Debate USSC decision on "Free Speech"

[Soggy in NOLA]

The same bunch that thought "Piss Christ" was noteworthy.......

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Frank.. don't waste your time. These folks are anti capitalism through and through. If they had their way we'd all be wearing Mao jackets and working in a government cubicle.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank.. don't waste your time. These folks are anti capitalism through and through. If they had their way we'd all be wearing Mao jackets and working in a government cubicle.

 

[goldcatt]

So the NY Times Company does NOT enjoy First Amendment protection, izzataboutright?

You're also resorting to the last refuge of the ignorant and spoon fed, I see. Freedom of the Press is a separate First Amendment clause, right, rationale and jurisprudence from that of speech and if you had done any independent research whatsoever you would know it. And the corporation itself, divorced from its product, is no different from any other and enjoys no special rights. Same goes for News Corp or any other corporate owner of a press or media outlet.

Pathetic. Resorting to your faux "superiority"

The wording of the First Amendment lists Speech first, ahead of Press, which is listed almost as an afterthought so the Amendment reads essentially "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" so, it simply cannot be made any clearer.

Also your premise of divorcing the product from the Company is laughable, do you think that the freedom of speech or press refers only to the Articles of Incorporation or to the neat little book you get with the company seal when you incorporate?

News Corp, GE, Walt Disney and NY Times Company should enjoy their rights NO LESS THAN ANY OTHER COMPANY!!!

You demonstrate your ignorance with every word. Here, educate yourself:

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.

What word separates and sitinguishes the various Clauses? Oh yes, "or" - meaning they cannot do one separate action OR another. One again, merely the plain language of the First Amendment itself.

Don't like that? I'm assuming you've actually read the decision at issue, which states clearly that corporations and labor unions enjoy political speech rights either as a citizen themselves or, conversely, as their status as an association of citizens. It does not actually specify one chosen rationale for extending speech rights. Got that so far?

Now, look at the text of the First Amendment above. Where does it state Congress shall make no law abridging the rights of Associations? I'll wait. (Oh, and the second half of that clause was already covered under protected corporate speech: See lobbying)

I'll give you the basis of citizenship then, Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So please, point out to me where citizens are incorporated or created? Again, I'll wait.

It's not News Corp or Disney that concerns most people here from a legal standpoint, Frank (although I do personally believe Austin's nondistortion doctrine was correct). It's ABC Inc., the closely held sub-S with a PO Box and no public disclosures of either ownership or finances that will allow individuals of any nationality, any agenda, any purpose to dump unlimited amounts of money into the system for any purpose and from any source without any personal accountability whatsoever - now not only legit, but Constitutionally protected! Think about the ramifications of that, then go back and look for your justification again.

 

[The Rabbi]

You demonstrate your ignorance with every word. Here, educate yourself:

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.

What word separates and sitinguishes the various Clauses? Oh yes, "or" - meaning they cannot do one separate action OR another. One again, merely the plain language of the First Amendment itself.

Don't like that? I'm assuming you've actually read the decision at issue, which states clearly that corporations and labor unions enjoy political speech rights either as a citizen themselves or, conversely, as their status as an association of citizens. It does not actually specify one chosen rationale for extending speech rights. Got that so far?

Now, look at the text of the First Amendment above. Where does it state Congress shall make no law abridging the rights of Associations? I'll wait. (Oh, and the second half of that clause was already covered under protected corporate speech: See lobbying)

You quoted it. COngress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. It doesnt say "for citizens." It doesn't say "for corporations." It doesn't say "except corporations." No law. Whatsoever. And yet McCain Feingold did just that. So Congress acted contrary to the plain language of the Constitution.
This isn't hard.

 

[goldcatt]

Oh my God... we now have liberals citing original intent? They have truly become unhinged.

My question is, why do some of the conservatives here not care about original intent?

I have my suspicions, but you know what they say about people who assume things....so let's have it from the horse's, er, mouth.

 

[goldcatt]

Frank, sometimes one small question can refute a whole bunch of bull. That was your question. Thanks. You are one stand up guy.
Take that, Goldcatt

My question still stands unanswered, "bull" or no. Why do you support a decision that counters all four tenets of Originalist interpretation?

Because the First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech." What part of that do you not understand?

That's not what the decision says. It says the right of political speech is extended because of either citizenship or association. Your statement would invalidate any restrictions on speech, no matter how necessary to preserve the rights of others. Is that really what you want?

 

[The Rabbi]

My question still stands unanswered, "bull" or no. Why do you support a decision that counters all four tenets of Originalist interpretation?

Because the First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech." What part of that do you not understand?

That's not what the decision says. It says the right of political speech is extended because of either citizenship or association. Your statement would invalidate any restrictions on speech, no matter how necessary to preserve the rights of others. Is that really what you want?

Yes, it is. Absent "clear and present danger to the public" there needs to be no restriction on free speech.
Please tell me which kinds of speech you'd like to see restricted.

 

[Avatar4321]

Oh my God... we now have liberals citing original intent? They have truly become unhinged.

My question is, why do some of the conservatives here not care about original intent?

I have my suspicions, but you know what they say about people who assume things....so let's have it from the horse's, er, mouth.

You're suggesting that the original intent of the First amendment was to provide Free speech for individuals and groups of people, except groups of people we don't like. That makes absolutely no sense.

You may not like corporations. But as a group of people, they have a right to speech just like any other group.

 

[beowolfe]

Dumbest decision in my lifetime. Corporations are not people. People are recognized by the first amendment, not inanimate objects.

 

[goldcatt]

Because the First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech." What part of that do you not understand?

That's not what the decision says. It says the right of political speech is extended because of either citizenship or association. Your statement would invalidate any restrictions on speech, no matter how necessary to preserve the rights of others. Is that really what you want?

Yes, it is. Absent "clear and present danger to the public" there needs to be no restriction on free speech.
Please tell me which kinds of speech you'd like to see restricted.

"Clear and present danger" was overturned about 30 years ago.

But even using that standard, I fail to see how funneling unlimited amounts of money from anonymous sources through corporate shells and into the (already corrupt) political process can be seen as anything other than a danger. McCain-Feingold had to go, but this is not the answer.

 

[goldcatt]

Oh my God... we now have liberals citing original intent? They have truly become unhinged.

My question is, why do some of the conservatives here not care about original intent?

I have my suspicions, but you know what they say about people who assume things....so let's have it from the horse's, er, mouth.

You're suggesting that the original intent of the First amendment was to provide Free speech for individuals and groups of people, except groups of people we don't like. That makes absolutely no sense.

You may not like corporations. But as a group of people, they have a right to speech just like any other group.

Another nice straw man, but the answer is NO.

The Framers were specific. The original intent was to reserve speech, particularly political speech, for individuals alone. In fact, Madison and Jefferson especially addressed the dangers of extending the freedom of political speech to corporations. I personally would add labor unions, which did not formally exist at the time but would seem to fall under their rationale. They spoke of the dangers of allowing exactly what the Court allowed with this decision and the imbalance of power that would result. I also can't imagine reading their arguments that they would have intended for any foreign agent to be able to incorporate and have full and free political protections.

I support any individual's right to speak no matter what the content or point of view. But while I'm not normally an Originalist but rather a pragmatist, in this instance the Originalist view is correct. Certain rights must be reserved for individuals or they beciome so diluted as to be meaningless.

 

[Darkwind]

The United States Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" was entirely political and a supreme injustice. The Conservative Block's (Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas) ruling exposed their bias towards the power elite, wall street bankers and cartels as well as their disregard for the American citizen. These 'justices' may well have written this opinion on a barn with these words: All men are equal, some men are more equal than others.
How can they decide that "Bong hits for Jesus" is not free speech, yet allow monied interests' to 'buy' elections and members of legislative bodies? (btw, kudows to Alito for his support for free speech in the 'bong' matter).

I know that you don't want to give companies the right to protect their interests like Unions do. I know you don't want to give companies to look after their interests like the PAC's do. I know that you don't want to give companies the right to redress grievances like the environmentalists do.

But I have to take issue with your ignorance here. It is not the job of companies to look after the interests of the people. To say that they disregard the American people is outright funny. They have no need to regard anything but their own interests.

It is the job of States to look after the regard of the people.

I have a solution. It is un Constitutional. At least it is now.

I propose we Amend the Constitution to say simply this.

No one and no thing may be permitted to donate to any elected official more then $100.00 USD. That includes the candidate themselves. I don't care of they have a billion dollars. They can only give themselves $100 of it in any election cycle.

That means that Unions, any of them, can only donate $100.00. That is per union..

That means that the DNC and the RNC can only donate $100.00 per committee.

That means that any candidate cannot take more then $100.00 from anyone, thing, organization, animal, alien, country, county, city, bird, dog, cat, fish, eel....This means anything living, dead or mechanical.

And then may the best man win.

 

[beowolfe]

Because the First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech." What part of that do you not understand?

That's not what the decision says. It says the right of political speech is extended because of either citizenship or association. Your statement would invalidate any restrictions on speech, no matter how necessary to preserve the rights of others. Is that really what you want?

Yes, it is. Absent "clear and present danger to the public" there needs to be no restriction on free speech.
Please tell me which kinds of speech you'd like to see restricted.

So, I take it that you disagree with Britain for stifling the radical muslim clerics calling for jihad against the west, right?

 

[goldcatt]

The United States Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" was entirely political and a supreme injustice. The Conservative Block's (Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas) ruling exposed their bias towards the power elite, wall street bankers and cartels as well as their disregard for the American citizen. These 'justices' may well have written this opinion on a barn with these words: All men are equal, some men are more equal than others.
How can they decide that "Bong hits for Jesus" is not free speech, yet allow monied interests' to 'buy' elections and members of legislative bodies? (btw, kudows to Alito for his support for free speech in the 'bong' matter).

I know that you don't want to give companies the right to protect their interests like Unions do. I know you don't want to give companies to look after their interests like the PAC's do. I know that you don't want to give companies the right to redress grievances like the environmentalists do.

But I have to take issue with your ignorance here. It is not the job of companies to look after the interests of the people. To say that they disregard the American people is outright funny. They have no need to regard anything but their own interests.

It is the job of States to look after the regard of the people.

I have a solution. It is un Constitutional. At least it is now.

I propose we Amend the Constitution to say simply this.

No one and no thing may be permitted to donate to any elected official more then $100.00 USD. That includes the candidate themselves. I don't care of they have a billion dollars. They can only give themselves $100 of it in any election cycle.

That means that Unions, any of them, can only donate $100.00. That is per union..

That means that the DNC and the RNC can only donate $100.00 per committee.

That means that any candidate cannot take more then $100.00 from anyone, thing, organization, animal, alien, country, county, city, bird, dog, cat, fish, eel....This means anything living, dead or mechanical.

And then may the best man win.

That is a really, really good idea.

But what to do about soft money? (I'd like to eliminate it altogether, but that really would be unconstitutional)

 

[Darkwind]

The United States Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" was entirely political and a supreme injustice. The Conservative Block's (Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas) ruling exposed their bias towards the power elite, wall street bankers and cartels as well as their disregard for the American citizen. These 'justices' may well have written this opinion on a barn with these words: All men are equal, some men are more equal than others.
How can they decide that "Bong hits for Jesus" is not free speech, yet allow monied interests' to 'buy' elections and members of legislative bodies? (btw, kudows to Alito for his support for free speech in the 'bong' matter).

I know that you don't want to give companies the right to protect their interests like Unions do. I know you don't want to give companies to look after their interests like the PAC's do. I know that you don't want to give companies the right to redress grievances like the environmentalists do.

But I have to take issue with your ignorance here. It is not the job of companies to look after the interests of the people. To say that they disregard the American people is outright funny. They have no need to regard anything but their own interests.

It is the job of States to look after the regard of the people.

I have a solution. It is un Constitutional. At least it is now.

I propose we Amend the Constitution to say simply this.

No one and no thing may be permitted to donate to any elected official more then $100.00 USD. That includes the candidate themselves. I don't care of they have a billion dollars. They can only give themselves $100 of it in any election cycle.

That means that Unions, any of them, can only donate $100.00. That is per union..

That means that the DNC and the RNC can only donate $100.00 per committee.

That means that any candidate cannot take more then $100.00 from anyone, thing, organization, animal, alien, country, county, city, bird, dog, cat, fish, eel....This means anything living, dead or mechanical.

And then may the best man win.

That is a really, really good idea.

But what to do about soft money? (I'd like to eliminate it altogether, but that really would be unconstitutional)

There is no soft money in this amendment.

Nothing can give anything more then $100.00 per election cycle.

That would be the election cycle of the politician in question. If they have a six year term, they get 100 per six years.

If they have a four year term, 100 per four years.

Oh, I need to add this.

No politician can move money donated to him to any other politician, period.

 

[beowolfe]

The United States Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" was entirely political and a supreme injustice. The Conservative Block's (Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas) ruling exposed their bias towards the power elite, wall street bankers and cartels as well as their disregard for the American citizen. These 'justices' may well have written this opinion on a barn with these words: All men are equal, some men are more equal than others.
How can they decide that "Bong hits for Jesus" is not free speech, yet allow monied interests' to 'buy' elections and members of legislative bodies? (btw, kudows to Alito for his support for free speech in the 'bong' matter).

I know that you don't want to give companies the right to protect their interests like Unions do. I know you don't want to give companies to look after their interests like the PAC's do. I know that you don't want to give companies the right to redress grievances like the environmentalists do.

But I have to take issue with your ignorance here. It is not the job of companies to look after the interests of the people. To say that they disregard the American people is outright funny. They have no need to regard anything but their own interests.

It is the job of States to look after the regard of the people.

I have a solution. It is un Constitutional. At least it is now.

I propose we Amend the Constitution to say simply this.

No one and no thing may be permitted to donate to any elected official more then $100.00 USD. That includes the candidate themselves. I don't care of they have a billion dollars. They can only give themselves $100 of it in any election cycle.

That means that Unions, any of them, can only donate $100.00. That is per union..

That means that the DNC and the RNC can only donate $100.00 per committee.

That means that any candidate cannot take more then $100.00 from anyone, thing, organization, animal, alien, country, county, city, bird, dog, cat, fish, eel....This means anything living, dead or mechanical.

And then may the best man win.

Companies and unions alike, should have zero role in politics.

 

[Darkwind]

The United States Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" was entirely political and a supreme injustice. The Conservative Block's (Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas) ruling exposed their bias towards the power elite, wall street bankers and cartels as well as their disregard for the American citizen. These 'justices' may well have written this opinion on a barn with these words: All men are equal, some men are more equal than others.
How can they decide that "Bong hits for Jesus" is not free speech, yet allow monied interests' to 'buy' elections and members of legislative bodies? (btw, kudows to Alito for his support for free speech in the 'bong' matter).

I know that you don't want to give companies the right to protect their interests like Unions do. I know you don't want to give companies to look after their interests like the PAC's do. I know that you don't want to give companies the right to redress grievances like the environmentalists do.

But I have to take issue with your ignorance here. It is not the job of companies to look after the interests of the people. To say that they disregard the American people is outright funny. They have no need to regard anything but their own interests.

It is the job of States to look after the regard of the people.

I have a solution. It is un Constitutional. At least it is now.

I propose we Amend the Constitution to say simply this.

No one and no thing may be permitted to donate to any elected official more then $100.00 USD. That includes the candidate themselves. I don't care of they have a billion dollars. They can only give themselves $100 of it in any election cycle.

That means that Unions, any of them, can only donate $100.00. That is per union..

That means that the DNC and the RNC can only donate $100.00 per committee.

That means that any candidate cannot take more then $100.00 from anyone, thing, organization, animal, alien, country, county, city, bird, dog, cat, fish, eel....This means anything living, dead or mechanical.

And then may the best man win.

Companies and unions alike, should have zero role in politics.

I don't agree. They have interests that they have a right to address to government. Just like anything else.

But as I said......Make an Amendment to the Constitution.

Right now, to exclude companies is un Constitutional.

 

[beowolfe]

I know that you don't want to give companies the right to protect their interests like Unions do. I know you don't want to give companies to look after their interests like the PAC's do. I know that you don't want to give companies the right to redress grievances like the environmentalists do.

But I have to take issue with your ignorance here. It is not the job of companies to look after the interests of the people. To say that they disregard the American people is outright funny. They have no need to regard anything but their own interests.

It is the job of States to look after the regard of the people.

I have a solution. It is un Constitutional. At least it is now.

I propose we Amend the Constitution to say simply this.

No one and no thing may be permitted to donate to any elected official more then $100.00 USD. That includes the candidate themselves. I don't care of they have a billion dollars. They can only give themselves $100 of it in any election cycle.

That means that Unions, any of them, can only donate $100.00. That is per union..

That means that the DNC and the RNC can only donate $100.00 per committee.

That means that any candidate cannot take more then $100.00 from anyone, thing, organization, animal, alien, country, county, city, bird, dog, cat, fish, eel....This means anything living, dead or mechanical.

And then may the best man win.

Companies and unions alike, should have zero role in politics.

I don't agree. They have interests that they have a right to address to government. Just like anything else.

But as I said......Make an Amendment to the Constitution.

Right now, to exclude companies is un Constitutional.

The owner of the company can address the government for himself. The sharholder likewise. The union president can also address the government for him or herself. Likewise the union member. But neither should be allowed to use the largess they find themselves associated with to address the government. Companies nor unions are persons and as non-persons they have no inalienable rights. They only have the rights that we, the people, decide they should have.

As for a constitutional amendment, I don't need one. Non-persons were left out of the constitution intentionally. It's the companies, the unions, the congress, and the USSC that need the constitutional amendment to include these entities in the constitutional definition of persons. The law giving companies and unions the same rights as persons is unconstitional. However, like a lot of other things, if the entities created to safeguard the constition are in cahoots with non-persons in order to give them the same rights as persons, the constitution becomes invalid.

 

[Darkwind]

Companies and unions alike, should have zero role in politics.

I don't agree. They have interests that they have a right to address to government. Just like anything else.

But as I said......Make an Amendment to the Constitution.

Right now, to exclude companies is un Constitutional.

The owner of the company can address the government for himself. The sharholder likewise. The union president can also address the government for him or herself. Likewise the union member. But neither should be allowed to use the largess they find themselves associated with to address the government. Companies nor unions are persons and as non-persons they have no inalienable rights. They only have the rights that we, the people, decide they should have.

As for a constitutional amendment, I don't need one. Non-persons were left out of the constitution intentionally. It's the companies, the unions, the congress, and the USSC that need the constitutional amendment to include these entities in the constitutional definition of persons. The law giving companies and unions the same rights as persons is unconstitional. However, like a lot of other things, if the entities created to safeguard the constition are in cahoots with non-persons in order to give them the same rights as persons, the constitution becomes invalid.

Like I said. I disagree.

Write an Amendment.