phBOOM Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ^Why so keen on keeping with the constitution? > Constitution is made by men and can be changed by > us to improve ourselves. Do you not see > constitution in of of itself serves no purpose. It > only exists to serve the people’s interests, not > that of corporations. No…we exist to serve our Corp masters.
phBOOM Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ^Why so keen on keeping with the constitution? > Constitution is made by men and can be changed by > us to improve ourselves. Do you not see > constitution in of of itself serves no purpose. It > only exists to serve the people’s interests, not > that of corporations. I can’t believe I just read this. Umm, I’m so keen on keeping with the constitution because I’m an American and it’s the very fabric that holds our republic together. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Without adhering to the constitution, any gov’t can empower itself over the people at any time (including the evil, mean, racist Bush adminstration). The founding principal of this nation was that gov’t was a necessary evil and should have limited, enumerated powers.
^that’s what I call dogmatic. Please use your own head to think rather than preaching something made 200 years ago by a group of men.
phBOOM Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ^that’s what I call dogmatic. Please use your own > head to think rather than preaching something made > 200 years ago by a group of men. If Americans took your advice, we’d have freedoms more in line with Venezuela, where the constitution changes at the behest of each new president. I think I’ll stick with the tired, dogmatic wisdom of some of the most brilliant men to ever walk the planet.
“some of the most brilliant men to ever walk the planet.” I agree that constitutions are necessary, but don’t you think this is taking it a bit too far?
George Washington had laser eye powers.
John Hancock literally had arms growing out of his dick.
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I can’t believe I just read this. Umm, I’m so keen > on keeping with the constitution because I’m an > American and it’s the very fabric that holds our > republic together. “Absolute power corrupts > absolutely.” Without adhering to the constitution, > any gov’t can empower itself over the people at > any time (including the evil, mean, racist Bush > adminstration). The founding principal of this > nation was that gov’t was a necessary evil and > should have limited, enumerated powers. I agree that we should all be following the constitution. But your assertion earlier that conservatives are more likely to look at things from a “constitutional standpoint” is naive–each party will enact what they feel is the best public policy, regardless of the strict interpretation of the constitution.
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > phBOOM Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ^that’s what I call dogmatic. Please use your > own > > head to think rather than preaching something > made > > 200 years ago by a group of men. > > > If Americans took your advice, we’d have freedoms > more in line with Venezuela, where the > constitution changes at the behest of each new > president. I think I’ll stick with the tired, > dogmatic wisdom of some of the most brilliant men > to ever walk the planet. You know that slavery was constitutional as well that time? so was no voting for women? By your logic we should go back to the good ole days, Betcha that will ne fun…
naturallight Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > kkent Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > I can’t believe I just read this. Umm, I’m so > keen > > on keeping with the constitution because I’m an > > American and it’s the very fabric that holds > our > > republic together. “Absolute power corrupts > > absolutely.” Without adhering to the > constitution, > > any gov’t can empower itself over the people at > > any time (including the evil, mean, racist Bush > > adminstration). The founding principal of this > > nation was that gov’t was a necessary evil and > > should have limited, enumerated powers. > > > I agree that we should all be following the > constitution. But your assertion earlier that > conservatives are more likely to look at things > from a “constitutional standpoint” is naive–each > party will enact what they feel is the best public > policy, regardless of the strict interpretation of > the constitution. There are certainly examples from both sides, but let’s just go down the issues: abortion, gun control, the fairness doctrine and McCain-Feingold (I’m aware there were plenty of Republicans on this, but was opposed by the Right), net neutrality, interstate commerce clause, etc. The Left consistently comes down on the side of regulation or non-constructionism for the reasons of public policy.
marcus phoenix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > kkent Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > phBOOM Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > ----- > > > ^that’s what I call dogmatic. Please use your > > own > > > head to think rather than preaching something > > made > > > 200 years ago by a group of men. > > > > > > If Americans took your advice, we’d have > freedoms > > more in line with Venezuela, where the > > constitution changes at the behest of each new > > president. I think I’ll stick with the tired, > > dogmatic wisdom of some of the most brilliant > men > > to ever walk the planet. > > > You know that slavery was constitutional as well > that time? so was no voting for women? > > By your logic we should go back to the good ole > days, Betcha that will ne fun… Yeah, I feel bad that I find myself arguing for the first amendment. Boo hoo.
naturallight Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Also, does this mean corporations can vote? Corporations cannot vote because they are not afforded the legal status of citizens and only citizens have the right to vote. All persons, however, have the right to free speech under the constitution.
This ruling is good for business, and therefore good for economy. It will also undermine some dangerous populist grassroots movements ( Like Tea party) - grassroots do not matter as much when you can spend unlimited on ads to shape public perception.
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > marcus phoenix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > kkent Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > phBOOM Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > ----- > > > > ^that’s what I call dogmatic. Please use > your > > > own > > > > head to think rather than preaching > something > > > made > > > > 200 years ago by a group of men. > > > > > > > > > If Americans took your advice, we’d have > > freedoms > > > more in line with Venezuela, where the > > > constitution changes at the behest of each > new > > > president. I think I’ll stick with the tired, > > > dogmatic wisdom of some of the most brilliant > > men > > > to ever walk the planet. > > > > > > You know that slavery was constitutional as > well > > that time? so was no voting for women? > > > > By your logic we should go back to the good ole > > days, Betcha that will ne fun… > > > Yeah, I feel bad that I find myself arguing for > the first amendment. Boo hoo. Then you should also argue that one should be allowed tp yell “Fire” in a crowded theatre, “bomb” in an plane etc.
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > There are certainly examples from both sides, but > let’s just go down the issues: abortion, gun > control, the fairness doctrine and McCain-Feingold > (I’m aware there were plenty of Republicans on > this, but was opposed by the Right), net > neutrality, interstate commerce clause, etc. The > Left consistently comes down on the side of > regulation or non-constructionism for the reasons > of public policy. hmm, warrantless wiretapping - 4th amendment holding americans at guantanomo for years w/o being charged - 6th amendment 2nd amendment, I agree, anyone part of a militia can have a gun.
Yeah which militia are you in kkent?
This is a great ruling to level the playing field… Before the ruling it was the incumbent protection act. Remember incumbents dont need publicity. Challengers do.
The idea of corporation as legal entities (thereby entitled to free speech) is the most idiotic ruling in American history. If you actually believe that this country is better off bestowing the right of citizens to corporations than you have your blinders on (omg constitution has free speech!) or you’re just retarded. THINK for once in your lives. America= land of the sheople
If people want to pool their money (form a corporation) to support or attack a candidate, they should be able to. “Hillary, The Movie” got all this started. From the Washington Post Olson transformed the case from a narrow one about McCain-Feingold to an assault on the law’s constitutionality, helping crystallize the issue for the justices. When the Supreme Court first heard the case in March, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart, representing the FEC, was pulled into a discussion of an issue that took him down a slippery slope: If the movie were a book, would the government ban publishing the book if it mentioned a candidate for office within the election time frame? Stewart said that it could. “That’s pretty incredible,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said. Then came questions about electronic devices such as the Kindle. “If it has one name, one use of the candidate’s name, it would be covered, correct?” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked. “That’s correct,” Stewart replied. “It’s a 500-page book, and at the end it says, ‘And so vote for X,’ the government could ban that?” Roberts asked. Bossie said this was the argument that turned a majority of the bench against the FEC and in favor of Citizens United. “That sent a chill down the Supreme Court,” Bossie said. The argument became a “point of demarcation.” “We have been trying to defend our First Amendment rights for many, many years,” Bossie said. “We brought the case hoping that this would happen. . . . to defeat McCain-Feingold.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012103582.html