KOMRADES!!!


House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday endorsed a movement announced by other congressional Democrats on Wednesday to ratify an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow Congress to regulate political speech when it is engaged in by corporations as opposed to individuals.

The constitutional amendment the Democrats seek would reverse the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In that decision the court said that the First Amendment protects a right of free speech for corporations as well as for individuals, and that corporations (including those that produce newspapers, films and books) have a right to speak about politicians and their records just as individuals do.
“I think one of the presenters [at a Democratic forum on amending the Constitution] yesterday said that the Supreme Court had unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system, and that, indeed, is not an exaggeration,” said Pelosi.

Frankly, I am flabbergasted! Why bother amending the first amendment? We already know that the constipation constitution is an out-moded, out-dated anachronism written by a bunch of racist, bigoted, homophobic rich white guys. We have already determined its irrelevance when we ordained a Kenyan subject of the Bwitish Crown as our Dear Reader (AP&PBUH).

We all know that if a law goes unenforced, it ceases to be a law… Since we Progressives have already stretched the Commerce Clause to acceptable levels of helping the little people and defended the selection of a foreign national to lead our party, why bother amending a law that we completely ignore!

Why lower ourselves to the judicial activism of a handful of unelected judges? Hell-O!!!

Just toss that musty ole rag into a shredder and have done with it. Or recycle it…I'm sure the FLOTUS could use a little extra TP to stock up the loo.

Afterall, if we have indeed "unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system," then it is in the best interests of The People to protect them from themselves.We certain must not allow certain types of speech that might confuse the masses to persist.

" " "That's pretty incredible," said Justice Samuel Alito. "You think that if a book was published, a campaign biography that was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, that could be banned?" Yes, Mr. Stewart said, if a corporation or union were paying for it." "
https://citizensunited.org/press-releas ... rticle=430

Yes, we can ban books. Obviously our agitprop needs to exclude mentioning the banning of union paid books, because we must preserve Lenin's ideal that trade unions are schools of communism and we don't want to interfere with school!

Once separated from her other Madame duties, she is correct.
The power to amend/adjust the constitution is implied by the commerce clause.
This is a sole discretionary power of Federal politicians, state participation is specifically excluded despite contrary wording elsewhere.

I, R.O.C.K. in the USSA, hereby propose that we amend the constitution with a NEW amendment, the Bush Amendment. Dear Leader and Friends can already do pretty much anything they want to and use the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8) to defend their actions, but - with the Bush Amendment - placing the blame for ANYthing would be SOOO much easier.

Here's my recommended wording for the 28th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, also known as the Bush Amendment:

---

28. Because, Bush.

---

And there you have it!

Comrade Loaf wrote:Yes, we can ban books. Obviously our agitprop needs to exclude mentioning the banning of union paid books, because we must preserve Lenin's ideal that trade unions are schools of communism and we don't want to interfere with school!

Well... we no longer require trade unions to teach communism. Today's unions are actually more involved in enforcement (ala. KGB, etc.)

No, the public schools and the Department of IndoctrinationEducation are now considered the schools of modern communism.

Apparently, from the responses I am reading regarding my initial topic, our education system may be far too effective.

Please, understand... we do not require any more amendments -- not even a bush amendment.

Just toss the whole detestable document.