Sunday, November 7, 2010

Dangerous Times- Petition to Amend the 1st



Here is the wording that is being proposed by the left
Amendment XXVIII
Section 1.  The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, the First Amendment shall not be construed to limit the authority of Congress and the States to define, regulate, and restrict the spending and other activity of any corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity created by state or federal law or the law of another nation.
Section 2.  Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.
So, basically what this says is
Amendment XXVIII
Section 1.  The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, the First Amendment shall not be understood to limit the authority of Congress and the States to define, regulate, and restrict the spending and other activity of any corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity created by state or federal law or the law of another nation.
Section 2.  Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.
Now the first amendment says this:
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.
Nowhere does it say Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech ‘of the people’. It’s a broad statement that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, period.
So what this proposed amendment will do is supersede the 1st giving Congress the right to MAKE law to ‘abridging the freedom of speech’ (and all the rest of the 1st)
AND change Article 4; Section 4, that The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican (Republic) Form of Government
Because it interjects the word ‘Democracy’

This is a very dangerous proposed amendment that would give Congress, through law, to do as they please with regards to establishing religion and free exercise thereof, speech, right to peaceably assemble, or petition the government of redress of grievances.

Anyone who would sign this thing is essentially saying to ‘take my rights’.

8 comments:

Chris said...

The Democratic Party wants communism and they wil use this to get it in the future.

Mark Adams said...

I know this is a long shot to happen, but thought I would toss it out there for all to see. To blindly sign this thing without carefully reading it, because you have hatred for 'Corporations' is irresponsible. But thats the left (Pass a bill without reading it....)

Christopher - Conservative Perspective said...

If anyone wants to amend the 1st or even sign-on to the idea they should be hung fo treason , period!

JoeC said...

I think that the decision of the Supreme Court in Citizens United is the worst case of activism judges in the history of our nation. Nowhere in the constitution is there any statements concerning the rights of corporations, only people.

We do not need an amendment to the constitution just a Supreme court that knew it.

It is a sad day when such self-proclaimed strict constructionists disavow their own beliefs and destroy our way of life. And i am sorry to see people here who claim to love our country and wish to see our Constitution held in higher regard not only willing but determined to see it turned into nothing.

Perhaps we need to see it as...

"we the people, unions, associations, corporations and various other non-living entities in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

but thats not what our founders intended..

Mark Adams said...

"activism judges ...Nowhere in the constitution is there any statements concerning the rights of corporations, only people."

Activism judges? Who happen to know the definition of unions, associations, corporations.

Corporations:
an association of ‘individuals’, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its ‘members’.
any group of ‘persons’ united or regarded as united in one body.

Unions:
a number of ‘persons’, states, etc., joined or associated together for some common purpose.

Associations:
an organization of ‘people’ with a common purpose and having a formal structure.

Without "people" they would never exist.

Did you notice that these leftist didn't include 'unions' in the wording?

I am wondering what your thought is on those people who blindly ink their names to the petition and not understanding what "First Amendment shall not be construed to limit the authority of Congress" would do to THEIR 1st amendment rights under such an amendment.

Mark Adams said...

Christopher, even though I don't think this will even get out of the gate it’s quite plan to see how closely they are aligned with Marxism.

AdamsPatriot said...

How true Mark. Libs always see corporations as an evil enterprise build on profit greed at the expense of the worker.

Yet the worker now 'owns' corporations, but they want that to be exempt. The union's voice should be heard and protected, everyone else needs to fall in line with the unions or your voice will be shut down.

Facists!

Mark Adams said...

Yes sir, AP. Unions want to ascend to ownership by means of an intrusive government policy that enact laws to strip those who've dedicate a majority of their time and effort to growth of business.
Was told by a friend here this weekend that their unions leadership told them to go out a vote Democrat, and if they did, they would have an easy remaining day on the job.
Sad really. Don't vote your conscience for a relaxing day on the job.