Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...
YouTube - The Who - Won't Get Fooled Again - Live 8
Nope, just wouldn't have believed him.
I'm trying to believe him in what he is saying and am hoping he comes through.
I dont hate Obama like many appear to, I actually think he is an ok guy. He is a very smart man, was a great professor from what I read about him, he wrote 2 interesting books that I read....its just he is making a really bad president so far in my opinion.
I'm a smart guy but I'm a horrible artist....it doesn't make me a bad or dumb person. Obama is a smart guy but so far is a horrible president...it doesn't make him a bad or dumb person either.
I really hope he finally does get congress to be transparent and if they dont I hope he calls them out on it this time. I also would be very happy if he got us building new nuke plants so we can stop giving our wealth to foreign nations rich with oil. I hope he does follow some of the ideas on taxes he mentioned that you usually only hear from the republican side.
If he does any of those things, rather leads the Democrats to doing any of those things, I'll know I was wrong to follow my mom's ditty:
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
The SCOTUS is charged with deciding if laws are constitutional. Through right of redress, lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of laws are brought. These suits work their way through lower courts, and might wind up at the SCOTUS, whose decision is final.And I quote:This includes any subsidiary of a foreign company or individual, and/or any domestic company that gets acquired by any foreign company or individual.President Wrong on Citizens United Case [Bradley A. Smith]
Tonight the president engaged in demagoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."
The president's statement is false.
The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional.
Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibited from making "a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they are prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication."
This is either blithering ignorance of the law or demagoguery of the worst kind.
— Bradley A. Smith is Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School
2 U.S.C. 441e was NOT touched by this ruling and is STILL the law of the land.
This is a RED HERRING and the President was either misinformed or was just plain lying. He's a constitutional scholar, so we almost have to assume the latter.
Yes, the restrictions remain in place, so why was it necessary to tinker with it by opening THIS can of worms? In my opinion, their decision creates many opportunities to do end-arounds the existing law.
The SCOTUS is charged with deciding if laws are constitutional. Through right of redress, lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of laws are brought. These suits work their way through lower courts, and might wind up at the SCOTUS, whose decision is final.And I quote:This includes any subsidiary of a foreign company or individual, and/or any domestic company that gets acquired by any foreign company or individual.
2 U.S.C. 441e was NOT touched by this ruling and is STILL the law of the land.
This is a RED HERRING and the President was either misinformed or was just plain lying. He's a constitutional scholar, so we almost have to assume the latter.
Yes, the restrictions remain in place, so why was it necessary to tinker with it by opening THIS can of worms? In my opinion, their decision creates many opportunities to do end-arounds the existing law.
In this case, the SCOTUS agreed with the plaintiff and ruled against the Government. The "tinkering" was them doing their job.
Perceived "end-arounds" and loopholes in this law have always been there. Whether this ruling created a new one at this point is speculation and conjecture, not a fact.
And that's the whole issue with what the President said. He stated it as fact and grossly exaggerated and mis-represented. He was factually wrong.
He didn't define any mechanism either new or existing that might lead to foreign companies flooding elections with their dollars, he didn't jump through all the hoops and scenarios his sycophants are now putting out there in desperate defense of what he said, he merely said that now it will happen. Authoritatively said it.
Not only does the SCOTUS disagree, so do most constitutional scholars and law professors, and even Dr. Marc Lamont Hill disagrees.
He was just wrong on the facts. Intentional or not, cannot be known.
was pushing for offshore drilling.
