First Amendment – “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”
Obama Vows to Fight Supreme Court Campaign Finance Decision
So what is Obamas problem? (Yes I know it’s a long list) What has Obama got it in for the First Amendment? Obama and the Liberal have got their panties in wad over this Supreme Court ruling to allow companies to engage in political free speech as long as they disclose who they are, so the Liberal are loosing their collective small minds and claim this must be stopped. One problem, Congress nor the President can overturn a Supreme Court, they cannot pass legislation that deliberately circumvents a Supreme Court ruling… well put it this way it has never before. Never has the three bodies of government tried to overture a constitutional ruling of the Supreme Court. Why? Well in Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote:
“A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute.”
In short the Constitution supersedes Obama’s and the Dems liberal agenda, damn the bad luck B.O…. you’d think that someone that calls himself a constitutional law professor would understand this little nuance. Frankly, I think he does and he and the liberals are playing lip service to his base, he does that a lot, you know ‘lies’. Saying he is going to do this or that when he knows he can’t.
Alexander Hamilton also writes…
“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
So why are the liberals so tore up over the new ruling?
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION (PDF FILE)
The key bit they are torn up about is…
The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether.
Businesses are made up and owned by PEOPLE can now exercise the right to free speech that the PEOPLE enjoy in other words if a private business favors a candidate that business can now use its monies and purchase advertisement in favor of that candidate as long as they disclose this information. There isn’t much different from what some businesses do now, namely GE who are in bed with Obama and the liberals do by buying or using their own networks to push their agenda of wind and solar farming, two products manufactured by GE and until they sold NBC/Universal pushed by those networks of NBC, CNBC and MSNBC. Additionally Union such as SEIU, AFL-CIO, UMW that supported Obama pumped millions upon millions into Obama’s campaign either directly or indirectly via soft money as much as $100 million was pumped into Obama’s nearly $600 million campaign.
Obama and the liberals know that they have this soft money, dirty money, and union money and with he passage of the stimulus billions more in slush funds. While this ruling will also allow Unions to promote their candidate of choice they now do so with full disclosure, something they were already doing without disclosure through soft funds. So in a sense this levels the playing field legally with the illegal activities on the left.
The up side to this is something Obama where has failed and that is “transparency” as now we the voting public will know more clearly who is supporting who via the disclosures.
Let me give you an example:
The New York Times a huge multimillion dollar corporation that called the Supreme Court ruling a “disastrous” but they in 2008 come out in endorse Barack Obama as an editorial as did the Washington Post who also whined about the ruling. They as the press owned by corporation have long openly supported candidates and agendas. On the other side say I own ACME Widgets Corporation during the 2008 election I, as a business owner would NOT be able to take out a full-page, half-page or classified advertisement in the Times or anyplace else in support of my candidate as it would have violated McCain-Feingold. With this Supreme Court ruling, which overturns McCain-Feingold, I would be able to take out as much advertising as I wanted as long as I stated I paid for the ad and I didn’t give it directly to the candidate. This is doing the same thing the New York Times Corporation and the Washington Post Corporation did as a media outlet endorsing Obama as an editorial and promoting his agenda with puff pieces.
The field is now level and the liberals are none to happy.
Free Speech, Not the GOP, Is the Winner in Court Campaign-Finance Ruling
Obama, NYT wail over Supreme Court decision on free speech
Why Supreme Court Corporate Spending Decision is Correct
Nation’s Leading Paper Says Democracy Imperiled by First Amendment Victory
Tweet 
Buzz 
DIGG 
Facebook 
Ping 
Reddit 
Stumble
