John Paul Stevens, a retired Supreme Court Justice, thinks the Constitution is flawed, and that the current court is the reason. link to story
Quote
WASHINGTON � In his new book, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens calls for no fewer than six changes to the Constitution, two of which are directly related to guns. Others would abolish the death penalty, make it easier to limit spending on elections and rein in partisan drawing of electoral districts.
His proposed amendments generally would overrule major Supreme Court decisions with which he disagrees, including ones on guns and campaign finance in which he dissented. It's his second book since retiring from the court at age 90.
The book, "Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution," is being published Tuesday by Little, Brown and Co., two days after Stevens' 94th birthday.
Stevens said in an interview with The Associated Press that the Newtown, Conn., shootings in December 2012 made him think about doing "whatever we could to prevent such a thing from happening again." Twenty first-graders and six educators were killed.
He said he was bothered by news reports about gaps in the federal government database for checking the background of prospective gun buyers. Those gaps exist because the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that states could not be forced to participate in the background check system. Stevens dissented from the court's 5-4 ruling in Printz v. United States.
One amendment would allow Congress to force state participation in gun checks, while a second would change the Second Amendment to permit gun control. Stevens was on the losing end of another 5-4 decision in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court declared for the first time that Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense.
He acknowledged that his proposed change would allow Congress to do something unthinkable in today's environment: ban gun ownership altogether.
"I'd think the chance of changing the Second Amendment is pretty remote," Stevens said. "The purpose is to cause further reflection over a period of time because it seems to me with ample time and ample reflection, people in the United States would come to the same conclusion that people in other countries have."
Justices often say that their dissenting opinions are written with the hope that today's dissent might attract a majority on some future court.
But Stevens has gone a step beyond by proposing the constitutional changes. Asked whether the book could in part be seen as "sour grapes," he readily agreed.
"To a certain extent, it's no doubt true, because I do think the court made some serious mistakes, as I did point out in my dissents," he said. "But I've been criticized for making speeches since I retired. Writing the book is not much different from continuing to speak about things I find interesting."
A recent example is the court's decision, again by a 5-4 vote, to strike down limits in federal law on the total contributions wealthy individuals can make to candidates for Congress and president, political parties and political action committees. Stevens said the decision follows from the 2010 ruling in Citizens United that lifted limits on political spending by corporations and labor unions. Again, he was in the dissent in another 5-4 ruling.
Those cases, he said, talk about the importance of public participation in the electoral process. But this month's decision on the overall limits is "not about electing your representative," Stevens said. "It's about financing the election of representatives of other people. It's about the influence of out-of-state voters on the election in your district. It sort of exposes a basic flaw in the recent cases."
Stevens marked his 94th birthday Sunday, still in excellent health, but lately feeling his age. Speaking to AP a few days before his birthday, he said, "It's going to come and pass. I'm not sure it's something to celebrate."
both him and harry reid are past their prime and usefulness to socity , let them be grandfathers and leave it at that, who else really wants them
There is not enough darkness in all the world to put out the light of even one small candle----Robert Alden . If it wern't entertaining, I wouldn't keep coming back.------the BigSky
"I'd think the chance of changing the Second Amendment is pretty remote," Stevens said.
Yup, yet he never learned to live with that, did he ?
Goofy old liberal POS.
GTC
Member, Clan of the Border Rats -- “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”- Mark Twain
If the objective is to stop gun crime, who can tell me how many crimes the current gun laws have stopped? We have said it before, and it is still true - only law abiding people follow laws. Seems awful stupid to have to say that, but it's true. All these hoops we have to jump thru, and crime GOES UP!!!! Gimme a break....
John Paul Stevens, a retired Supreme Court Justice, thinks the Constitution is flawed, and that the current court is the reason. link to story
Quote
WASHINGTON � In his new book, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens calls for no fewer than six changes to the Constitution, two of which are directly related to guns. Others would abolish the death penalty, make it easier to limit spending on elections and rein in partisan drawing of electoral districts.
His proposed amendments generally would overrule major Supreme Court decisions with which he disagrees, including ones on guns and campaign finance in which he dissented. It's his second book since retiring from the court at age 90.
The book, "Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution," is being published Tuesday by Little, Brown and Co., two days after Stevens' 94th birthday.
Stevens said in an interview with The Associated Press that the Newtown, Conn., shootings in December 2012 made him think about doing "whatever we could to prevent such a thing from happening again." Twenty first-graders and six educators were killed.
He said he was bothered by news reports about gaps in the federal government database for checking the background of prospective gun buyers. Those gaps exist because the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that states could not be forced to participate in the background check system. Stevens dissented from the court's 5-4 ruling in Printz v. United States.
One amendment would allow Congress to force state participation in gun checks, while a second would change the Second Amendment to permit gun control. Stevens was on the losing end of another 5-4 decision in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court declared for the first time that Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense.
He acknowledged that his proposed change would allow Congress to do something unthinkable in today's environment: ban gun ownership altogether.
"I'd think the chance of changing the Second Amendment is pretty remote," Stevens said. "The purpose is to cause further reflection over a period of time because it seems to me with ample time and ample reflection, people in the United States would come to the same conclusion that people in other countries have."
Justices often say that their dissenting opinions are written with the hope that today's dissent might attract a majority on some future court.
But Stevens has gone a step beyond by proposing the constitutional changes. Asked whether the book could in part be seen as "sour grapes," he readily agreed.
"To a certain extent, it's no doubt true, because I do think the court made some serious mistakes, as I did point out in my dissents," he said. "But I've been criticized for making speeches since I retired. Writing the book is not much different from continuing to speak about things I find interesting."
A recent example is the court's decision, again by a 5-4 vote, to strike down limits in federal law on the total contributions wealthy individuals can make to candidates for Congress and president, political parties and political action committees. Stevens said the decision follows from the 2010 ruling in Citizens United that lifted limits on political spending by corporations and labor unions. Again, he was in the dissent in another 5-4 ruling.
Those cases, he said, talk about the importance of public participation in the electoral process. But this month's decision on the overall limits is "not about electing your representative," Stevens said. "It's about financing the election of representatives of other people. It's about the influence of out-of-state voters on the election in your district. It sort of exposes a basic flaw in the recent cases."
Stevens marked his 94th birthday Sunday, still in excellent health, but lately feeling his age. Speaking to AP a few days before his birthday, he said, "It's going to come and pass. I'm not sure it's something to celebrate."
Changing the 2nd Amendment; hell no!!! Unless you're making it more crystal clear on the "shall not infringe" part.
Changing the Constitution to fix the HUGE mistake they made with Citizens United and McCutcheon; yeah, I'd support that in concept, but I'd want to see the details.
What Stevens is admitting, then, is that his opinions on the cases he critiques were not based upon the Constitution as it is but upon what he would want it to be.
That admission shows a willful violation of his sworn duty to uphold and defend the Constitution and to judge cases upon their merits under the Constitution.
We can thank Nixon and Ford for that azzhole.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
Fine and bright analytic light to shine on the ungrateful, dreamy old bastid.
Hoping you'll expand on the core eval. and PUBLISH (or at least post) an essay on his veracity.
GTC
Member, Clan of the Border Rats -- “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”- Mark Twain
What Stevens is admitting, then, is that his opinions on the cases he critiques were not based upon the Constitution as it is but upon what he would want it to be.
That admission shows a willful violation of his sworn duty to uphold and defend the Constitution and to judge cases upon their merits under the Constitution.
We can thank Nixon and Ford for that azzhole.
While Stevens is far from my favorite (okay, I got no use for the guy). These days, strict constitutionalism is a very difficult thing to adhere to in SCOTUS because very few cases that go to SCOTUS are strictly constitutional. SCOTUS has been forced to review and weigh in on cases where lawmakers refuse to do their freaking jobs. Think about the Citizens United case; yeah it's free speech, but it's free speech of a corporation! Our constitution and Bill of Rights was never intended to be for corporations. But congress refused to clearly define limits on corporations, and cases end up being in SCOTUS because NO ONE will do the right thing. This situation seriously sucks. Why do we keep voting these worthless aholes in?
This is an interview with Justice Stevens that aired last night on public broadcast.
His view concerning the second amendment begins slightly after the seven minute mark.He still insists the term "militia" refers to a government entity controlled by the state and not every able body man,as I believe our Founders intended.
Communist Goals
26. Present homosexuality and degeneracy as normal. 27. Discredit the Bible. 28. Eliminate prayer in the schools.
Stevens was the one that would often refer to international law, not Constitutional law. Not much worse than him. I think it possible that he was replaced by someone slightly to the right because he was so far to the left.
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
...He still insists the term "militia" refers to a government entity controlled by the state and not every able body man,as I believe our Founders intended.
What's funny...That definition doesn't even apply today. A militia by definition is a citizen fighting force. It is not the reserves as we see them today no matter what anyone says. When our "reserve" units engage in combat, has anyone EVER seen a reference to them being referred to as "militia?" I'll tell you this, anyone opposing them sure the hell don't feel like they're facing militia.
Think about the Citizens United case; yeah it's free speech, but it's free speech of a corporation! Our constitution and Bill of Rights was never intended to be for corporations.
A corporation is nothing other than a group of human beings. It�s illogical and immoral to suggest that they have free speech individually but not corporately. What you are suggesting is that people may not agree on something and issue a joint statement. That�s absurd and it�s a control on speech.
Think about the Citizens United case; yeah it's free speech, but it's free speech of a corporation! Our constitution and Bill of Rights was never intended to be for corporations.
A corporation is nothing other than a group of human beings. It�s illogical and immoral to suggest that they have free speech individually but not corporately. What you are suggesting is that people may not agree on something and issue a joint statement. That�s absurd and it�s a control on speech.
Well, we just disagree; sorry. When corporations have no restraint in the exercise of free speech in relation to the political process, then they OWN the political process. I want corporations to have a good part in the process, but I don't want them, or ANYONE ELSE owning it.
I want corporations to have a good part in the process, but I don't want them, or ANYONE ELSE owning it.
That's a self-refuting statement. You're "ok" with "free speech" as long as you control it.
No, that's NOT what I said at all. I want everyone to have equal access to the legislative process. Pitting individuals against a corporation in a spending war, exactly whom do you think is going to win EVERY damn time?
BTW; thanks for backing off of the name calling...isn't appropriate.
Yep, you're right; sorry. Go ahead and delete it from where you quoted me and it will disappear.
No prob, we all get emotional about things that are near and dear to our hearts; such as politics. I like gentlemanly debate and it's nice to see you do too.
The slide to corporations having the same protected Constitutional rights as individuals began long before Citizens United and long before the off-hand, sidebar comment in Santa Fe Rail Road became the SCOTUS precedent for corporations as individuals.
Do a bit of history on the law of persona ficta as it pertains to admiralty law and then to commerce, and the lines are very clear as to how and why we got to where we are with corporations.
GG, you may not like it, but the legal history for it is very long and very plain. It's good law, and it's Constitutional. When you further figure that corporations and corporate law govern all non-profits, unions, associations, etc., that are represented as fictional persons and their own entities in contracts, disputes, cases, property ownership, etc., the line can't be drawn to divide one from another in regards to speech and pass Constitutional muster. At least, no more so than any line could be drawn between men of different skin tones or religious beliefs, and that clearly is unconstitutional.
As for Stevens veracity and any treatise on that, it'd be quite short: he has none, therefore there is none.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
No, that's NOT what I said at all. I want everyone to have equal access to the legislative process. Pitting individuals against a corporation in a spending war, exactly whom do you think is going to win EVERY damn time?
That's not your call to make. There�s no way to get around it; you�re proposing controlled access to speech. Why shouldn�t the 10,000 people that make up a given corporation be able to yell with their combined 10,000 voices? That�s exactly what the NRA does for us. And just because the NRA�s interest is in firearms access and a corporation�s interest is in protecting its investment doesn�t change that, nor would it matter if it did.
No, that's NOT what I said at all. I want everyone to have equal access to the legislative process. Pitting individuals against a corporation in a spending war, exactly whom do you think is going to win EVERY damn time?
That's not your call to make. There�s no way to get around it; you�re proposing controlled access to speech. Why shouldn�t the 10,000 people that make up a given corporation be able to yell with their combined 10,000 voices? That�s exactly what the NRA does for us. And just because the NRA�s interest is in firearms access and a corporation�s interest is in protecting its investment doesn�t change that, nor would it matter if it did.
Exactly. Ditto the ACLU, Gun Owners of America, the Sierra Club, AFL-CIO, etc.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
All of that is nice in a world of absolutes. But we've created a system that is extremely lopsided. Think about it...when was the last time a major law was passed on the national level without corporate support?
"A government of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation"...yeah, that sounds better than people.
Again, I'm the farthest thing from anti-corporation; I own a corporation. But corporations own the process; that's broken.
Show me where to draw the line in the Constitution and through the legal precedent of centuries.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
All of that is nice in a world of absolutes. But we've created a system that is extremely lopsided. Think about it...when was the last time a major law was passed on the national level without corporate support?
"A government of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation"...yeah, that sounds better than people.
Again, I'm the farthest thing from anti-corporation; I own a corporation. But corporations own the process; that's broken.
You're speaking out boths sides of your mouth; a corporation is nothing but people. Do you similarly propose to limit the NRA's access to speech?
Show me where to draw the line in the Constitution and through the legal precedent of centuries.
Well it's really not defined in the constitution, the corporation part. That's why we need to make a constitutional amendment TO define it. Going back to the turn of the 20th century, we had defined such limitations through law, but like I said; that has all been eroded through constitutional issues.
Will it make things much more complex? Yes it will, but regardless of the absolutes, the system is broken.
I don't know, maybe you like the fact that THE PEOPLE don't have a seat at the table for the political process.
Show me where to draw the line in the Constitution and through the legal precedent of centuries.
Well it's really not defined in the constitution, the corporation part. That's why we need to make a constitutional amendment TO define it. Going back to the turn of the 20th century, we had defined such limitations through law, but like I said; that has all been eroded through constitutional issues.
Will it make things much more complex? Yes it will, but regardless of the absolutes, the system is broken.
I don't know, maybe you like the fact that THE PEOPLE don't have a seat at the table for the political process.
We did not have that in the early 20th. Santa Clara Rail Road was the late 19th Century. The vast majority of the law around persona ficta predates that by centuries, and quite a bit took place in the US during the 18th, 19th, and 20th Centuries.
The PEOPLE have the same seats at the table they always have had, or the same lack thereof.
Just out of curiosity: which corporations get eliminated and how?
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
We did not have that in the early 20th. Santa Clara Rail Road was the late 19th Century. The vast majority of the law around persona ficta predates that by centuries, and quite a bit took place in the US during the 18th, 19th, and 20th Centuries.
The PEOPLE have the same seats at the table they always have had, or the same lack thereof.
Just out of curiosity: which corporations get eliminated and how?
We did not have that in the early 20th. Santa Clara Rail Road was the late 19th Century. The vast majority of the law around persona ficta predates that by centuries, and quite a bit took place in the US during the 18th, 19th, and 20th Centuries.
The PEOPLE have the same seats at the table they always have had, or the same lack thereof.
Just out of curiosity: which corporations get eliminated and how?
Look up the Tillman Act of 1907.
That Act would be just as unconstitutional today as it was then. There was also no enforcement mechanism within that Act; it was a paper tiger, at best.
Again, which corporations would be prohibited and which would not be? What prohibitions would apply, to which, and why?
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
That Act would be just as unconstitutional today as it was then. There was also no enforcement mechanism within that Act; it was a paper tiger, at best.
Again, which corporations would be prohibited and which would not be? What prohibitions would apply, to which, and why?
Yes it would, that's why it would require a constitutional amendment to clearly define what a corporation is and is not.
As to which corporations, I'd have to seriously look into that; the devil is in the details. That's why I said in my first post that I would support such a concept but I wanna see the legislation. But it's not my job to know all of the nitty-gritty details; I'm not the law maker.
Restricting freedom of speech is not something I take lightly. The only reason I consider such a thing is because of the situation we have today now that all bets are off (Citizens United and McCutcheon). Here we have a clear cut case where we need to put limits in place because we have completely lost control of the legislative process.
This is EXACTLY the opposite of a situation conservatives would never live with. Where corporations have NO say, and people can just vote in anything they want and take everything away from corporations. That would be a horrible situation. But now we have a situation where the corporations have the ability to form and make law any way they want, taking everything away from the people.
If you believe the former is bad, you HAVE to believe the latter is just as bad.
Restricting freedom of speech is not something I take lightly.
You shouldn�t be taking it at all. It was for protection against precisely this type of attack that the First Amendment was written. You�re on the wrong side of this issue.
I agree with Justice Stevens. I think the entire constitution should be changed about every lifetime or generation. I don't see why today's generation should have to live under a pact that took place hundreds of years ago by people who for the most part weren't even voted into office, and when the country was much different than it is today. Each generation should make its own supreme law of the land.
I agree with Justice Stevens. I think the entire constitution should be changed about every lifetime or generation. I don't see why today's generation should have to live under a pact that took place hundreds of years ago by people who for the most part weren't even voted into office, and when the country was much different than it is today. Each generation should make its own supreme law of the land.
You, are a fool.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
That Act would be just as unconstitutional today as it was then. There was also no enforcement mechanism within that Act; it was a paper tiger, at best.
Again, which corporations would be prohibited and which would not be? What prohibitions would apply, to which, and why?
Yes it would, that's why it would require a constitutional amendment to clearly define what a corporation is and is not.
As to which corporations, I'd have to seriously look into that; the devil is in the details. That's why I said in my first post that I would support such a concept but I wanna see the legislation. But it's not my job to know all of the nitty-gritty details; I'm not the law maker.
Restricting freedom of speech is not something I take lightly. The only reason I consider such a thing is because of the situation we have today now that all bets are off (Citizens United and McCutcheon). Here we have a clear cut case where we need to put limits in place because we have completely lost control of the legislative process.
This is EXACTLY the opposite of a situation conservatives would never live with. Where corporations have NO say, and people can just vote in anything they want and take everything away from corporations. That would be a horrible situation. But now we have a situation where the corporations have the ability to form and make law any way they want, taking everything away from the people.
If you believe the former is bad, you HAVE to believe the latter is just as bad.
"Daniel-san; you need balance" - Mr. Miaggi
You can't draw those lines of separation because they don't exist. An Amendment to prevent or infringe upon the rights to assemble, petition the government and of speech would be a repeal of the First Amendment.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
That Act would be just as unconstitutional today as it was then. There was also no enforcement mechanism within that Act; it was a paper tiger, at best.
Again, which corporations would be prohibited and which would not be? What prohibitions would apply, to which, and why?
Yes it would, that's why it would require a constitutional amendment to clearly define what a corporation is and is not.
As to which corporations, I'd have to seriously look into that; the devil is in the details. That's why I said in my first post that I would support such a concept but I wanna see the legislation. But it's not my job to know all of the nitty-gritty details; I'm not the law maker.
Restricting freedom of speech is not something I take lightly. The only reason I consider such a thing is because of the situation we have today now that all bets are off (Citizens United and McCutcheon). Here we have a clear cut case where we need to put limits in place because we have completely lost control of the legislative process.
This is EXACTLY the opposite of a situation conservatives would never live with. Where corporations have NO say, and people can just vote in anything they want and take everything away from corporations. That would be a horrible situation. But now we have a situation where the corporations have the ability to form and make law any way they want, taking everything away from the people.
If you believe the former is bad, you HAVE to believe the latter is just as bad.
"Daniel-san; you need balance" - Mr. Miaggi
You can't draw those lines of separation because they don't exist. An Amendment to prevent or infringe upon the rights to assemble, petition the government and of speech would be a repeal of the First Amendment.
Sorry but I just disagree with that; this is totally doable without trashing the constitution. Seriously, we HAVE to do this. The alternative is to surrender the political process to corporations; we can't do that. Again like I said, if the first scenario I pointed out was repugnant, then the second one ought to be just as repugnant.
If we don't do this, there will be revolution in the US inside of 30 years; mark my words. We will completely eliminate the middle class, and at some point people will take up arms and reset. "The tree of liberty will be refreshed with the blood of patriots".
Show me where you draw those lines, how, and how it is done under the First Amendment.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
If we don't do this, there will be revolution in the US inside of 30 years; mark my words. We will completely eliminate the middle class, and at some point people will take up arms and reset. "The tree of liberty will be refreshed with the blood of patriots".
Now I will use Harry Reid's quote: "So?"
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
Show me where you draw those lines, how, and how it is done under the First Amendment.
That would go awfully deep for an internet forum; seriously.
Regardless of the details, I don't see how you don't see the problem.
Again, if it's repugnant for the people to legislate against corporations anything they want, why is it not repugnant for corporations to legislate anything they want?
We once had a situtation where corporations were not allowed to play politics; that was an unacceptable situation. Now we're bringing about a situation where ONLY corporations can play politics. How do you not recognize that this cannot be allowed?
If we don't do this, there will be revolution in the US inside of 30 years; mark my words. We will completely eliminate the middle class, and at some point people will take up arms and reset. "The tree of liberty will be refreshed with the blood of patriots".
Now I will use Harry Reid's quote: "So?"
How many revolutions end up with things being better than they were before? Just because we were lucky the first time, doesn't mean we'll be lucky the second time.
Show me where you draw those lines, how, and how it is done under the First Amendment.
That would go awfully deep for an internet forum; seriously.
Regardless of the details, I don't see how you don't see the problem.
Again, if it's repugnant for the people to legislate against corporations anything they want, why is it not repugnant for corporations to legislate anything they want?
We once had a situtation where corporations were not allowed to play politics; that was an unacceptable situation. Now we're bringing about a situation where ONLY corporations can play politics. How do you not recognize that this cannot be allowed?
Your last paragraph is factually inaccurate.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
If we don't do this, there will be revolution in the US inside of 30 years; mark my words. We will completely eliminate the middle class, and at some point people will take up arms and reset. "The tree of liberty will be refreshed with the blood of patriots".
Now I will use Harry Reid's quote: "So?"
How many revolutions end up with things being better than they were before? Just because we were lucky the first time, doesn't mean we'll be lucky the second time.
And?
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
Show me where you draw those lines, how, and how it is done under the First Amendment.
That would go awfully deep for an internet forum; seriously.
Regardless of the details, I don't see how you don't see the problem.
Again, if it's repugnant for the people to legislate against corporations anything they want, why is it not repugnant for corporations to legislate anything they want?
We once had a situtation where corporations were not allowed to play politics; that was an unacceptable situation. Now we're bringing about a situation where ONLY corporations can play politics. How do you not recognize that this cannot be allowed?
Your last paragraph is factually inaccurate.
I'm referring to the time after the Tillman Act. If that is inaccurate, please correct me; I'd be glad to learn something.
Just because it was done doesn't mean it was Constitutional or right. Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott, for example.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
Apparently I don't take armed revolution as casually as you do. I kinda like to exhaust all other options before picking up a gun.
Never said one way or the other, but if that's what comes, then so be it. It only reinforces why Stevens is so very wrong on his premises.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
Just because it was done doesn't mean it was Constitutional or right. Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott, for example.
Well sir, I'd have to say we're getting absolutely nowhere. You have your position, I have mine and it doesn't look like either are budging. I say we just agree to respectfully disagree and call it. But I love the points you made, and don't think for a second I didn't consider them.
Fair enough. I never thought I'd change your mind. I had hoped that you could show me how what you wanted done could be done within the bounds of the First Amendment and the US Constitution.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
Fair enough. I never thought I'd change your mind. I had hoped that you could show me how what you wanted done could be done within the bounds of the First Amendment and the US Constitution.
I honestly don't know; just know it need to be done. First step is recognizing the problem. Next step is what to do about it.
Define the problem, which you have not done, and do so in an addressable format. From there, a solution can be discussed.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
The people that make up corporations have always been involved in politics in the USA.
It would be impossible to separate the two. Because if it is done to one it gets done to all.
I have no issue with the individuals who work at corporations contributing their own money to political issues; none whatsoever. The problem is when it's the corporations money. And honestly I wouldn't eliminate that; I think that would be a mistake. What I would eliminate is the unlimited funds from corporations. Like I said, corporations HAVE to have a seat at the table...but they don't have to own the table.
I agree with Justice Stevens. I think the entire constitution should be changed about every lifetime or generation. I don't see why today's generation should have to live under a pact that took place hundreds of years ago by people who for the most part weren't even voted into office, and when the country was much different than it is today. Each generation should make its own supreme law of the land.
And what, exactly, is that "supreme law of the land" today? Would you leave our governance to the whims of imperfect nit whits that change from one philosophical stance to another,bending and shaping the document every 30-40 years? Utter chaos.
The Founding Father's were very smart men;better educated and worldly-wise than most of our "leaders" today. They understood that, while times may change,human beings do not; nor do the institutions they create to govern themselves,which will inevitably seek to gather greater power,and grow corrupt in the process at the expense of their citizens.This is just as true today as it was in the 1700's...and before that as well. They had a lot of empirical data in 1776 to prove them correct.
And judging by the course of human events since then,we can conclude that they were spot on in their assessments.
Unless of course government is somehow limited in the acquisition and use of its power.Which is what the Constitution seeks to do. For a free people, it is the greatest governing document in the history of mankind.Changing it in any material way is for fools intent on their own demise.
Corporations are comprised of people...without people they do not exist.They are a mechanism for people to organize together for business and other purposes,since it would be awkward and inconvenient to deal with all those people on an individual basis. (Imagine if every stockholder in GM had to sign every contract entered into?)
Because they are comprised of "people", whether two or 200,000, they have a collective voice and are entitled to 1st Amendment Freedoms of expression the same as any individual.If this means spending millions on media coverage, so be it.
Justice Stevens is an idiot.But he has a 1st Amendment right to be an idiot.Rant over.
"The Founding Father's were very smart men;better educated and worldly-wise than most of our "leaders" today."
I would agree that the founders were intelligent, but not that they were better educated and worldly that most leaders today.
I think many of them would be shocked that their document remains even somewhat intact today. Those founders did not want to be ruled by laws of a different place and time, and I don't see where America should be ruled by laws of a different time. Just as they exercised a constitutional convention, so should the people of today. It may be that many of the same ideas in the previous constitution would be adopted in the next constitution, but at least it would be by people living today, and not 250 years ago.
"The Founding Father's were very smart men;better educated and worldly-wise than most of our "leaders" today."
I would agree that the founders were intelligent, but not that they were better educated and worldly that most leaders today.
I think many of them would be shocked that their document remains even somewhat intact today. Those founders did not want to be ruled by laws of a different place and time, and I don't see where America should be ruled by laws of a different time. Just as they exercised a constitutional convention, so should the people of today. It may be that many of the same ideas in the previous constitution would be adopted in the next constitution, but at least it would be by people living today, and not 250 years ago.
Tell me exactly what you would change to bring the document up to contemporary standards.
Here's some to consider:
-Let's get rid of the 1st Amendment. We're a secular society today. Freedom of religion is not necessary anymore.
Freedom of the press is passe...we can let the government control all forms of media and communications and let it set the standards of what can, and cannot, be discussed.
-Eliminate the 2nd Amendment, too. The government can confiscate all the guns. The right to keep and bear arms would be gone. We'd all be safer.
-While we are at it, let's eliminate the 4th Amendment. Very inconvenient for law enforcement. They should be able to enter your house,or search your car on a whim, and arrest you without a warrant and without probable cause. It will make the cops more efficient.
-Let's eliminate term limits for the president. 8 years is not enough time for Obama to accomplish what he wants to.And we can eliminate the electoral college. This will place all the voting power in the hands of the metropolitan regions...who cares about the people in the sparsely populated states anyway? Right?
These are good ideas because they were thought up by people who have not been dead for 250 years.
Member, Clan of the Border Rats -- “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”- Mark Twain
"The Founding Father's were very smart men;better educated and worldly-wise than most of our "leaders" today."
I would agree that the founders were intelligent, but not that they were better educated and worldly that most leaders today.
I think many of them would be shocked that their document remains even somewhat intact today. Those founders did not want to be ruled by laws of a different place and time, and I don't see where America should be ruled by laws of a different time. Just as they exercised a constitutional convention, so should the people of today. It may be that many of the same ideas in the previous constitution would be adopted in the next constitution, but at least it would be by people living today, and not 250 years ago.
Tell me exactly what you would change to bring the document up to contemporary standards.
Here's some to consider:
-Let's get rid of the 1st Amendment. We're a secular society today. Freedom of religion is not necessary anymore.
Freedom of the press is passe...we can let the government control all forms of media and communications and let it set the standards of what can, and cannot, be discussed.
-Eliminate the 2nd Amendment, too. The government can confiscate all the guns. The right to keep and bear arms would be gone. We'd all be safer.
-While we are at it, let's eliminate the 4th Amendment. Very inconvenient for law enforcement. They should be able to enter your house,or search your car on a whim, and arrest you without a warrant and without probable cause. It will make the cops more efficient.
-Let's eliminate term limits for the president. 8 years is not enough time for Obama to accomplish what he wants to.And we can eliminate the electoral college. This will place all the voting power in the hands of the metropolitan regions...who cares about the people in the sparsely populated states anyway? Right?
These are good ideas because they were thought up by people who have not been dead for 250 years.
What do you think?
Dood, you should run for office; you'd fit right in.
I agree with Justice Stevens. I think the entire constitution should be changed about every lifetime or generation. I don't see why today's generation should have to live under a pact that took place hundreds of years ago by people who for the most part weren't even voted into office, and when the country was much different than it is today. Each generation should make its own supreme law of the land.
And what, exactly, is that "supreme law of the land" today? Would you leave our governance to the whims of imperfect nit whits that change from one philosophical stance to another,bending and shaping the document every 30-40 years? Utter chaos.
The Founding Father's were very smart men;better educated and worldly-wise than most of our "leaders" today. They understood that, while times may change,human beings do not; nor do the institutions they create to govern themselves,which will inevitably seek to gather greater power,and grow corrupt in the process at the expense of their citizens.This is just as true today as it was in the 1700's...and before that as well. They had a lot of empirical data in 1776 to prove them correct.
And judging by the course of human events since then,we can conclude that they were spot on in their assessments.
Unless of course government is somehow limited in the acquisition and use of its power.Which is what the Constitution seeks to do. For a free people, it is the greatest governing document in the history of mankind.Changing it in any material way is for fools intent on their own demise.
Corporations are comprised of people...without people they do not exist.They are a mechanism for people to organize together for business and other purposes,since it would be awkward and inconvenient to deal with all those people on an individual basis. (Imagine if every stockholder in GM had to sign every contract entered into?)
Because they are comprised of "people", whether two or 200,000, they have a collective voice and are entitled to 1st Amendment Freedoms of expression the same as any individual.If this means spending millions on media coverage, so be it.
Justice Stevens is an idiot.But he has a 1st Amendment right to be an idiot.Rant over.
Excellent! Spot on! Bob you hit it out of the stadium!
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
Tell me how you know that free speech wasn't intended for corporations? Corporations are just an organization tool for groups of people. Not that much different than unions. How come you don't complain about free speech for unions? Progressive fascists are always manipulating the system to deny their enemies a fair chance to oppose the evil they do. That's why free speech is great for unions but has to be denied to corporations.
GunGeek: By serendipity, I was not far off base as to what some of our "leaders" have in store for us.
Senator Ed Markey has current proposed legislation pending which would allow government to oversee "hate speech" on various media because of its effect on hate crime...things like the recent Kansas shootings are the result of such hate speech,he thinks.
So the government gets to be the judge of what kind of 1st Amendment expression constitutes "hate speech" and can curtail it....or punish it.....Mmmm.
On the Constitution....Justice Scalia recently said in a speech that the Constitution is not a "living document" that can be twisted around at will.As he said, it's THE LAW....even if it's inconvenient at times.
"On the Constitution....Justice Scalia recently said in a speech that the Constitution is not a "living document" that can be twisted around at will.As he said, it's THE LAW....even if it's inconvenient at times."
Tell me how you know that free speech wasn't intended for corporations? Corporations are just an organization tool for groups of people. Not that much different than unions. How come you don't complain about free speech for unions? Progressive fascists are always manipulating the system to deny their enemies a fair chance to oppose the evil they do. That's why free speech is great for unions but has to be denied to corporations.
Clearly you haven't read what I said; but read into what I said to make it fit what you THINK I'm advocating.
Not once have I said that corporations shouldn't have free speech; not once. If you want to further continue the discussion, go back and read what I said, not what you think I'm saying.
GunGeek: By serendipity, I was not far off base as to what some of our "leaders" have in store for us.
Senator Ed Markey has current proposed legislation pending which would allow government to oversee "hate speech" on various media because of its effect on hate crime...things like the recent Kansas shootings are the result of such hate speech,he thinks.
So the government gets to be the judge of what kind of 1st Amendment expression constitutes "hate speech" and can curtail it....or punish it.....Mmmm.
On the Constitution....Justice Scalia recently said in a speech that the Constitution is not a "living document" that can be twisted around at will.As he said, it's THE LAW....even if it's inconvenient at times.
I agree with him.
I won't go so far as to say the Constitution should never be amended; that's just foolish. But I certainly would never call it a living document; it's our foundation and that foundation really shouldn't move.
I support amendments when issues are completely out of balance, or issues that are being sent to SCOTUS can't be traced back to the constitution; meaning things are just too murky.
Corporations HAVE to have free speech and have to be a part of the political process. To take that away from them just reverses the situation we have now, and just goes from one dumb arse extreme to another.
I'm advocating a constitutional amendment to define corporations since they are now added to free speech. We need to put some limits on the free speech of corporations because the power they hold via their dollars is extremely disproportionate to that of individuals. I'm really amazed that no one here seems to get that.
I want them to have a seat at the table; I just don't want them to OWN the table or have the only seat.
Not once have I said that corporations shouldn't have free speech; not once. If you want to further continue the discussion, go back and read what I said, not what you think I'm saying.
Yes you did. For example this is one of the things you bemoaned:
When corporations have no restraint in the exercise of free speech in relation to the political process, then they OWN the political process. I want corporations to have a good part in the process, but I don't want them, or ANYONE ELSE owning it.
What was your point in typing that if not to advocate for restraining their speech? That they would restrain their own speech? If so you may want to consider leading by example.
All of that's beside the point, of course, that it's not your place to decide who gets to say what.
That's why free speech is great for unions but has to be denied to corporations.
Unions are corporations.
So are nonprofits, and even the smallest community organizations.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
Not once have I said that corporations shouldn't have free speech; not once. If you want to further continue the discussion, go back and read what I said, not what you think I'm saying.
Yes you did. For example this is one of the things you bemoaned:
When corporations have no restraint in the exercise of free speech in relation to the political process, then they OWN the political process. I want corporations to have a good part in the process, but I don't want them, or ANYONE ELSE owning it.
What was your point in typing that if not to advocate for restraining their speech? That they would restrain their own speech? If so you may want to consider leading by example.
All of that's beside the point, of course, that it's not your place to decide who gets to say what.
You seem to lack discernment. There's a world of difference between restraining and eliminating. I'm advocating placing some monetary limits on corporations. I am NOT advocating taking away all free speech or all political monetary donation. All I'm advocating is leveling the playing field.
Why are you so willing to give up the political process to corporations?
Not once have I said that corporations shouldn't have free speech; not once. If you want to further continue the discussion, go back and read what I said, not what you think I'm saying.
Yes you did. For example this is one of the things you bemoaned:
When corporations have no restraint in the exercise of free speech in relation to the political process, then they OWN the political process. I want corporations to have a good part in the process, but I don't want them, or ANYONE ELSE owning it.
What was your point in typing that if not to advocate for restraining their speech? That they would restrain their own speech? If so you may want to consider leading by example.
All of that's beside the point, of course, that it's not your place to decide who gets to say what.
You seem to lack discernment. There's a world of difference between restraining and eliminating. I'm advocating placing some monetary limits on corporations. I am NOT advocating taking away all free speech or all political monetary donation. All I'm advocating is leveling the playing field.
Why are you so willing to give up the political process to corporations?
The First Amendment prevents restraining free speech, freedom of assembly, and the right to petition government. Why are you so willing to pull the teeth of the First Amendment?
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
The First Amendment prevents restraining free speech, freedom of assembly, and the right to petition government. Why are you so willing to pull the teeth of the First Amendment?
No it doesn't and you know it. ALL rights have some limitations.
You seem to lack discernment. There's a world of difference between restraining and eliminating. I'm advocating placing some monetary limits on corporations. I am NOT advocating taking away all free speech or all political monetary donation. All I'm advocating is leveling the playing field.
Why are you so willing to give up the political process to corporations?
You seem to lack the ability to be ingenuous. You�re caught red handed but won�t acknowledge it and you speak in vague terms such as, �leveling the playing field�, which is code for restricting speech.
Who are you to tell others what they can�t say? Even if they�re evil corporations sitting in their corporationy buildings doing corporationy things?
The First Amendment prevents restraining free speech, freedom of assembly, and the right to petition government. Why are you so willing to pull the teeth of the First Amendment?
No it doesn't and you know it. ALL rights have some limitations.
Actually, it does.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
So, again, which corporations would be restricted, and why? How and why would those distinctions be made, and by whom?
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
I think you�re trying to direct this conversation the way YOU want it to go. So let�s clarify.
First ConradCA said: �Tell me how you know that free speech wasn't intended for corporations? Corporations are just an organization tool for groups of people. Not that much different than unions. How come you don't complain about free speech for unions? Progressive fascists are always manipulating the system to deny their enemies a fair chance to oppose the evil they do. That's why free speech is great for unions but has to be denied to corporations.�
I clarified with:� Not once have I said that corporations shouldn't have free speech; not once. If you want to further continue the discussion, go back and read what I said, not what you think I'm saying.�
YOU jumped in and said that I was saying corporations shouldn�t have free speech - � Yes you did. For example this is one of the things you bemoaned:
When corporations have no restraint in the exercise of free speech in relation to the political process, then they OWN the political process. I want corporations to have a good part in the process, but I don't want them, or ANYONE ELSE owning it.�
So when you said that, I take it you�re saying I�m calling for corporations to lose their right to free speech altogether; that is NOT what I�m calling for and never have. I have on more occasions caveated my comments by saying that corporations must have a seat at the table�in order for them to have a seat at the table, they must have free speech; I thought that was intuitively obvious.
So next you jump in with: �You seem to lack the ability to be ingenuous. You�re caught red handed but won�t acknowledge it and you speak in vague terms such as, �leveling the playing field�, which is code for restricting speech.
Who are you to tell others what they can�t say? Even if they�re evil corporations sitting in their corporationy buildings doing corporationy things?�
Let�s start with the first part: I�m not caught red handed (or maybe I am) because I have CLEARLY been calling for restrictions on free speech for corporations from the get go; I don�t deny that. Leveling the playing field is a vague term since I haven�t gotten into specific details about how I would craft such legislation; I�m merely pointing out the problem at this point.
Now to your second point: Again, I�m pointing out the problem�Who am I to tell others what they can�t say? I haven�t told anyone anything; try to keep up. This is about recognizing a very serious problem with our legislative and elective system.
In case you missed it, please read this and don�t read INTO it.
Since the Citizens United and McCutcheon cases, corporations now have unlimited free speech in relation to the political process. This is a problem, since corporations can ALWAYS out-spend the individual, and therefore always get their way.
If we had a system where corporations had absolutely NO say, and people could just take whatever they want from corporations; wouldn�t that be horrible? So why is it okay when it�s the other way around?
If one sector (whichever that sector is) completely owns the legislative process; how on earth can that be good for America � Just answer that one question if you will.
So, again, which corporations would be restricted, and why? How and why would those distinctions be made, and by whom?
At this point all I'm trying to do is to see if anyone can even recognize that there exists a serious problem. I'm not a lawyer and I haven't investigated the specific nuts and bolts.
But like anything else, the fist step is admitting you have a problem.
Apparently people here don't see a problem and are just fine with giving up the political process to one sector...that just baffles me, but whatever.
Seriously, getting into the very specifics of the issue is not something you can do on an internet forum. This is a highly complex issue, and not something that is going to be solved by 10 second sound bytes.
I think you�re trying to direct this conversation the way YOU want it to go. So let�s clarify.
First ConradCA said: �Tell me how you know that free speech wasn't intended for corporations? Corporations are just an organization tool for groups of people. Not that much different than unions. How come you don't complain about free speech for unions? Progressive fascists are always manipulating the system to deny their enemies a fair chance to oppose the evil they do. That's why free speech is great for unions but has to be denied to corporations.�
I clarified with:� Not once have I said that corporations shouldn't have free speech; not once. If you want to further continue the discussion, go back and read what I said, not what you think I'm saying.�
YOU jumped in and said that I was saying corporations shouldn�t have free speech - � Yes you did. For example this is one of the things you bemoaned:
When corporations have no restraint in the exercise of free speech in relation to the political process, then they OWN the political process. I want corporations to have a good part in the process, but I don't want them, or ANYONE ELSE owning it.�
So when you said that, I take it you�re saying I�m calling for corporations to lose their right to free speech altogether; that is NOT what I�m calling for and never have. I have on more occasions caveated my comments by saying that corporations must have a seat at the table�in order for them to have a seat at the table, they must have free speech; I thought that was intuitively obvious.
So next you jump in with: �You seem to lack the ability to be ingenuous. You�re caught red handed but won�t acknowledge it and you speak in vague terms such as, �leveling the playing field�, which is code for restricting speech.
Who are you to tell others what they can�t say? Even if they�re evil corporations sitting in their corporationy buildings doing corporationy things?�
Let�s start with the first part: I�m not caught red handed (or maybe I am) because I have CLEARLY been calling for restrictions on free speech for corporations from the get go; I don�t deny that. Leveling the playing field is a vague term since I haven�t gotten into specific details about how I would craft such legislation; I�m merely pointing out the problem at this point.
Now to your second point: Again, I�m pointing out the problem�Who am I to tell others what they can�t say? I haven�t told anyone anything; try to keep up. This is about recognizing a very serious problem with our legislative and elective system.
In case you missed it, please read this and don�t read INTO it.
Since the Citizens United and McCutcheon cases, corporations now have unlimited free speech in relation to the political process. This is a problem, since corporations can ALWAYS out-spend the individual, and therefore always get their way.
If we had a system where corporations had absolutely NO say, and people could just take whatever they want from corporations; wouldn�t that be horrible? So why is it okay when it�s the other way around?
If one sector (whichever that sector is) completely owns the legislative process; how on earth can that be good for America � Just answer that one question if you will.
Way too much "who struck John". Condense it please. Better yet, restrict your speech.
I think you�re trying to direct this conversation the way YOU want it to go. So let�s clarify.
First ConradCA said: �Tell me how you know that free speech wasn't intended for corporations? Corporations are just an organization tool for groups of people. Not that much different than unions. How come you don't complain about free speech for unions? Progressive fascists are always manipulating the system to deny their enemies a fair chance to oppose the evil they do. That's why free speech is great for unions but has to be denied to corporations.�
I clarified with:� Not once have I said that corporations shouldn't have free speech; not once. If you want to further continue the discussion, go back and read what I said, not what you think I'm saying.�
YOU jumped in and said that I was saying corporations shouldn�t have free speech - � Yes you did. For example this is one of the things you bemoaned:
When corporations have no restraint in the exercise of free speech in relation to the political process, then they OWN the political process. I want corporations to have a good part in the process, but I don't want them, or ANYONE ELSE owning it.�
So when you said that, I take it you�re saying I�m calling for corporations to lose their right to free speech altogether; that is NOT what I�m calling for and never have. I have on more occasions caveated my comments by saying that corporations must have a seat at the table�in order for them to have a seat at the table, they must have free speech; I thought that was intuitively obvious.
So next you jump in with: �You seem to lack the ability to be ingenuous. You�re caught red handed but won�t acknowledge it and you speak in vague terms such as, �leveling the playing field�, which is code for restricting speech.
Who are you to tell others what they can�t say? Even if they�re evil corporations sitting in their corporationy buildings doing corporationy things?�
Let�s start with the first part: I�m not caught red handed (or maybe I am) because I have CLEARLY been calling for restrictions on free speech for corporations from the get go; I don�t deny that. Leveling the playing field is a vague term since I haven�t gotten into specific details about how I would craft such legislation; I�m merely pointing out the problem at this point.
Now to your second point: Again, I�m pointing out the problem�Who am I to tell others what they can�t say? I haven�t told anyone anything; try to keep up. This is about recognizing a very serious problem with our legislative and elective system.
In case you missed it, please read this and don�t read INTO it.
Since the Citizens United and McCutcheon cases, corporations now have unlimited free speech in relation to the political process. This is a problem, since corporations can ALWAYS out-spend the individual, and therefore always get their way.
If we had a system where corporations had absolutely NO say, and people could just take whatever they want from corporations; wouldn�t that be horrible? So why is it okay when it�s the other way around?
If one sector (whichever that sector is) completely owns the legislative process; how on earth can that be good for America � Just answer that one question if you will.
Way too much "who struck John". Condense it please. Better yet, restrict your speech.
Just trying to straighten things out.
So would you be willing to answer a question?
Are you okay with one sector owning the entire political process. They determine which laws are made and which fail. They determine who the candidates are; not you. Are you cool with this?
Your question is based on a flawed premise; no one "owns" the political process.
The only way to allow speech to flourish is to allow it to be free. Allowing someone to control who gets to say what is dictatorial.
Obviously I disagree.
Let's say you and I disagree on murder; I'm for it, you're against it. And whether or not it becomes legal depends on who has the most money. I'm a corporation and you're an individual. Who do you think will prevail?
My bet is, you won't directly answer the question.
Your question is based on a flawed premise; no one "owns" the political process.
The only way to allow speech to flourish is to allow it to be free. Allowing someone to control who gets to say what is dictatorial.
Obviously I disagree.
Let's say you and I disagree on murder; I'm for it, you're against it. And whether or not it becomes legal depends on who has the most money. I'm a corporation and you're an individual. Who do you think will prevail?
My bet is, you won't directly answer the question.
Another false premise. When did you get to determine that "whether or not it becomes legal depends on who has the most money?"
What's the point of a ballot box wherein the citizens get to vote in secret?
So, again, which corporations would be restricted, and why? How and why would those distinctions be made, and by whom?
At this point all I'm trying to do is to see if anyone can even recognize that there exists a serious problem. I'm not a lawyer and I haven't investigated the specific nuts and bolts.
But like anything else, the fist step is admitting you have a problem.
Apparently people here don't see a problem and are just fine with giving up the political process to one sector...that just baffles me, but whatever.
It's not about giving it to one sector. It's about honoring the Constitution and not closing any sector from engaging in free speech, free assembly, and the right to petition the government.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
Your question is based on a flawed premise; no one "owns" the political process.
The only way to allow speech to flourish is to allow it to be free. Allowing someone to control who gets to say what is dictatorial.
What you don't get is exactly that system you say is dictatorial is present now...it's just not instantly dictatorial.
If one side has all the money to make all the laws, how is that a flourishing free speech.
And this is all about money.
There are individuals, and a lot of them, that could be king makers (Bloomberg, Gates, Koch, Buffett, etc.). If it's a money issue, you can't restrict based upon wealth. You can't restrict upon wealth within corporations, either.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
Another false premise. When did you get to determine that "whether or not it becomes legal depends on who has the most money?"
What's the point of a ballot box wherein the citizens get to vote in secret?
You live in your own world.
Clearly you're not interested in anything I have to say, because you're not comprehending anything I've said.
Corporations now have unlimited ability to fund political issues/causes/and candidates. If you can't do the mental experiment to see where that leads, I don't know what I have to work with here.
So, again, which corporations would be restricted, and why? How and why would those distinctions be made, and by whom?
At this point all I'm trying to do is to see if anyone can even recognize that there exists a serious problem. I'm not a lawyer and I haven't investigated the specific nuts and bolts.
But like anything else, the fist step is admitting you have a problem.
Apparently people here don't see a problem and are just fine with giving up the political process to one sector...that just baffles me, but whatever.
It's not about giving it to one sector. It's about honoring the Constitution and not closing any sector from engaging in free speech, free assembly, and the right to petition the government.
Clearly you're not interested in anything I have to say, because you're not comprehending anything I've said.
Corporations now have unlimited ability to fund political issues/causes/and candidates. If you can't do the mental experiment to see where that leads, I don't know what I have to work with here.
If you think it was that easy then why wouldn't, say, Coca-Cola simply use their "unlimited ability to fund political issues/causes/and candidates" to simply outlaw Pepsi?
Your question is based on a flawed premise; no one "owns" the political process.
The only way to allow speech to flourish is to allow it to be free. Allowing someone to control who gets to say what is dictatorial.
What you don't get is exactly that system you say is dictatorial is present now...it's just not instantly dictatorial.
If one side has all the money to make all the laws, how is that a flourishing free speech.
And this is all about money.
There are individuals, and a lot of them, that could be king makers (Bloomberg, Gates, Koch, Buffett, etc.). If it's a money issue, you can't restrict based upon wealth. You can't restrict upon wealth within corporations, either.
Your question is based on a flawed premise; no one "owns" the political process.
The only way to allow speech to flourish is to allow it to be free. Allowing someone to control who gets to say what is dictatorial.
What you don't get is exactly that system you say is dictatorial is present now...it's just not instantly dictatorial.
If one side has all the money to make all the laws, how is that a flourishing free speech.
And this is all about money.
There are individuals, and a lot of them, that could be king makers (Bloomberg, Gates, Koch, Buffett, etc.). If it's a money issue, you can't restrict based upon wealth. You can't restrict upon wealth within corporations, either.
Same issue, just a different side of the coin.
Exactly, and exactly why what you propose fails under the Constitution and the concepts of freedom.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
If you think it was that easy then why wouldn't, say, Coca-Cola simply use their "unlimited ability to fund political issues/causes/and candidates" to simply outlaw Pepsi?
You really aren't capable of doing the thought experiment are you. Seriously, think for a minute and I'll bet you can answer your own question. And then realize what a ridiculous question that was.
So, again, which corporations would be restricted, and why? How and why would those distinctions be made, and by whom?
At this point all I'm trying to do is to see if anyone can even recognize that there exists a serious problem. I'm not a lawyer and I haven't investigated the specific nuts and bolts.
But like anything else, the fist step is admitting you have a problem.
Apparently people here don't see a problem and are just fine with giving up the political process to one sector...that just baffles me, but whatever.
It's not about giving it to one sector. It's about honoring the Constitution and not closing any sector from engaging in free speech, free assembly, and the right to petition the government.
Regardless of the cost?
The greater cost is the loss of freedom by restricting Constitutionally-protected and guaranteed rights.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
If you think it was that easy then why wouldn't, say, Coca-Cola simply use their "unlimited ability to fund political issues/causes/and candidates" to simply outlaw Pepsi?
You really aren't capable of doing the thought experiment are you. Seriously, think for a minute and I'll bet you can answer your own question. And then realize what a ridiculous question that was.
You're really into the insults, aren't you Kevin? I directly answered your question in the prior post...it was based on a false premise, remember, Mr. Speech-control?
Each state has their own charts; google up your own state and see what comes up.
Those limits have been put in place to try to keep the political process as level as possible. A widely un-balanced political process means ruin and will lead to massive loss of freedoms.
Constitutional free speech is not unlimited; never has been, never will be.
Each state has their own charts; google up your own state and see what comes up.
Those limits have been put in place to try to keep the political process as level as possible. A widely un-balanced political process means ruin and will lead to massive loss of freedoms.
Constitutional free speech is not unlimited; never has been, never will be.
That's because it scares the Hell out of the gov't. Freedom and Liberty always do.
Those state restrictions will fall under Incorporation, as they should.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
You're really into the insults, aren't you Kevin? I directly answered your question in the prior post...it was based on a false premise, remember, Mr. Speech-control?
My apologies, I have a raging headache...probably shouldn't be debating a deep subject with an ice pick in my head. My apologies, and thank you for calling me on that.
Each state has their own charts; google up your own state and see what comes up.
Those limits have been put in place to try to keep the political process as level as possible. A widely un-balanced political process means ruin and will lead to massive loss of freedoms.
Constitutional free speech is not unlimited; never has been, never will be.
That's because it scares the Hell out of the gov't. Freedom and Liberty always do.
Those state restrictions will fall under Incorporation, as they should.
But on the political side, it's about balance. You seem to only want to think in absolutes; we don't really have that in government and really never have. Absolutes are for the Anarchist guys.
When something as important as our political process becomes clearly imbalanced, I don't see how you just ignore it because of principle. You said yesterday, you'll always find a way around. That's what un-principled people do (not saying you're unprincipled; I KNOW you are...you were just making a point).
So if unprincipled people are willing to side step our principles, if we simply stand on principle we will lose every time. When they usurp the system, you have to counter or it all comes crashing down. You will never write anything that is airtight, so you have to make adjustments.
So, how do you draw the lines on a financial basis, which is at base your problem, and NOT exclude individuals of incredible wealth, and how do you include them without violating the 1st and 14th Amendments?
How do you restrict corporations of "means" without restricting the smallest community, sportmen's, conservation, etc., groups?
Simply put: you can't. That's why the First Amendment is there in the first place.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
Because you have the loudest voice, doesn't mean you're right. That's the situation; corporations have the loudest voice and are in a position to monopolize the entire political process.
Look at the melt down of 2008. When it all came down, Wall Street went to congress and even said, we have to be regulated. As soon as they got their trillion, they fought all regulation. They allowed Dodd-Frank to pass as a diversion; but it didn't correct ANY of the core issues that brought about a collapse. This is a sector that can literally bankrupt America, but they have the power to make sure nothing hinders them in any way. That's not in the best interest of anyone but Wall Street. But the current situation is such that they can just contribute to politicians as much as needed to get their way, or contribute to their opponents to push anyone who doesn't do their bidding out of office. How is this good for America? These ARE the un-principled, and they're running rough shod over all of America.
So, how do you draw the lines on a financial basis, which is at base your problem, and NOT exclude individuals of incredible wealth, and how do you include them without violating the 1st and 14th Amendments?
How do you restrict corporations of "means" without restricting the smallest community, sportmen's, conservation, etc., groups?
Simply put: you can't. That's why the First Amendment is there in the first place.
Simply put, I don't know; but I won't accept you can't, because that's just giving America over to corporations and will eventually be our fall.
The issue needs SERIOUS study, and I doubt we'll get it right the first or even second attempt. But it has to be done, or our goose is cooked. Again, look at what Wall Street just did to us; and I guaran-freakin-tee you they'll do it again.
Because you have the loudest voice, doesn't mean you're right. That's the situation; corporations have the loudest voice and are in a position to monopolize the entire political process.
Look at the melt down of 2008. When it all came down, Wall Street went to congress and even said, we have to be regulated. As soon as they got their trillion, they fought all regulation. They allowed Dodd-Frank to pass as a diversion; but it didn't correct ANY of the core issues that brought about a collapse. This is a sector that can literally bankrupt America, but they have the power to make sure nothing hinders them in any way. That's not in the best interest of anyone but Wall Street. But the current situation is such that they can just contribute to politicians as much as needed to get their way, or contribute to their opponents to push anyone who doesn't do their bidding out of office. How is this good for America? These ARE the un-principled, and they're running rough shod over all of America.
That has nothing to do with corporations and everything to do with the abject corruption of government.
THAT is fixable.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
Because you have the loudest voice, doesn't mean you're right. That's the situation; corporations have the loudest voice and are in a position to monopolize the entire political process.
Look at the melt down of 2008. When it all came down, Wall Street went to congress and even said, we have to be regulated. As soon as they got their trillion, they fought all regulation. They allowed Dodd-Frank to pass as a diversion; but it didn't correct ANY of the core issues that brought about a collapse. This is a sector that can literally bankrupt America, but they have the power to make sure nothing hinders them in any way. That's not in the best interest of anyone but Wall Street. But the current situation is such that they can just contribute to politicians as much as needed to get their way, or contribute to their opponents to push anyone who doesn't do their bidding out of office. How is this good for America? These ARE the un-principled, and they're running rough shod over all of America.
That has nothing to do with corporations and everything to do with the abject corruption of government.
THAT is fixable.
No, it's one and the same. And how do you fix that? They can contribute unlimited.
Actually 4ager; you got it right...it's abject corruption of government. That's what we have...that's precisely the point I'm trying to make. Unlimited political contributions corrupts unlimited. We all know that the only thing a politician REALLY cares about is re-election. So if corporations have the ability to cash bully politicians, what do you call that?
Actually 4ager; you got it right...it's abject corruption of government. That's what we have...that's precisely the point I'm trying to make. Unlimited political contributions corrupts unlimited. We all know that the only thing a politician REALLY cares about is re-election. So if corporations have the ability to cash bully politicians, what do you call that?
You're looking at a symptom, not the cause.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
Actually 4ager; you got it right...it's abject corruption of government. That's what we have...that's precisely the point I'm trying to make. Unlimited political contributions corrupts unlimited. We all know that the only thing a politician REALLY cares about is re-election. So if corporations have the ability to cash bully politicians, what do you call that?
You're looking at a symptom, not the cause.
The cause is unlimited corporate influence in the political process. The symptom (fatal one at that) is a completely corrupt legislature. (we're only mostly corrupt now, not completely corrupt )
If corporations are "people" then how come we don't prosecute BP for killing a dozen rig workers, or Ford Motors for burning teenagers up in Pintos; and then putting the whole board of directors on death row?
Either they are people and have personal rights on the one hand and can be sanctioned for wrong doings just like a person; or their not.
Conrad101st 1/503 Inf., 2nd ID (90-91) 3/327 Inf., 101st ABN (91-92)
If corporations are "people" then how come we don't prosecute BP for killing a dozen rig workers, or Ford Motors for burning teenagers up in Pintos; and then putting the whole board of directors on death row?
Either they are people and have personal rights on the one hand and can be sanctioned for wrong doings just like a person; or their not.
Very good point...corporations get the best of both worlds. I'd love to see board members and CEO's held personally responsible for the willful gross negligence of their company; I'm betting many companies would be run in a very different way.
But honestly, that's a whole different story, and I'd want to tread very lightly on reforming that part of corporations. The whole concept of a corporation is limitation of liability. If we remove that, then corporations will eventually cease to exist.
what is it now, 500 or 600 volumes, plus the 13 pages here, to try and determine what the 250 year old constitution means?
Time for a new one.
Again, you prove your utter stupidity.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
If corporations are "people" then how come we don't prosecute BP for killing a dozen rig workers, or Ford Motors for burning teenagers up in Pintos; and then putting the whole board of directors on death row?
Either they are people and have personal rights on the one hand and can be sanctioned for wrong doings just like a person; or their not.
That, sir, is an extremely good point. Per the history of the law of persona ficta, those "nonhuman persons" could be and were subject to the same penalties. Why they are not now is a very viable question.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
If corporations are "people" then how come we don't prosecute BP for killing a dozen rig workers, or Ford Motors for burning teenagers up in Pintos; and then putting the whole board of directors on death row?
Either they are people and have personal rights on the one hand and can be sanctioned for wrong doings just like a person; or their not.
That, sir, is an extremely good point. Per the history of the law of persona ficta, those "nonhuman persons" could be and were subject to the same penalties. Why they are not now is a very viable question.
I believe that's the whole reason corporations were created, to limit the liability to the corporation and protect the individual. for many things I can see a real need for that. There are other situations where some SOB ought to be a sex toy for a cell mate.
The purpose of a constitution or articles of incorporation for that matter since we are talking about corporations is to set in stone the operating procedures of an organization so its not subject to the whims of the current administration who happens to be in power. The left would ban guns and jack your taxes to the moon; then the next president who is evangelical would allow arrest without probable cause, ban women from working and ban contraceptives. Total GF.
Conrad101st 1/503 Inf., 2nd ID (90-91) 3/327 Inf., 101st ABN (91-92)
what is it now, 500 or 600 volumes, plus the 13 pages here, to try and determine what the 250 year old constitution means?
Time for a new one.
Again, you prove your utter stupidity.
It isn't that the Constitution lacks clarity. The problem is people trying to twist into something it is not, saying things it does not say.
Exactly
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
If corporations are "people" then how come we don't prosecute BP for killing a dozen rig workers, or Ford Motors for burning teenagers up in Pintos; and then putting the whole board of directors on death row?
Either they are people and have personal rights on the one hand and can be sanctioned for wrong doings just like a person; or their not.
But they are indicted, or can be. And are responsible for the actions (both civil and criminal) of their employees under the legal theory of respondeat superior.
Which means that if a member of the board of directors, or an executive(say)commits a criminal act in the course of his employment which is related to the corporations business, both the individual and the corporation, can be indicted.
A corporation is considered a legal person in the eyes of the law. It can contract,sue or be sued,carry on any legal business the same as any individual.
And it can be indicted.
Interesting dialogue here; but we are covering really old, well settled law.
If corporations are "people" then how come we don't prosecute BP for killing a dozen rig workers, or Ford Motors for burning teenagers up in Pintos; and then putting the whole board of directors on death row?
Either they are people and have personal rights on the one hand and can be sanctioned for wrong doings just like a person; or their not.
But they are indicted, or can be. And are responsible for the actions (both civil and criminal) of their employees under the legal theory of respondeat superior.
Which means that if a member of the board of directors, or an executive(say)commits a criminal act in the course of his employment which is related to the corporations business, both the individual and the corporation, can be indicted.
A corporation is considered a legal person in the eyes of the law. It can contract,sue or be sued,carry on any legal business the same as any individual.
And it can be indicted.
Interesting dialogue here; but we are covering really old, well settled law.
To the last point: yes, and no.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
It isn't that the Constitution lacks clarity. The problem is people trying to twist into something it is not, saying things it does not say.
Exactly
And who is to say what it doesn't say. That is why we need a new one. So we all have a say in what it says.
You are truly congenitally stupid. "Ignore" was made for you, as continuing to read your unconscionable level of ignorance wastes valuable brain cells.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
If corporations are "people" then how come we don't prosecute BP for killing a dozen rig workers, or Ford Motors for burning teenagers up in Pintos; and then putting the whole board of directors on death row?
Either they are people and have personal rights on the one hand and can be sanctioned for wrong doings just like a person; or their not.
But they are indicted, or can be. And are responsible for the actions (both civil and criminal) of their employees under the legal theory of respondeat superior.
Which means that if a member of the board of directors, or an executive(say)commits a criminal act in the course of his employment which is related to the corporations business, both the individual and the corporation, can be indicted.
A corporation is considered a legal person in the eyes of the law. It can contract,sue or be sued,carry on any legal business the same as any individual.
And it can be indicted.
Interesting dialogue here; but we are covering really old, well settled law.
It isn't that the Constitution lacks clarity. The problem is people trying to twist into something it is not, saying things it does not say.
Exactly
And who is to say what it doesn't say. That is why we need a new one. So we all have a say in what it says.
You are truly congenitally stupid. "Ignore" was made for you, as continuing to read your unconscionable level of ignorance wastes valuable brain cells.
The Bill of Rights needs much more clarity, especially the 9th and 10th amendments, but some of the others as well.
Again, the Constitution needs more "clarity" ONLY if you disagree with what it says, and wish to interpret it in a way that does not support the original intent. Take the 2nd amendment, for example. It clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Most of the gun laws do exactly that, and though the Constitution remains unchanged, the 2nd amendment is NOT being followed. The gun laws in question are quite simply, unconstitutional and illegal. Not that that makes any difference at all to the left.
What is its original intent? The only way you can attempt a guess at its original intent is to "interpret" it, as nobody is around to ask.
The second amendment says more than that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It also says that A well regarded militia, being necessary to the security of a free state . . . . .
Was that put in there to mean nothing. Or does it mean that a state has to be a free state in the sense that it has no slavery? Or does it mean that a state has to have a militia and you can only have guns if you are in the militia?
And has that amendment been specifically determined to apply to the states by way of the 14th amendment? If so, what does the specific case say about it.
Its an old amendment. It should be completely updated by people living today.
In District of Columbia v Heller, the 2nd Amendment was determined by the Supreme Court to protect an individual,not collective (militia), right to keep and bear arms.
In McDonald v. Chicago those rights were deemed to be binding on the states pursuant to the 14th amendment.
What you seem to be missing is that the Constitution was never intended by its wording to cover every single experience of human existence,and interaction. Rather it was intended to limit the power of government,set the framework for that government,and provide general guiding principles based on our political philosophy.
By making it very hard to change or amend, it was intended to be protected against the whims and fancies of nitwits who think it should be "flexible" and a "living document". Based on what I see of current generations, I would not ever trust them with it.
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/nhqZTmxJ/Screen-Shot-2020-11-08-at-5-01-55-PM.png)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.rockymtnrefl.com/TetonFenceBarncd1985987.jpg)
![[Linked Image from ]]( https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Trump-Tweet-Image-Im-Just-in-the-Way-e1577149651503.jpg)
)
