Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

The one world government so many on the right are afraid of.

1 - suspect many on all sides would be afraid of this
2 - seems the UN is dominated by middle east countries and the "Big5" (is it still 5? or 6?)

do you want that?

many are very disaffected with our national government - would moving to an even bigger government really make it all better? even fractionally?

That SHOULD scare all of those who fear that the UN will be the platform that the Anti-Christ will be using to rise to power... Maybe he will fix the huge mess the world is in... for a while



just sayin.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

The one world government so many on the right are afraid of.

1 - suspect many on all sides would be afraid of this
2 - seems the UN is dominated by middle east countries and the "Big5" (is it still 5? or 6?)

do you want that?

many are very disaffected with our national government - would moving to an even bigger government really make it all better? even fractionally?

Possibly. But we'd need to erase all borders first. The problem would be the establishment of a real, democratic governing body, not the kind that advocates Rollerball.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Polly wanna cracker?????

It seems that you are unable to reconcile how your deeply held beliefs do not seem to jive with reality. You seem to more interested in throwing insults at people you disagree with, than actually listening to what they say.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

...one world government...

...do you want that?...

Possibly. But we'd need to erase all borders first. The problem would be the establishment of a real, democratic governing body, not the kind that advocates Rollerball.

"Rollerball"

Who says that the 'one world gov' will be democratic?

I like borders, it's let's me brag abouts how well traveled and sophistimicated I be.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[funjumper101 15]

There is a very simple definition of "person" that should apply in this matter.

Can the "person" be arrested, tried, and physically put in jail, if they commit a felony?

If the answer is YES, they have a physical body that can be imprisoned if crimes are committed, they are a "person", with the rights thereof. If not, they aren't, and don't have the same rights.

This is the most outrageous example of "legislation from the bench" and "judicial activism" that has occured in a very long time. So much for the assurances during the confirmation hearings regarding the respect for precedent, etc, etc.

Where are howls of protest from the right? For the righties, is judicial activism and legislation from the bench a bad thing only on those issues that you disagree with? A certain lack of consistency seems to be the case here, eh?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

"Rollerball"

I needed a new profile pic anyway

[Southern_Man 0]

This decision is leans far more towards keeping with judicial precendent than it does judicial activism. Money as speech and a wary eye towards limitations on political speech are well established (although not 100% absolutes).

It does clash w/ another proclaimed conservative value, deference of the courts to the leigslature.

Sometimes those core values come into conflict, can't have everything.

I'm personally in favor of this decision but I tend to be pretty close to an absolutist on free speech issues. Seems that airing issue advocacy ads is also part of free association (in coming together as advocacy organizations like the Sierra Club and NRA) and petitioning the government for a redress of grievances (although this is indirect).

If you do not like the decision, well the answer to wrong headed speech is more speech. Let the ideas clash in the marketplace.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[quade 4]

Quote

Let the ideas clash in the marketplace.

That presupposes you have the financial wherewithal to enable you to compete. Removing corporate restrictions moves this far, FAR in their favor.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Let the ideas clash in the marketplace.

That presupposes you have the financial wherewithal to enable you to compete. Removing corporate restrictions moves this far, FAR in their favor.

So solve that problem, rather an a lousy solution of speech for none.

We used to have equal access laws wrt media.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Have you read the opinion? I'll do you a favor and here it is:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25537902/Citizens-Opinion

Yes. 183 pages of opinion, concurrence and dissent.

Here's the issue: the first amendment states that Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech. Here, if a corporation wants to air a political ad (something called "speech") then that corporation must seek permission from the FEC. If it doesnt, criminal sanctions are available. Thus, an FEC loaded with George W. Bush appointees may be unwilling to allow a union to air its ads supporting another candidate. I take it that you would support such a system, right Jeanne?

I tend to think that speech is a rather essential thing. banning corporate speech is banning speech. Period.

It's suppression of speech. That is all. It is censorship of television, radio, internet, and even fliers that a corporation or union could use to display its views.

And for some reason people have a no issue with that? Are you about freedom of speech, so long as certain people don't have it?

Every single one of those union members, shareholders, and employees has the same freedom of speech. The question is whether the unions and corporations should have separate rights of speech above and beyond those granted to their members. In my opinion, that answer is no. Everyone should speak with an equal loudspeaker, no more, no less. And if donating money is defined as "speech", any limits applied to such donations should be equal across the board, not "Well, I can give $2,400 to my guy individually, and then another $500k thru my union/corporation".

Note I'm saying how I think it should be, not how it is.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Let the ideas clash in the marketplace.

That presupposes you have the financial wherewithal to enable you to compete. Removing corporate restrictions moves this far, FAR in their favor.

So solve that problem, rather an a lousy solution of speech for none.
We used to have equal access laws wrt media.

Revocation of the Fairness Doctrine under Reagan was the first in a long series of steps taken by the Republican party and corporations to control the media and thereby shape pubic opinion.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

much like we are not obligated to give miranda rights...to non-citizens

Are you saying that due process of law does not apply to non-citizens?

I'm saying the Bill of Rights applies to rights that citizens have that cannot be overcome by the government. non-citizens are not part of that contract

ask a lawyer your question, it's not something I'm up to speed on. I would say 'no' it's not a right to be protected under the B.O.R., but it's likely a good idea for other reasons.

Amendment XIV to the Constitution

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.

Since when did non-citizens become non-persons?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

thereby shape pubic opinion

They have a small disposable razor for that, you know.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

much like we are not obligated to give miranda rights...to non-citizens

Are you saying that due process of law does not apply to non-citizens?

I'm saying the Bill of Rights applies to rights that citizens have that cannot be overcome by the government. non-citizens are not part of that contract

ask a lawyer your question, it's not something I'm up to speed on. I would say 'no' it's not a right to be protected under the B.O.R., but it's likely a good idea for other reasons.

Amendment XIV to the Constitution

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.

Since when did non-citizens become non-persons?

Cant comprehend?

You must have taken the Evilyn Woodhead sped redin course

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

Let the ideas clash in the marketplace.

That presupposes you have the financial wherewithal to enable you to compete. Removing corporate restrictions moves this far, FAR in their favor.

One way to counter the influence of large groups is to counter-organize into your own large groups. That's what the NRA, Sierra Club, just about all focused lobbying organizations are. Banning speech by all of them and only allowing protection to individuals is only going to allow very rich invidiuals to have a voice. I don't think that is healthy either. Either that or there will be very selective enforcement on what is considered political speech that violates the protocols. If your ideas are powerful enough and enough people believe in them you can gain the financial wherewithal to compete. If you can't compete, maybe you need better ideas. People vote with their dollars.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[quade 4]

Quote

People vote with their dollars.

Corporations vote with their dollars.

People only get to vote with their ballots.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Once again, it is you who are having trouble with comprehension. Let's spell it out in small bits for you.

The first sentence defines citizens: "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. "

The first part of the second sentence defines some rights of citizens: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."

The next two phrases of the second sentence refer to persons:
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;..."
and "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Had the writers intended for the latter two phrases to apply only to citizens, they would obviously have used the word "citizen", as they explicitly did in the first part of sentence two. Since they instead used the word "person" (which is not synonymous with "citizen", as was defined in the first sentence), they obviously intended that the protections described should apply to all persons within the jurisdiction of the States, not just to citizens.

Got it now?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Polly wanna cracker?????

It seems that you are unable to reconcile how your deeply held beliefs do not seem to jive with reality. You seem to more interested in throwing insults at people you disagree with, than actually listening to what they say.

Aww isn't that cute.. I stepped on poor little Ronnies nerve again....


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

much like we are not obligated to give miranda rights...to non-citizens

Are you saying that due process of law does not apply to non-citizens?

I'm saying the Bill of Rights applies to rights that citizens have that cannot be overcome by the government. non-citizens are not part of that contract

ask a lawyer your question, it's not something I'm up to speed on. I would say 'no' it's not a right to be protected under the B.O.R., but it's likely a good idea for other reasons.

Amendment XIV to the Constitution

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.

Since when did non-citizens become non-persons?

Cant comprehend?

You must have taken the Evilyn Woodhead sped redin course

Uh... Mark....you do realize that pegged the ole irony meter yet again.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Once again, it is you who are having trouble with comprehension. Let's spell it out in small bits for you.

The first sentence defines citizens: "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. "

The first part of the second sentence defines some rights of citizens: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."

The next two phrases of the second sentence refer to persons:
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;..."
and "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Had the writers intended for the latter two phrases to apply only to citizens, they would obviously have used the word "citizen", as they explicitly did in the first part of sentence two. Since they instead used the word "person" (which is not synonymous with "citizen", as was defined in the first sentence), they obviously intended that the protections described should apply to all persons within the jurisdiction of the States, not just to citizens.

Got it now?

Don

I had it to begin with. You however do not

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Those who think as you do want to parse and piece the text to support your positions. Many do think as you do. However, the Bill of Rights has a context that is very consistent throughout which can not be denied. The following says it better than I can.

Quote

Who is covered by the Bill of Rights
Self | October 18, 2001 | Self

Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2001 12:05:22 PM by RebelDawg

I have seen several posts lately where people have made statements that illegal immigrants as well as those persons from abroad visiting here on student, work and travel visas are NOT protected by the Bill of Rights. I have also seen posts by people vehemently opposing that view. I thought about it a while and decided to side with the first group: that is that those individuals who ar enot citizens of this country are not granted the rights listed in the Bill of Rights of the United States of America. My reasoning is quite simple. If you take the stance that the Bill of Rights covers ALL people then what about the gvernments of other countries? does our Bill of Rights supercede those governments? Should we overthrow other governments who violate their citizens first and second ammendment rights? What about China? Good you say??? Well what about England, Canada and Australia? they have clearly violated their citizens second ammendment right! Or is it that they do NOT have those rights and that the Bill of Rights ONLY covers citizens of the United States of America?

Here is a quick quote that I pulled from a sight about the Bill of Rights of the United States of America:

During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.

Bill of Rights

I see several mentions of “Citizen” or “people of the United States” contained withinin the United states Constituion but absolutely no references to “non-citizens”.

Examples:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

From Article IV

Section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Ammendment I

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

Ammendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Ammendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Ammendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Ammendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Are some of you telling me that the term “the people” as written in the Bill of Rights refers to a global notion of people? I think that is completely absurd, it has the same meaning as in the opening paragraph of the United States Constitution and that is We the People of the United States.

My final thoughts.
I see absolutely nothing in these documents staing that anyone other than citizens of the United States of America are covered and protected by them. I also find it to be absurd to think that our forefathers set out to write documents that would cover and if you believe that then also govern the entire world. If this were the case they would have been stating that no government in the world was no longer valid except for the new American government. I think it is quite clear that this was not their intention but I see that others disagree...

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Your meter is always pegged as it is broken to the left

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

On the other hand the SC is about as decided about this issue as you and I

There is a one click down load link at the top of the page that goes over some of the SC ruling regarding the BOR and non citizens

Interesting


http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1397684##

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Ron 10]

Quote

Aww isn't that cute.. I stepped on poor little Ronnies nerve again....

Nope, just showing you would rather insult and bitch than listen, or discuss..... Standard OP for you, I don't know why I am ever surprised.

It also goes to show your powers of observation suck. You are more concerned with throwing your insults than actually knowing what is going on, or participating in any real discussions.... This last post of yours just supports that AGAIN.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Aww isn't that cute.. I stepped on poor little Ronnies nerve again....

Nope, just showing you would rather insult and bitch than listen, or discuss..... Standard OP for you, I don't know why I am ever surprised.

It also goes to show your powers of observation suck. You are more concerned with throwing your insults than actually knowing what is going on, or participating in any real discussions.... This last post of yours just supports that AGAIN.

Oh WAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH

QUACK


QUACK

QUACK