- Joined
- Dec 14, 2015
- Messages
- 26,734
- Reaction score
- 11,521
- Location
- Elsewhere
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
That's ridiculous.
The thread topic or the entire election? I am leaning towards the later.
That's ridiculous.
The Citizens United case had nothing to do with donations.
The Citizens United ruling, released in January 2010, tossed out the corporate and union ban on making independent expenditures and financing electioneering communications. It gave corporations and unions the green light to spend unlimited sums on ads and other political tools, calling for the election or defeat of individual candidates.
Actually, I can't recall the last time anything got out of congress.
1) Even your link says "Something's gone terribly wrong." Either you linked to something that no longer exists or you screwed up the URL.
2) Hillary, as President, does not have the power to introduce a Constitutional Amendment. That requires members from the House, Senate, or two thirds of the States.
3) To say that wanting to overturn Citizens United is "nullifying the First Amendment" is such idiotic hyperbole I don't even know where to start. Overturning Citizens United is not "denying people an outlet to speak."
4) I'd say that allowing some people's "speech" to matter much more than that of others is way more corrosive to democracy.
Edit: found the actual link that works.
Hillary Clinton Pledges Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Citizens United In Her First 30 Days
The Citizens United case had nothing to do with donations.
in politics who has the most, wins.
Who would fund the Republican party?
It's business members are often boycotted and called out by the press for supporting certain candidates. In an ideal CU world, they are just supposed to not make a peep while their interests are decided by democrats?
All income originates in the private sector, thus they have a dog in the fight and the battle is fought with money regardless of the technicalities of where it comes from.
The effect of CU if it remained in place would be to decimate the funding of the republican party and pretending the playing field was level for them. Decimation of the republican funding base was the goal.
Yes, and I'm sorry you feel that way.Harshaw said:You actually think the motivation behind the majority in Citizens United was to defund the Republican Party?
Oh, my. There's no path forward in this conversation.
Hillary Clinton Pledges Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Citizens United In Her First 30 Days
Money in politics can certainly be corrosive, however denying people an outlet to speak is much more corrosive.
Hillary Clinton Pledges Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Citizens United In Her First 30 Days
Money in politics can certainly be corrosive, however denying people an outlet to speak is much more corrosive.
This thread is largely a bunch of people getting their panties in a bunch over nothing. There will be no constitutional amendment that overturns Citizens United or anything else (be it flag burning, birth right citizenship or defining marriage). The chances of getting any constitution amendment done in this environment are...... (where is my event probability calculator?)......ZERO....even Trump has a better shot at the White House then a Constitution Amendment effected in the next decade.
That said, the path to defining some of the precedent set by the Citizen's United ruling is a constitutional amendment. The ruling was board and far reaching (and many arguing that the SCOTUS legislated from the bench on this one). There are questions of the power of money in speech and whether we have or will moved from a one man-one vote philosophy to a one dollar-one vote. Constitutional amendment is indeed the correct venue for cleaning up such an issue. its just that it will never happen.
As to Hillary's "power" to do so? Wow, a bunch of people got bunched up on that one. Of course she has no such power. She will, however, have the bully pulpit as head of her party. As such, she can (and will) have significant influence in crafting legislation. The Democrat leaders will do everything in their power to effect her legislative agenda. Its not a question of her explicit power; its a question of her implied/de facto power.
That all said, Presidential candidates like to tell their constituents that they are going to amend the Constitution to effect the agenda they want to sell (it seems to me some Republicans are telling us they are going to get rid of birthright citizenship via constitutional means). These are idle promises that play well with low information voters (who have no clue about the Constitutional Amendment process ... either legally or practically)...and when it doesn't happen, as it won't, its not the politicians fault... its the other guy.
This whole thread is arguing about a non-issue.
How exactly did the majority "legislate from the bench"?
Anytime a court answers a bigger question than was asked, they are legislating from the bench.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-catastrophe/2012/02/05/gIQATOEfsQ_story.html
Legislating from the Bench - Harvard Political Review
https://www.normangoldman.com/about-that-legislating-from-the-bench/ which references Chief Justice John Roberts' Supreme Court at 10, defying labels
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zephyr-teachout/six-years-of-citizens-uni_b_9038654.html
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-0512-citizens-united-20160512-story.html
3) To say that wanting to overturn Citizens United is "nullifying the First Amendment" is such idiotic hyperbole I don't even know where to start. Overturning Citizens United is not "denying people an outlet to speak."
Money in politics can certainly be corrosive, however denying people an outlet to speak is much more corrosive.
Money is not speech, it is volume. It is the ability to turn your speech up so loud that the speech of others cannot be heard. The point of free speech is to insure that all speech can be heard, not to let those with money drown out the speech of others. That is the antithesis of free speech.
1) Even your link says "Something's gone terribly wrong." Either you linked to something that no longer exists or you screwed up the URL.
2) Hillary, as President, does not have the power to introduce a Constitutional Amendment. That requires members from the House, Senate, or two thirds of the States.
3) To say that wanting to overturn Citizens United is "nullifying the First Amendment" is such idiotic hyperbole I don't even know where to start. Overturning Citizens United is not "denying people an outlet to speak."
4) I'd say that allowing some people's "speech" to matter much more than that of others is way more corrosive to democracy.
Edit: found the actual link that works.
Hillary Clinton Pledges Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Citizens United In Her First 30 Days
im not sure buying are elections is free speach
How exactly did the majority "legislate from the bench"?
They didnt' do as the Left wanted, so it's evil.
Under Citizens United, the government claimed the right to ban books. I'd say that counts.