1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragon"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems."
Show us how Obama was being truthful, for one.
He expressed his belief. There's no reason to believe he is lying about what he believes. He stated what he thinks about elections: it seems perfectly plausible that this is, in fact, what he thinks. Then: "[Elections] should be decided by the American people." Anything untrue about this? No. And he's going urge legislators, on both sides of the aisle, to work together to correct what he sees as a misstep by SCOTUS. No reason to doubt the veracity of that assertion. So where are the lies?
Originally posted by monster truckCongress could ban corporations from engaging in interstate commerce tomorrow if they so felt like it. Corporations are not persons and have no rights but what they are given by legislative fiat; indeed their very existence depends on legislative authority. Individuals, by contrast, have natural rights that existed prior to and would exist even without the US Constitution. The 1st Amendment doesn't say birds don't have the right to free speech either, but it is just as absurd to argue that omission means that birds have rights as it is to argue that corporations do.
This protection has been extended by explicit holdings tothe context of political speech. See, e.g., Button, 371 U. S., at 428–429; Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233, 244 (1936). Under the rationale of these precedents,political speech does not lose First Amendment protection“simply because its source is a corporation.” Bellotti, supra, at ...[text shortened]... me folks think it's up to the gov to do what people should be doing for themselves. Think.😛
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderBut birds don't consist of people running them.
Congress could ban corporations from engaging in interstate commerce tomorrow if they so felt like it. Corporations are not persons and have no rights but what they are given by legislative fiat; indeed their very existence depends on legislative authority. Individuals, by contrast, have natural rights that existed prior to and would exist even without t rd to argue that omission means that birds have rights as it is to argue that corporations do.
If a corporation pays for or places an ad, it is the CEO or director or President or whomever made the decision that is exercising speech. Yes, it's the corporation's money; but the directors have control over the corporation's money.
If corporations could not place ads, could the director place the ad personally and later the corporation's board could pass a resolution to reimburse the director for the expense?
The corporation has no rights. But the people who run the corporation have freedom of speech like everyone else.
Now, I don't think the Supreme Court decision is a good idea in the long run. But, if it were me, I'd have upheld the regulations on the ground that freedom of speech is not absolute; it is outweighed in some cases by the compelling government interest in protecting the political process from undue influence of special interests. As long as the regulations are narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, they can withstand First Amendment scrutiny.
On the other note, I agree that Obama didn't lie. He just made a prediction, albeit perhaps an alarmist one. But don't like using the State of the Union as a forum to attack a Supreme Court decision any more than I'd like a Supreme Court opinion that goes after the President's economic policies.
Originally posted by no1marauderRead and heed:
Congress could ban corporations from engaging in interstate commerce tomorrow if they so felt like it. Corporations are not persons and have no rights but what they are given by legislative fiat; indeed their very existence depends on legislative authority. Individuals, by contrast, have natural rights that existed prior to and would exist even without t ...[text shortened]... rd to argue that omission means that birds have rights as it is to argue that corporations do.
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.
No individuals, no corps, no birds or Post Turtles.
It applies universally.
The stench of fear permeates any position to the contrary.
Originally posted by FMF"last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law"
"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities ...[text shortened]... sstep by SCOTUS. No reason to doubt the veracity of that assertion. So where are the lies?
This is not true and is misleading. I am sure w/his background he is aware of that.
Originally posted by monster truckThe stench of BS permeates any argument that the 1st Amendment applies to non-human entities.
Read and heed:
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.
No individuals, no corps, no birds or Post Turtles.
It applies universally.
The stench of fear permeates any position to the contrary.
Originally posted by sh76The legislature can regulate what any CEO does with the corporation's money. So long as those regulations pass rational basis muster, I do not see any constitutional issue.
But birds don't consist of people running them.
If a corporation pays for or places an ad, it is the CEO or director or President or whomever made the decision that is exercising speech. Yes, it's the corporation's money; but the directors have control over the corporation's money.
If corporations could not place ads, could the director place the ad perso ...[text shortened]... n I'd like a Supreme Court opinion that goes after the President's economic policies.
Corporations as an entity are allowed to exist because they fulfill economic functions that the legislature deems desirable. If they start doing things the legislature deems undesirable, they can be regulated or even banned.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 32471
Originally posted by monster truckSo you're all a bunch of corporate collectivists. Eager for chains to bind you. The founders would be appalled.
Read and heed:
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.
No individuals, no corps, no birds or Post Turtles.
It applies universally.
The stench of fear permeates any position to the contrary.
Originally posted by utherpendragonIt's his belief as POTUS and as a constitutional lawyer, former professor of law and editor of the Harvard Law Review. Your cut & pasted belief that it is a "lie" is noted.
"last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law"
This is not true and is misleading. I am sure w/his background he is aware of that.
Originally posted by FMF"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems."
"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities ...[text shortened]... sstep by SCOTUS. No reason to doubt the veracity of that assertion. So where are the lies?
At least four obvious untruths here.
1. Obama says this will open the floodgates. But how can you open a floodgate that's already wide open?
2. Obama says elections should not be bankrolled by powerful interests. But anyone with a bank account big enough to roll an election is by definition a "powerful interest".
3. Obama says elections should be decided by the American people. How quaint. The American people demand twice the food for half the price, and we want them to decide elections?
4. Obama expects Democrats AND Republicans to pass a bill? What's he been smokin'?
Originally posted by monster truckBoth the Federal and State governments have placed special limitations on campaign spending by corporations since 1907 when Congress enacted the Tillman act.
BONG! WRONG!
Corps are limited in that they may not contribute to candidates.
This is silly nitpicking; clearly "without limits" is referring to how much can be spent. Of course, there are "limits" as regards every type of speech i.e. the ads can't say Congressmen X is a "[expletive meaning someone who engages in coitus with the woman who bore him]" but the meaning of Obama's phrasing is quite clear and his assertion is accurate.
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesSurely this post isn't meant seriously.
[/i]"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreig ns?
4. Obama expects Democrats AND Republicans to pass a bill? What's he been smokin'?