- Joined
- Oct 1, 2005
- Messages
- 38,750
- Reaction score
- 13,845
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Wow. Your assault on freedom of speech goes even deeper than it first appeared.
I'm glad you highlighted something I didn't say. Nor did I say Hannity or Olberman or MSNBC or Fox should have the right to spin "news".
I hope you don't eat those words after some time has passed.
You've yet to prove that other than to say - it doesn't not mention them... -Irrelevant. The First Amendment protects speech, not persons, not corporations.
I believe I gave a perfect example, maybe you should read the thread.Not, simple - absurd. How is "the people's" voice squashed by the speech of others?
You've never answered it, you simply claim the constitution covers everything in the universe.How many times do we have to go over this one?
Huh? No one who isn't a citizen gets to vote. I don't know what nonsense you're trying to hoist as a rebuttal this time.So . . .
No one who doesn't get to vote is protected by the Bill of Rights?
Huh? No one who isn't a citizen gets to vote. I don't know what nonsense you're trying to hoist as a rebuttal this time.
You've never answered it, you simply claim the constitution covers everything in the universe.
Huh? No one who isn't a citizen gets to vote. I don't know what nonsense you're trying to hoist as a rebuttal this time.
You've yet to prove that other than to say - it doesn't not mention them... -
Huh? No one who isn't a citizen gets to vote. I don't know what nonsense you're trying to hoist as a rebuttal this time.
It doesn't mention them AND it clearly says Congress shall make NO law abridging freedom of speech. That's it. Very simple. It protects speech, period. Doesn't matter where the speech comes from.
You are talking absolutism.
The First Amendment is doing that, not me.
But no, my position doesn't require absolutism. There can be exceptions, just none based on the source of the speech.
It's very clear that the First Amendment is meant to keep the government from deciding that some speech is good and some bad based on the content of the speech or the speaker - especially when it comes to political speech. That's a long-standing principle. It applies here.
Damn, makes me want to turn on some marching music. :monkeyYou are talking absolutism.
Damn, makes me want to turn on some marching music. :monkey
The constant shuffling of legislation to combat the problem seems to create a lot of problems.
Money has long "corrupted" the process, but most of the problem was on the Democratic Party side. The interesting part was, of course, when Obama was at the center of attention, campaign finance reform talk just went hush hush.
I think the counter culture sensibilities of this nation have subsided to a large degree, and it has mostly come down to trying to improve the condition of your horse and hold back the other guy's horse.
Oops, I realized what I said didn't make too much sense. What I meant was that the Democratic Party was the one that spearheaded most of the reforms.
Justice Stevens' conclusion that the sovereign may interfere with First Amendment or other rights of privately founded and financed corporations because they are "artificial" creations is not only absent in the Trustees of Dartmouth College decision, but it is contradictory to it.
Founder and our fourth Chief Justice John Marshall wrote:
A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being a creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created. Among the most important are immortality, and, if the expression may be allowed, individuality; properties, by which a perpetual succession of many persons are considered the same, and may act as a single individual.
In other words, Justice Marshall's written opinion supports the principle that corporations may act and speak as any individual may, and the opinion notes that legislatures lack the power to take away "vested" rights. The position that follows from Justice Stevens' must be that First Amendment rights are not vested. That is as dangerous a judicial notion as any I know.
Perhaps an even more radical and equally dangerous statement in the liberals' dissent is that "every corporate activity ... restentirely in a concession of the sovereign," and therefore could be "comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare." As I mentioned earlier, the opinion in Trustees of Dartmouth College makes the clear distinction between private corporations versus public (or civic) corporations such as cities and townships. Justice Stevens' language is pulled from the description of public corporations found in Trustees of Dartmouth College.
I do not know whether Justice Stevens' intent in failing to acknowledge this important distinction between private and public corporations was to influence more than just restrictions on First Amendment rights. The Marshall court makes clear, however, that government may not intrude on private corporations the way it may on public ones, and it must respect the private nature of private corporations even when their purposes may be for the public benefit. That may be just horribly incompetent lawyering on Justice Stevens' part (although the other three liberal justices signed onto his dissenting opinion).
;';'Interesting article on the SCOTUS decision: American Thinker: A Dangerous Dissent on Citizens United
;';'
It reads like an average insurance policy to me.
Marshall's opinion is based on mysticism and easter bunny logic.
He should have got the Gabby Hayes Gibberish Award for it.
Of course, that's only my humble opinion.
I often find the law that way, although I am not sure where mysticism and the easter bunny comes in here. Nonetheless, it represents precedence that was not overturned by the current court. The conclusion makes sense to me. Are we really supposed to regulate and restrict a private enterprises' speech? Nonsense.
They literally created something out of thin air and said an entity has the same rights as we the people.
Precedence can also be conceived to be "rule from the grave" ["Rights Of Man", Tom Paine].
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?