Why the principles in Citizens United should be expanded

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Quantum Windbag, Feb 8, 2012.

  1. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    There are idiots out there that think politicians have their best interests at heart. I cannot stress enough just how stupid that belief is.

    States are cracking down on political speech with burdensome laws - The Washington Post
     
  2. Valox
    Offline

    Valox Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,023
    Thanks Received:
    122
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +123
    Montana says fuck you to your big government statism.
    Montana Supreme Court Defies Citizens United Decision, Upholds State Ban - Law Blog - WSJ
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Bfgrn
    Offline

    Bfgrn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    16,829
    Thanks Received:
    2,480
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,060
    There are ways to address this without expanding the most egregious Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott v. Sandford.


    The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act. Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy. There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter.
    —William Jennings Bryan, 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention
     
  4. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    Why is it egregious for the Supreme Court to tell the government it does not have the power to ban books?
     
  5. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    I would respond to you, but you just proved in another thread you do not even know what analogy means, and I am too tired to educate you.
     
  6. Valox
    Offline

    Valox Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,023
    Thanks Received:
    122
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +123
    You just proved that you don't understand hypocrisy....Oh....how, ironic. Plus, I acknowledged how silly your analogy was.

    Plus, this is a state issue, not a federal issue.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2012
  7. Bfgrn
    Offline

    Bfgrn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    16,829
    Thanks Received:
    2,480
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,060
    You prefaced the thread by questioning people's intelligence. So it is fair to ask; are you that simple minded?
     
  8. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
    It ceases being a state issue when it is found in violation of Constitutional law.

    Sadly (in this case) it is.

    It appears to me that that state law violates citizens' constitutional right to freedom of assembly, and citizens constitutional right to freedom of speech, too.

    I approve of the motive behind the law, but I don't think it will pass constitutional muster.
     
  9. Valox
    Offline

    Valox Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,023
    Thanks Received:
    122
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +123
    First off, we disagree with what a Constitutional law is. While I am a aberration and believe in individualism and self-determination of the American people and states, many disagree with me.

    However, we live in a day of age of omniscient federal government and SCOTUS so you and your statist friend are correct.
     
  10. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    I did not question anyone's intelligence, I flat out stated that people who think politicians have their best interest at hear are idiots. Unless you are one of the idiots that believe that it doesn't apply to you.
     

Share This Page