Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens

Yes it would, that's why it would require a constitutional amendment to clearly define what a corporation is and is not.

As to which corporations, I'd have to seriously look into that; the devil is in the details. That's why I said in my first post that I would support such a concept but I wanna see the legislation. But it's not my job to know all of the nitty-gritty details; I'm not the law maker.

Restricting freedom of speech is not something I take lightly. The only reason I consider such a thing is because of the situation we have today now that all bets are off (Citizens United and McCutcheon). Here we have a clear cut case where we need to put limits in place because we have completely lost control of the legislative process.

This is EXACTLY the opposite of a situation conservatives would never live with. Where corporations have NO say, and people can just vote in anything they want and take everything away from corporations. That would be a horrible situation. But now we have a situation where the corporations have the ability to form and make law any way they want, taking everything away from the people.

If you believe the former is bad, you HAVE to believe the latter is just as bad.

"Daniel-san; you need balance" - Mr. Miaggi

You can't draw those lines of separation because they don't exist. An Amendment to prevent or infringe upon the rights to assemble, petition the government and of speech would be a repeal of the First Amendment.

"So?"- Harry Reid 4/20/14

If we don't do this, there will be revolution in the US inside of 30 years; mark my words. We will completely eliminate the middle class, and at some point people will take up arms and reset. "The tree of liberty will be refreshed with the blood of patriots".

Show me where you draw those lines, how, and how it is done under the First Amendment.

Now I will use Harry Reid's quote: "So?"

That would go awfully deep for an internet forum; seriously.

Regardless of the details, I don't see how you don't see the problem.

Again, if it's repugnant for the people to legislate against corporations anything they want, why is it not repugnant for corporations to legislate anything they want?

We once had a situtation where corporations were not allowed to play politics; that was an unacceptable situation. Now we're bringing about a situation where ONLY corporations can play politics. How do you not recognize that this cannot be allowed?

How many revolutions end up with things being better than they were before? Just because we were lucky the first time, doesn't mean we'll be lucky the second time.

Your last paragraph is factually inaccurate.

And?

Apparently I don't take armed revolution as casually as you do. I kinda like to exhaust all other options before picking up a gun.

Just because it was done doesn't mean it was Constitutional or right. Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott, for example.

Fair enough. I never thought I'd change your mind. I had hoped that you could show me how what you wanted done could be done within the bounds of the First Amendment and the US Constitution.