99% of What? Apparently 99% of all the Morons!

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Americanist

 

Going down, is it? Really? Did you even bother to read the article you linked from Huffington Post or did you just shoot your wad after the first sentence or two?

The amendment faces a long, unlikely path even to win initial congressional approval. Senate Republicans last year opposed a Schumer measure, the Disclose Act, that would have just required more disclosure about campaign spenders.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Thanks for keeping this thread alive, Americanist. Without you this thread would have died long ago.

You have a habit of misinterpreting... I didn't post external text from either page in the hopes everybody would take the initiative to read/ watch themselves. The issue must stay alive unless you want to continue being bought and sold.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by Americanist

 

I can quote articles too that support my side of the argument...what is your point?

Stretching the truth about Citizen United

An independent expenditure means money that corporations go out and spend on their own to portray a particular candidate as unfit for office, or on an issue. A direct contribution means a donation to a candidate's campaign, for the campaign to spend any way it likes. Corporations may not make direct contributions to federal campaigns from their own treasury; they have to create a separate political action committee, or PAC, for that. The recent ruling did nothing to change that ban.

With corporations the size of countries... You'll distinguish the method of funds funneled towards politics knowing full well it's core electioneering? With non-profits dishing out 1% towards charities I can only imagine what recent PAC's have done... Hey, whatever floats your boat until it's not your boat anymore.

Originally posted by Indigo5
It remains though that the SCOTUS ruling overturned two of it's own previous rulings and threw 24 state laws into question as well, as you mentioned, portions of Taft-Hartley.

I have been working and busy with various other things so forgive me Indigo on no response. Trust me, between you and Americanist -- I would rather engage in debate with you.

The SCOTUS is given judicial review, in which they can strike down or overrule previous rulings. Though such practice isn't taken lightly. Precedent is a highly held standing within the Rule of Law, but it is not set in stone.

According to your logic and stance, legislation such as the Sedition and Alien Acts would never be stricken down because the SCOTUS has dared to challenge precedent. Striking down previous rulings will always occur.

There was however, only one ruling overturned in Citizen United v. FEC. That was Austin. Interestingly, Citizen United wasn't disputing Austin, but judicial review led the SCOTUS to re-exam it because of the validity towards the Citizen United case.

Subsequently, because of the overrule of Austion, part of McConnell had to be overruled because of its direct tie to the Austin case.

In the words of the justices' "§441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions." That was all that was ruled on, nothing more and nothing less. Regardless of what site you read.

Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers.

Unless you are okay with limiting speech, I cannot see how you are against such logic.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Interestingly, Citizen United wasn't disputing Austin, but judicial review led the SCOTUS to re-exam it because of the validity towards the Citizen United case.

Subsequently, because of the overrule of Austion, part of McConnell had to be overruled because of its direct tie to the Austin case.

Facial challenge
A facial challenge is a challenge that claims a law is unconstitutional on its face, as opposed to a law that is applied in a particular situation unconstitutionally.

Citizens United had alreaddy abandoned a facial challenge to section 203, with both parties agreeing to the dismissal of the claims, it was the conservative Justices who re-introduced this challenge, directed the parties to reargue the claim and then ruled on the constitutionality of that facial challenge when they could have ruled on much narrower grounds....the unconstitutionality of it's application as both parties where originally contesting.

I guess what I am saying is, what you describe as "interesting" I describe as Judicial activism that is questionable in the most understandable of scenarios from the Supreme Court, but from Conservative Justices? Of the Supreme Court? They directed the Plaintiffs to expand thier case to include the previously conceeded facial challenge and then ruled in thier favor..C'Mon...That stunk to high-heaven in my oppinion. "Overreach" is not a big enough word.

In the words of the justices' "§441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions." That was all that was ruled on, nothing more and nothing less. Regardless of what site you read.

No. The government regularly and rightly restricts corporate speech without threatening the first amendment.
Alchohal and Tobacco advertising, the ugly cousin of electioneering materials, is an excellent example.

Is it it your belief that requiring warning labels or nutritional content labels constitutes unconstitutional "Compelled speech"? Or that the prohibition of advertising Ciggerettes or Alchahol to minors is an unconstitutional prohibition on speech?

Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers.

Unless you are okay with limiting speech, I cannot see how you are against such logic.

And again I would argue that corporate treasuries do not represent "speakers"...I am OK with my government distinguishing between speakers when one is a person and another is a toungless legal construct.

Originally posted by Indigo5
No. The government regularly and rightly restricts corporate speech without threatening the first amendment.
Alchohal and Tobacco advertising, the ugly cousin of electioneering materials, is an excellent example.

Is it it your belief that requiring warning labels or nutritional content labels constitutes unconstitutional "Compelled speech"? Or that the prohibition of advertising Ciggerettes or Alchahol to minors is an unconstitutional prohibition on speech?

I figured you missed my earlier response to this line that you started when you ported it to advertising. Which there has been a defined distinction between "commercial" speech and speech; which in the terms of the First Amendment, aims specifically at political speech.

Who is they? If by they, you mean state and local ordinances I am fine with that. They are not Congress. That is left to the States and the People respectively via the Tenth Amendment. There are no Federal bans on on advertising alcohol. Typically, industry has, through various pressures, imposed their own rules and regulations on advertising. Further, many media companies have imposed their own rule.

At one point, the Congress tried to impose a rule that forced breweries to list their alcohol content even if a particular state did not require it and was struck down as unconstitutional for....wait for it.....violating the First Amendment.

In regards to tobacco, the same applies to whatever states have decided. Such states that took bans and restrictions too far were summarily struck down because of their violation of the First Amendment.

It is long held precedent that there is a difference in "commercial" speech, which is mainly speaking of advertising and promoting a product. Such tests applied by the Supreme Court deal with misleading and willfully omitting information.

And again I would argue that corporate treasuries do not represent "speakers"...I am OK with my government distinguishing between speakers when one is a person and another is a toungless legal construct.

If something is conveyed, at some point a human being was involved. At some point, there is an actual person making a decision to spend such money. So your view that it is this "toungless[sic] legal construct" just spouting out speech -- you do see the irony here right? The tongueless speak? -- doesn't make sense.