• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

Why did Congress think the Constitution gave them the power to limit free speech in the first place?

All the debate over how wrong the SCOTUS was in this ruling seems to be focused on everything but what powers the Constitution actually grants to Congress.

How many of you really buy those knifes you see on TV that will cut through bricks and come with a lifetime guarantee and if you buy now you get a second set for free? Why would you need a second set if the first set can cut through bricks and is guaranteed for life?

Perhaps we need the government to protect us from our own stupidity?
 
Last edited:
Own stupidity is letting the government correct us for our won stupidity, yet we learn nothing because we keep electing stupid people.
 
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
- Winston Churchill
 
deltabtry said:
Own stupidity is letting the government correct us for our won stupidity, yet we learn nothing because we keep electing stupid people.
Click to expand...

I don't think we elect stupid people, I think we elect power hungry people.

The Founding Fathers got it right when they left it up to us to sort through all the differing opinions and make up our own minds. They gave us a Constitution that enumerated what powers were granted to the federal government and made sure to include the press in the 1st Amendment.

The press at that time was mostly run by business people who owned another business (like a saw mill) that helped pay for printing costs etc.

My point is this: The 1st Amendment to the Constitution included the press for a reason. At the time the Constitution was written the press was run by what we would consider corporations today. It was run by wealthy businessmen who had a vested interest in the political landscape at the time.

The Founding Fathers went out of their way to promote and protect the free speech of businesses and individuals alike because a perfect union couldn’t exist without free speech for all.
 

Congress makes laws, and they're not expected to be constitutional scholars. That's the job of the Supreme Court. They are the ones who determine if a law is in accordance with the constitution, and in this case, they correctly determined that McCain/Feingold violated the first amendment (at least the conservative justices) and struck it down. :thumbs:
 
Here's another op-ed that grasps exactly what this decision was all about:

 
Vader said:
You are quite mistaken.

Corporations and the SIGs will now feel free to buy off politicians to make laws that favor them and only them.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Who owns corporations? Ain't it We the People? Special interests...whose interests are they? Government's? Ain't they the interests...whether 'special' or not of We the People?

Vader is correct here, We the People and We the People only will be favored. We may acorn, we may unionize, incorporate, call our interests special. We may have community organizers. We may have an entire playing field of effect on what happens in Washington DC.

Our government doesn't have the right to make rules on how We the People elect or nominate candidates. An individual....is still an individual whether he works for a corporation, union, or community organization. I cannot see how anyone argues otherwise. Do any of we members of this forum work for corporations or work for a union? Is anyone going to argue that fact removes any of your individual rights...especially to freedom of speech?

The Court ruled correctly and Constitutionally, Kennedy the decider and kudos to him. Sotomayor looking lost and scared, hopefully Ginsburg takes her under wing. Another unqualified Obama selection.
 
Last edited:
GPS_Flex said:
Perhaps we need the government to protect us from our own stupidity?
Click to expand...

Agreed -- and allowing unlimited amounts of cash into the electoral process is beyond stupid.

Corporations are a legal entity. The board of directors/CEOs may have different political interests than the shareholders and employees.

Money, especially in large amounts, corrupts people and will corrupt the political process even more so than it already is.
 

Sounds like we should get rid of politican's salaries then since money is such a terrible corrupter. :roll:
 
I agree, I was being sarcastic in my last post.
 
Since many, if not most, congressmen are lawyers, they should have a pretty good idea what the Constitution says ...
 
Coronado said:
Since many, if not most, congressmen are lawyers, they should have a pretty good idea what the Constitution says ...
Click to expand...

All that they learn in law school is how to manipulate the words of the Constitution to their liking.
 
phattonez said:
All that they learn in law school is how to manipulate the words of the Constitution to their liking.
Click to expand...
They learn much more than that, but that is all they end up doing.
 
Grim17 said:
Congress makes laws, and they're not expected to be constitutional scholars. That's the job of the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Congress takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. They of all people should know, and care, about what is constitutional. They can't just pass whatever laws they want and wait for the courts to decide what sticks and what doesn't.
 
phattonez said:
All that they learn in law school is how to manipulate the words of the Constitution to their liking.
Click to expand...

and they make a damn good buck doing it :lol:
 
Z3n said:
but i thought free market economics? or
Click to expand...
at our expense. Sad thing is that we get lawyers who try to run our economy, perhaps we should try real world business men and try to keep these lawyers in their own speciality.
 
deltabtry said:
at our expense. Sad thing is that we get lawyers who try to run our economy, perhaps we should try real world business men and try to keep these lawyers in their own speciality.
Click to expand...

what do you mean run our economy? like elected officials?
 
Z3n said:
what do you mean run our economy? like elected officials?
Click to expand...
yes and God help us, it's like a box of chocolates you never know what your going to get.(stealing the line from Forrest Gump:wink
 
Z3n said:
but i thought free market economics? or
Click to expand...

There's a reason that we have a Constitution. When it's violated it's usually to violate free market principles.
 
Re: SCOTUS Strikes Down Campaign Finance!


After Obama refused public financing, breaking his promise, in the 2008 election and then spent billions of dollars in online donations from foreigners, I think I know why he is so upset about people in corporations being given their free speech rights back.

After all, what is Obama going to do when companies start running ads about the projected impact of cap and trade?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…