in the CU case and the reason Quenton talks about buying elections. Does that mean that the content of the message or speach is irrelavent but that the volume, frequency and purchaser of a tv ad has the ability to make voters vote against their interest? Does it really matter where speach comes from as long as it is not lible nor false. Then sounds like the voter is the weak link in this democracy thing we have going here. (I know, I know , Representative CONSTITUTIONAL Republic)

    1. avatar Michael B. says:

      An amendment that shreds the Bill of Rights passing would leave us with only one option.

  38. avatar Joseph B Campbell says:

    A man who would shred the Constitution he swore to uphold. Freedom of Speech, Right to bear arms(shall not be infringed) and I bet he would love to invade our privacy without our permission also. Would he be a “peep-n-tom” also?

  39. avatar jwm says:

    Proposing a constitutional amendment is not violating his oath of office or an act of treason. I see the word treason used way to often in our comments.

    We should be grateful that this mutt is showing the intentions of the new American facists so openly. makes it easier to rally opposition to them.

  40. avatar Voice of Reason says:

    Unless I’m really misreading something, this is the most radical proposal put forth by supposedly serious political actors in our lifetimes. To take one example of many, it appears that this proposal would allow the government, in regard to any church that operates as a corporation (as most do), to do the following without violating the Constitution:

    1. Burst in on services and shut them down because they are worshiping the wrong way.
    2. Search the premises without cause or warrant.
    3. Seize the land, the church, and all other church assets without compensation.

    It is the classic totalitarian principle: undermine voluntary or natural associations, and leave the individual naked and shivering before the all-powerful State. Of course it won’t be adopted, but it is disturbing even to see it proposed.

  41. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

    Ah, man. This douche nozzle again?

  42. avatar JOE MATAFOME says:

    Another no good COMMIE from COMMIENECTICUT trying to screw us again. I can’t believe these morons have the balls to call themselves the constitution state. They should change the motto on their license plates to the COMMIESTITUTION STATE.

  43. avatar Joseph says:

    There sure are a lot of little Hitler wannabes running around these days.

  44. avatar Taco Ninja says:

    Well if we’re going to split hairs about wording, The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed…which means pretty much all gun laws should be abolished under this guy’s logic…

    If that happened, the NRA would then be just focused on target shooting standards and safety classes. Works for me!

  45. This is primarily designed to silence the slaves.

    Why only “people” should be able to express their views!

    Keep in mind that organizations like your local PTA or Kiwanis, many clubs or organizations, or even new organizations create to bring like-minded people together are or will be “corporations” and will be effectively silenced with only the individual, easily silenced or ignored, slave voices will be able to speak out.

    I’m all for letting anyone or anything express their opinion; I’m smart enough to separate signal from noise rather than quash both by law.

    This dirt bag needs to be removed from office.

  46. avatar Patriot says:

    A-F_CKING-Mazing.

  47. avatar Jeh says:

    When a democrat shits all over the constitution, its patriotism.
    When a republican upholds the constitution, its terrorism…or racism…or treason…basically whatever the dems are in the mood to scream about.

  48. avatar GS650G says:

    From the safety of his seat in CT comes this amendment which will go nowhere. Unless 37 states will get on board with it. Not gonna happen.

  49. avatar KY1911 says:

    That is laugh-out-loud funny!!! That stands less of a chance than me being elected POTUS.

  50. avatar William Burke says:

    Senator Murphy (Fascist-CT).

    That needed fixing.

  51. avatar mediocrates says:

    some dufus from the slave state of Connecticut wants to change the Constitution? now that’s a good funny way to end the week….

  52. avatar dan says:

    after many years of listening to these type of politicians, all I can sya is …FUCK OFF…to all these type of suggestions……imho

  53. avatar Dave S says:

    wonder what punishment the Founders would deem proper for such an offense against the Constitution?

  54. avatar Art Mazeau says:

    What Chris Murphy is doing is trying to keep the free money flowing to politicians from the Corporate overlord of the government, while using the same rule of law that was erroneously put in place by the SCOTUS that grant power of buying the vote to corporations. When SCOTUS did that they literally paved the way for a legal takeover of the government by the corporate overlords, through the purchased politicians. We must overturn Citizens United, as it has no place in our government, and block any bills that Chris Murphy puts into Congress, as he has no clear sense of his own, he seems to just do the masters bidding.

  55. avatar Paul Cummings says:

    if Hitler ran for office as a democrat,he`d win in CT.

  56. avatar PaulRevere says:

    Typical Dem doesn’t realize I guess, he will NEVER get 3/4 of the states to approve this kind of amendment.

  57. avatar Lyn Eckstein says:

    Sen. Murphy is obviously unaware of the previous ruling that recognises corporations as “people” which thus allows them to contribute to major political campaigns. Although his design might inhibit lobbying efforts and 1st Amendment speech it would also prevent large corporations from contributing to politicians such as himself.

  58. avatar Gary Eckstein says:

    Sen. Murphy is obviously unaware of a previous ruling that recognises corporations as “people” which thus allows them to contribute to major political campaigns. Although his design might inhibit lobbying efforts and 1st Amendment speech it would also prevent large corporations from contributing to politicians such as himself.

  59. avatar Luis says:

    To paraphrase Pogo, “We have met the enemy, and he is Sen. Chris Murphy”. I’m beginning to think this guy is more dangerous than Iran or North Korea could ever be, to this country.

    This is the same man who actually demanded that the Fox network not broadcast the NASCAR race from Texas on April 13, simply because NRA sponsored that race, and Murphy wet his panties over it.

    He’s in the Senate only because those Tea Party idiots ran Linda McMahon, against him.

  60. Joe Wright says:
    June 29, 2013 at 22:52

    Hannibal and Wellington, you guys are trolls right ?? You can’t be that stupid.

    My reply specifically to Joe who seems to have misunderstood my comments and generally to others on this thread:

    It’s maddening how many people are willing to give up their fundamental rights and liberties for trivial or imaginary gains. That includes some “people of the gun” here. I am just as unhappy about the corruption of our political class. But it should be clear to any student of our history that part of the cure must be to reinstate the originally conceived severe limitations on governmental power.

    There were always crooks crowding the pot of gold except that the pot used to be way smaller. They got a piece of it and gave some to their friends but that was it. They did not have the additional power to control our lives that our current political class has. Americans could afford to ignore it. Sure, they knew it was wrong. They saw that money got wasted and stolen but their daily lives could go on without much negative impact. That has been changing for a long time as anyone who is paying attention knows. Various levels and divisions of government now control the most private parts of our lives in very intrusive and previously unimaginable ways. And what do our friends here propose as a solution to the current corruption?

    Give the crooks even more power! Let the government differentiate between the press and shill corporations! That’s how they interpret the First Amendment. Instead of setting limits they want it to enlarge the power and reach of governments. What do they expect would happen to the Second Amendment if they succeed doing this to the First? A 5-4 Supreme Court decision may be a small victory but it is a big warning. There are powerful forces still claiming that the decision was wrong and that the Second Amendment simply declares the right of government to arm itself—not that of the people. If the First Amendment comes to mean that government has the right to decide whose speech is protected from governmental regulations then there is not much left to protect anywhere. The whole constitutional edifice becomes an empty shell with no practical meaning.

    And take my word for it: It’s been done for a long time and successfully by undemocratic, authoritarian and totalitarian governments elsewhere. I fought some of them. And I listen intently when anyone claims that our government can and should usurp previously unimaginable powers. I been there before. And I hate being pushed down the same road again. We don’t have to go there. Not yet. We still have the means to prevent it.

    But despite RF’s tongue-in-cheek tone I always thought it was risky to use the term “Armed Intelligentsia”. Some of what I read here at times can be credited best to “Armed Dementia”. I hope the Lord will spare me such fate for a little longer and make me recognize when I can no longer make the cut.

    And one small suggestion for you, Joe: Attack my ideas and comments all you want but before you attack me personally read what I actually wrote. Now (and before—should you think you need more context). And if you’ve just joined a discussion, a search engine is your friend. I know it takes more time but it spared me some embarrassment in the past when I misread a comment and itched to post a hasty reply. Since I suspect that you and I agree on many things I believe it would have likely affected your comment, too.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email