Fuck the First Amendment, then

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Derleth

So we must abandon such gross necrophilia and interpret the Constitution in the way that maximizes the liberty of the majority of the people living in this country now. How does giving a few of the richest the ability to grossly influence the political process maximize the liberty of the majority?

Why have the Constitution at all? Just have a document that says "The goal is to maximize the liberty of the majority of the people living in this country now". Constitution shmonstitution.

[Derleth]

Originally Posted by Terr

Why have the Constitution at all? Just have a document that says "The goal is to maximize the liberty of the majority of the people living in this country now". Constitution shmonstitution.

I'd rather it say "Be excellent to each other"; that way, we can abolish all other religions as well.

I'd argue that having more specific forms of words is important because it's frequently necessary, in a court of law, to have a specific conceptual framework to work within. It's one thing, when the going gets tough and someone wants to start down a dangerous path, to bang on about how this might be the first of many bad steps; it's quite another to have something specific to cite that really gets peoples' attentions.

Ultimately it's all down to the individuals involved and we can be damn sure Madison is no longer among them. (Originalism straight from the Originals didn't stop the Alien and Sedition Acts, either.) However, having guidance more solid than a wave of the hand is helpful to making decisions predictable, which is a good thing in law. (If nothing else, decisions that are predictably bad are an indication that the guidelines need to be amended.)

[New Deal Democrat]

The American people should be exposed to more opinions. They do not need more exposure to the Republican opinion that the rich should be richer and more powerful.

The First Amendment has been terribly abused. It should be re written in order to protect open political debate, and religious freedom, and nothing else. Money is not speech. It is power.

We need to get the money out of politics.

[Peanut Gallery]

While I agree with the spirit of the OP, and feel the Constitution desperately needs some amending, it is a virtual impossibility at this point, and talk of such is just so much masturbating. The toothpaste is out of the tube. How exactly is an amendment ever going to get anywhere in today's political reality? That was rhetorical of course; it is quite obvious that it never will. Having allowed corporate/unlimited spending to rule the day, that same spending will shut down any attempts at undoing the advantage it has. As counterarguments there are: "But Whitman and Fiorina lost!" and "But 70% of people feel CU was a bad decision!" But neither of those relate to the hurdles of passing an actual Amendment.

The only real possibility is going to be the admittedly not-as-constitutional option to win the White House over and over, stack the Supreme Court, and 're-interpret' "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". I think that solution stinks, but considering the option is letting things go to shit out of respect for the holy purity of the founding fathers' short-sightedness... fuck it, I can hold my nose.

And honestly, even that 'solution' seems almost as impossible as an Amendment. Democrats holding the White House and getting those SC Judges confirmed is still sure to be a higher hurdle in the current political reality than it has ever been in the past.

[Peanut Gallery]

just as a fun exercise re: an Amendment...

2/3 of both houses? Ha! When was the last time they all agreed on anything with those numbers? Seriously, if anyone knows, I'd love to hear. I can't get it out of Google.

Or the other option... Exactly which 34 states' legislatures are going to propose the idea?

And which 38 states' legislatures* are going to ratify? Hint: Obama won 28 states in 2008, before CU.

*or better yet, which 38 states' ratifying conventions? What a circus that would be!

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Terr

Other than the "Stolen Valor Act" - there are no federal laws prohibiting fraudulent speech, libelous speech or slanderous speech.

There are still federal laws against fighting words. Not to mention that the issue here isn't a free speech issue (and I'm not equivocating there), it's an issue of whether Congress can restrict the time, place and manner of speech - which they explicitly have done in the past.

Are we being asked to accept that holding a sign near a convoy stretching for miles is infringing on others rights to hold signs, but that purchasing hours of advertising time in order to expose one's viewpoint to millions of Americans is not diluting the effect of other forms of speech?

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Derleth

I'd rather it say "Be excellent to each other"; that way, we can abolish all other religions as well.

I'd argue that having more specific forms of words is important because it's frequently necessary, in a court of law, to have a specific conceptual framework to work within.

Not when, if it is inconvenient, you just interpret it away.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Peanut Gallery

just as a fun exercise re: an Amendment...

2/3 of both houses? Ha! When was the last time they all agreed on anything with those numbers? Seriously, if anyone knows, I'd love to hear. I can't get it out of Google.

Either 1971, for the voting age being 18 across the country, or 1992, prohibiting Congress from raising their own salaries. The reason I say "either" is that the latter amendment was proposed 203 years before it was ratified, so it may not demonstrate the simultaneous agreement of 3/4s of the states you were looking for.

[Really Not All That Bright]

The 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution passed by more than 2/3 of both houses; 297-133-3 in the House and 77-23 in the Senate. I was faintly shocked to see that it passed by a greater majority in both houses than the resolution authorizing the 1991 Gulf War.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

I like MfM's idea, with some tinkering of my own. If a PAC spends $x to attack one candidate, then it must give $x to that candidate to counter their attack. So if you feel like donating $100 million to attack Obama, you need to give Obama $100 million to respond with. And if you spend $1.98 to attack the libertarian candidate, he would get $1.98 to respond. The candidates themselves would be exempt, so Romney could run anti-Obama ads, he just has to own up to them.

So then, to be clear, you're saying that whenever the ACLU puts out an ad criticizing a political candidate, they should be required to give the candidate money to fight back.

Similarly, presumably whenever John Stewart ridicules a politician running for office, Comedy Central should give him or her money to run a counter-attack.

If you disagree, please explain your reasoning.

Thanks

[Derleth]

Originally Posted by Terr

Not when, if it is inconvenient, you just interpret it away.

So, what part of the Second Amendment are you interpreting away?

Also, what part of the Constitution gives us the ability to have an Air Force? Black and white, chapter and verse, if you please.

[Stratocaster]

Originally Posted by Derleth

Also, what part of the Constitution gives us the ability to have an Air Force? Black and white, chapter and verse, if you please.

Article I, Section 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; <snip> To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Is this where you argue that the Air Force is not an army?

Initially part of the United States Army, the USAF was formed as a separate branch of the military on 18 September 1947 under the National Security Act of 1947.

Is the argument that it became a constitutional breach the moment the same entity changed its organizational structure? I agree that's an interesting argument, and that I can't find a completely satisfying textualist argument for the Air Force. I believe it required an amendment granting additional powers to Congress. Not everyone agrees:

Citing this text, critics of textualism and originalism claim that the Air Force must be considered unconstitutional under these theories of interpretation. I think there are at least two compelling answers to this claim:

1. At most, the argument suggests that it is unconstitutional to have an independent air force. But air forces that are part of the Army and Navy are surely permissible. That is in fact the arrangement we had during WWII, and could go back to again. The mere fact that planes are a new technology that flies through the air surely does not forbid their use by the military, even under a very narrow view of textualism. Planes that fly through the air are no more constitutionally problematic than bullets that fly through the air, or balloons (whose military use was contemplated even at the time of the Founding).

2. Even an independent air force could potentially be justified by the Necessary and Proper Clause. If, under modern conditions, it really is militarily important to have an independent air service (a point I don't express any opinion on), then the creation of an independent air force is "necessary" to the implementation of Congress' other Article I powers even in the narrow sense of the word, and is also "proper" in the sense that it doesn't seem to infringe on federalism or on other aspects of the constitutional structure.

Hell, I think I could be convinced. It's an interesting debate (to me). But my bias tends toward the notion that if there's not a firm textualist basis for the power, Congress doesn't have it, no matter how much "common sense" suggests it should be so.

[Really Not All That Bright]

That commentary makes a pretty big assumption. Why are planes that fly through the air not more constitutionally problematic than bullets? No framing-era definition of "army" or "navy" included aircraft, but every army had bullets.

It then makes a totally circular argument by asserting that aircraft could be necessary and proper to carry out other Article I powers; the only relevant Article I power is that to provide for an army and navy.

[Derleth]

Stratocaster: My point is, it's still interpretation. They're still interpreting away something in the original text by imputing the idea of support for an Air Force onto it. The difference between our positions is a matter of degree, not of kind as they insist.

[Stratocaster]

Originally Posted by Derleth

Stratocaster: My point is, it's still interpretation. They're still interpreting away something in the original text by imputing the idea of support for an Air Force onto it. The difference between our positions is a matter of degree, not of kind as they insist.

But my point is, that shouldn't have been done it in that instance either. If we wanted Congress to be able to create and pay for an Air Force (and I do), we should have amended the Constitution. If the framers wanted the power to be broader they could have assigned the power to "raise and support military forces necessary to provide for the common defense." But they didn't, they specifically called out an army and then a navy. That level of precision is necessarily limiting, ISTM.

So my point is that there's no strenuous interpretation required. There is no constitutional basis for forming an air force, ISTM, so it should not have been permitted. That fact that it was, however much I like the idea (and I do!), should not be license for future legislatures (or courts) to endorse such an approach. IOW, this is not a textualist gotcha, not for me at least.

And to close up the loop, IMO First Amendment protections ought to be similarly handled. We don't get to install law that we wish the text permitted. All written words require some level of interpretation, yes. But I oppose the type of interpretation that infers from "free speech shall not be abridged" that "we can abridge free speech." Or that in eminent domain issues "for public use" can be interpreted to mean "not for public use." That is a difference in kind, for me. That is no longer interpretation, that is ignoring the simple words.

[Stratocaster]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

That commentary makes a pretty big assumption. Why are planes that fly through the air not more constitutionally problematic than bullets? No framing-era definition of "army" or "navy" included aircraft, but every army had bullets.

It then makes a totally circular argument by asserting that aircraft could be necessary and proper to carry out other Article I powers; the only relevant Article I power is that to provide for an army and navy.

I think I agree. In particular, it stretches the "necessary and proper" clause to an illogical degree, in much the way the commerce clause is often misused.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Except there is no reason to assume there is only one political opponent. I am, without qualification, against putting anything in the constitution that explicitly reinforces a two party system. I guess that makes me unscrupulous.

Straightforward solution: ad taxes get allocated proportionally to the share of the vote won during the past n elections. n=1,2,3,4 or whatever. This doesn't necessarily prop the 2 party system. In fact, it would do the opposite by increasing the incentive to vote for spoiler candidates.

You could also allocate funds according to who is being attacked. That would involve some judgment calls on the part of the regulators, which raises some reasonable concerns.

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

One of the problems that Citizens United demonstrates is that SCOTUS doesn't care to distinguish between political advertising and political commentary which is ostensibly not advocating for any particular candidate.

...and the regulator would presumably have to make some calls here as well... ETA:

Originally Posted by Ibn

So then, to be clear, you're saying that whenever the ACLU puts out an ad criticizing a political candidate, they should be required to give the candidate money to fight back.

Similarly, presumably whenever John Stewart ridicules a politician running for office, Comedy Central should give him or her money to run a counter-attack.

If you disagree, please explain your reasoning.

Yes for the ACLU running an ad. No for John Stewart offering political commentary which he isn't paying for.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

ETA: Yes for the ACLU running an ad. No for John Stewart offering political commentary which he isn't paying for.

Comedy Central certainly is paying for it and they are a corporation.

Why wouldn't you sanction them for spending money to try an influence an election if you believe that corporations shouldn't be allowed to spend money to do so?

Your position seems extremely hypocritical.

Please explain why you think it's ok for some corporations to spend money to influence elections but not others.

Thanks.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Comedy Central certainly is paying for it and they are a corporation.

Why wouldn't you sanction them for spending money to try an influence an election if you believe that corporations shouldn't be allowed to spend money to do so?

Your position seems extremely hypocritical.

Please explain why you think it's ok for some corporations to spend money to influence elections but not others.

Thanks.

It isn't hard. Comedy Central is selling a product -Jon Stewart- to advertisers. That's completely different from taking out an advertisement. Substantively, one is subject to market forces, while the other is essentially a form of consumption (if the buyer is an individual) or investment (if the buyer is a corporation).

Since we're here to fight ignorance, I hope you don't mind if I offer an argument you might have sympathy with:

Consider this hypothetical. Rupert Murdoch owns the New York Post and decides to use his newspaper to campaign for the election of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani to the U.S. Senate. He has the First Amendment right to do so, which no one can dispute, and which federal election laws recognize. Suppose Mayor Giuliani's opponent Hillary Clinton wants to respond to the New York Post'selectioneering. If she owned a newspaper, she could do so. If a friend and supporter owned a newspaper, he or she could do so. Suppose, however, that she has a very wealthy individual supporter who doesn't own a newspaper, but who is willing to give her the money to run a full-page ad on behalf of her candidacy. If he does so, he violates the law, because current campaign finance laws place strict limits on the size of contributions, and the cost of even a single full-page ad exceeds those limits. The result? One candidate gets an entire newspaper's support every day, while the other is denied even one page once during the campaign. How can it be that if you buy a newspaper, you get to provide unlimited support for the candidate of your choice but if you buy a billboard to do the same thing, you commit a crime?

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/test...on-senate-comm

My answer is twofold: a) I'm suspicious of hypotheticals: if this were a real problem, we would see it more. As it is, New York has a variety of newspapers with differing points of view, and one newspaper towns tend to have less ideological offerings.

b) That said, Britain has some of the problems expressed by the ACLU. My take though is that their political process is corrupted far less than the US. Their mainstream media considers a broader range of ideologies for example. Still, a serious compare and contrast of US vs UK would be illuminating.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

It isn't hard. Comedy Central is selling a product -Jon Stewart- to advertisers. That's completely different from taking out an advertisement. Substantively, one is subject to market forces, while the other is essentially a form of consumption (if the buyer is an individual) or investment (if the buyer is a corporation).

So then you supported the Supreme Court saying that the FEC couldn't sanction the non-profit corporation, Citizens United since they weren't "taking out an advertisement" but were "selling a product" specifically the documentary, Hillary: The Movie.

Similarly, you're disgusted that McCain-Feingold gave the FEC broad discretion to sanction not just ads but whatever they deemed to be "electioneering communications", specifically attempts to influence an election.

Certainly, John Stewart, like Michael Moore, and the non-profit corporation Citizens United were trying to influence elections and they were using corporate money to do so.

Anyway, I'm glad to see that you actually supported the SCOTUS decision and thought it was a great "fuck you" to the book burners trying to shut down political expression.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

So then you supported the Supreme Court saying that the FEC couldn't sanction the non-profit corporation, Citizens United since they weren't "taking out an advertisement" but were "selling a product" specifically the documentary, Hillary: The Movie.

Similarly, you're disgusted that McCain-Feingold gave the FEC broad discretion to sanction not just ads but whatever they deemed to be "electioneering communications", specifically attempts to influence an election.

That follows not. You asked for a distinction. I gave you one. Now you're moving on to other arguments.

Citizens United was sued not for making a documentary -nobody has problems with that- but for using it as a transparent front for running political ads against Hillary Clinton. Again it's not hard: paying for an advertisement is fundamentally different than selling a product.

Certainly, John Stewart, like Michael Moore, and the non-profit corporation Citizens United were trying to influence elections and they were using corporate money to do so.

Again, the distinction is between an advertisement and a journal, magazine, movie or whatever.

Look I'm sure they're arguments to be made here. But let's keep in mind this bright-line distinction.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

That follows not. You asked for a distinction. I gave you one. Now you're moving on to other arguments.

Citizens United was sued not for making a documentary -nobody has problems with that- but for using it as a transparent front for running political ads against Hillary Clinton. Again it's not hard: paying for an advertisement is fundamentally different than selling a product. Again, the distinction is between an advertisement and a journal, magazine, movie or whatever.

Look I'm sure they're arguments to be made here. But let's keep in mind this bright-line distinction.

So, it's perfectly OK in your world for the New Koch Times or Koch News to "offer a product" that also advocates for political causes? Sort of like what the New York Times and FoxNews does now. Ditto for The Soros Times and Soros News.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Because:

That's not an answer. The first amendment is a law, so it is obviously referring to the legal concept of a person. The thirteenth amendment is also a law, so it is also referring to the legal concept of a person. The constitution makes no such distinction.

The guy was quoting basic logic at you. If A is B, and B is C, then A is C. A=corporations, B=persons, and C=illegal to own.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by BigT

That's not an answer. The first amendment is a law, so it is obviously referring to the legal concept of a person. The thirteenth amendment is also a law, so it is also referring to the legal concept of a person. The constitution makes no such distinction.

The guy was quoting basic logic at you. If A is B, and B is C, then A is C. A=corporations, B=persons, and C=illegal to own.

Except that a corporation isn't a person. It has certain legal aspects of personhood, but not all. The premise if flawed. A≠ B. You might be able to get away with saying A ⊆ B, so go ahead and see where logic takes you from there.

[LeeshaJoy]

Originally Posted by BigT

That's not an answer. The first amendment is a law, so it is obviously referring to the legal concept of a person. The thirteenth amendment is also a law, so it is also referring to the legal concept of a person. The constitution makes no such distinction.

The guy was quoting basic logic at you. If A is B, and B is C, then A is C. A=corporations, B=persons, and C=illegal to own.

I'm a girl, FWIW.

And yeah, if we're going to assert that corporations are people, and deserving of the rights granted to people by the Constitution, then stock ownership should be unconstitutional. To say otherwise is, IMO, to imply that there are circumstances where it's legal for one person to own another, and to trade persons as commodities. Do we really want to set that precedent?

[LeeshaJoy]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Except that a corporation isn't a person. It has certain legal aspects of personhood, but not all. The premise if flawed. A≠ B. You might be able to get away with saying A ⊆ B, so go ahead and see where logic takes you from there.

Point me to where it says that the thirteenth amendment only applies to "natural persons." The amendment makes no attempt to define slavery, let alone who can be subject to it.

[Stratocaster]

Originally Posted by LeeshaJoy

I'm a girl, FWIW.

And yeah, if we're going to assert that corporations are people, and deserving of the rights granted to people by the Constitution, then stock ownership should be unconstitutional. To say otherwise is, IMO, to imply that there are circumstances where it's legal for one person to own another, and to trade persons as commodities. Do we really want to set that precedent?

This is the dumbest argument against corporate "personhood" (or whatever gotcha it's trying to trot out) I have yet come across. The people who make up corporations have the rights enumerated in the Constitution, just like any other association of people. Let me go on the record as saying I am dead against those people being sold into slavery.

You have a flawed concept of what "corporate personhood" implies. Here's a hint: the fact that the word "person" is in it doesn't magically make this legal entity a human being.

Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may sue and be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. This doctrine in turn forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are "people" in the literal sense, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

That follows not. You asked for a distinction. I gave you one. Now you're moving on to other arguments.

Citizens United was sued not for making a documentary -nobody has problems with that- but for using it as a transparent front for running political ads against Hillary Clinton. Again it's not hard: paying for an advertisement is fundamentally different than selling a product. Again, the distinction is between an advertisement and a journal, magazine, movie or whatever

And by those standards, Michael Moore was using his "product" Fahrenheit 911 as "a transparent front for running political ads against" George Bush.

I'll assume then that you feel that the FEC should have sanctioned the corporation that produced that movie.

Similarly, the corporation producing The Daily Show, pretty blatantly has, by your standards, used their product as a political ad.

Again, the distinction is between an advertisement and a journal, magazine, movie or whatever

This statement shows rather extreme ignorance about McCain-Feingold. According to McCain-Feingold there was no difference between "an advertisement" and "a journal, magazine, movie or whatever" if the "journal, magazine, movie or whatever" was used, according to FEC regulators to try and influence an election. According to McCain-Feingold, in order to be sanctioned the "electioneering communications" didn't even have to explicitly call on people to vote for or against a candidate.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by BigT

That's not an answer. The first amendment is a law, so it is obviously referring to the legal concept of a person.

Can you point out exactly which words in:

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech

refer to the legal concept of a person.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by BigT

That's not an answer. The first amendment is a law, so it is obviously referring to the legal concept of a person. The thirteenth amendment is also a law, so it is also referring to the legal concept of a person. The constitution makes no such distinction.

I can't parse this post at all. You know the first and thirteenth amendments are parts of the Constitution, right?

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by BigT

That's not an answer. The first amendment is a law, so it is obviously referring to the legal concept of a person. The thirteenth amendment is also a law, so it is also referring to the legal concept of a person. The constitution makes no such distinction.

The guy was quoting basic logic at you. If A is B, and B is C, then A is C. A=corporations, B=persons, and C=illegal to own.

Where in those amendments does it refer to the legal concept of a person?

A human being is a natural person. A corporation is a legal person. They are not the same thing. Neither the First nor Thirteenth say otherwise.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by BigT

That's not an answer. The first amendment is a law, so it is obviously referring to the legal concept of a person. The thirteenth amendment is also a law, so it is also referring to the legal concept of a person. The constitution makes no such distinction.

The guy was quoting basic logic at you. If A is B, and B is C, then A is C. A=corporations, B=persons, and C=illegal to own.

So then if you're arguing that "corporations" aren't protected by the First Amendment and don't have constitutional protections, doesn't that apply to all the other amendments.

For example, doesn't that mean that corporations aren't protected from having their property searched or seized without warrant or just compensation.

By your logic, doesn't this mean that the town of Warwick, Rhode Island, without even obtaining a warrant could send the local police into an Olive Garden, declare it to be seized and order everyone in it to vacate the premises forthwith?

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Still, a serious compare and contrast of US vs UK would be illuminating.

The public owns the airwaves and has determined that paid campaign advertising is illegal and that there should be party political broadcasts (our head of government is selected by the majority party, so there are no presidential elections).

Advertising expenditure on posters and whatnot are paltry compared to the US.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

The public owns the airwaves

Does public own the cablewaves too?

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

And by those standards, Michael Moore was using his "product" Fahrenheit 911 as "a transparent front for running political ads against" George Bush.

Sigh. For the third time, no. Not unless you can show that Michael Moore pitched a huge and bogus televised ad campaign for Fahrenheit 911, complete with a link to the You-Tube vid. That is what Citizen's United was about, not their actual documentary which nobody watched.

Originally Posted by John Mace

So, it's perfectly OK in your world for the New Koch Times or Koch News to "offer a product" that also advocates for political causes? Sort of like what the New York Times and FoxNews does now. Ditto for The Soros Times and Soros News.

Thank you for grasping the heart of the matter.

1. The New York Times editorial page doesn't ever support striking unions, so claims that it is a left wing rag reflect poorly on the sanity of those who make such an argument.

2. Not just my world: the UK has highly partisan newspapers owned by publishers who use them as a megaphone. Often said publishers make their fortune elsewhere, then decide that they'd really like to own a newspaper. That's what happens when you put a clamp on campaign expenditures: the money flows elsewhere. I maintain that such circumstances are imperfect, but nonetheless relatively less corrupt than what we have in the US. And I can hold up the UK as an empirical example.

3. Koch News, Soros News: bingo. Something like that would happen. In the case of Koch though it happens anyway: observe the Cato foundation etc. They just haven't achieved full vertical integration yet.

[Measure for Measure]

Here's another monkey wrench. As a matter of policy I would treat written political advertising different than radio or TV advertising. While all are bogus, temporally limited ad pitches discourage critical thinking of the underlying claims. So for example I wouldn't tax newspaper ads or even mailed political flyers, only radio and TV ads. We'll see how web ads develop over time.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by LeeshaJoy

Point me to where it says that the thirteenth amendment only applies to "natural persons." The amendment makes no attempt to define slavery, let alone who can be subject to it.

Point me to where it says it applies to "persons."

It just says neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist in the United States. I guess it would be for the courts to decide if "slavery" includes stock ownership.

Has any court so decided?

No?

Guess you're out of luck.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

1. The New York Times editorial page doesn't ever support striking unions, so claims that it is a left wing rag reflect poorly on the sanity of those who make such an argument.

New York Times presidential endorsements:


Lyndon Johnson (D) over Barry Goldwater (R) in 1964
Hubert Humphrey (D) over Richard Nixon (R) in 1968
George McGovern (D) over Richard Nixon (R) in 1972
Jimmy Carter (D) over Gerald Ford (R) in 1976
Jimmy Carter (D) over Ronald Reagan (R) in 1980
Walter Mondale (D) over Ronald Reagan (R) in 1984
Michael Dukakis (D) over George H. W. Bush (R) in 1988
Bill Clinton (D) over George H. W. Bush (R) in 1992
Bill Clinton (D) over Bob Dole (R) in 1996
Al Gore (D) over George W. Bush (R) in 2000
John Kerry (D) over George W. Bush (R) in 2004
Barack Obama (D) over John McCain (R) in 2008
Barack Obama (D) over Mitt Romney (R) in 2012 (a certainty)
And Whoever (D) over Whoever (R) in 2016, right?

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

1. The New York Times editorial page doesn't ever support striking unions, so claims that it is a left wing rag reflect poorly on the sanity of those who make such an argument.

It doesn't matter if they are left or right. They advocate for political causes and endorse candidates for election. How dare a corporation do that!

2. Not just my world: the UK has highly partisan newspapers owned by publishers who use them as a megaphone. Often said publishers make their fortune elsewhere, then decide that they'd really like to own a newspaper. That's what happens when you put a clamp on campaign expenditures: the money flows elsewhere. I maintain that such circumstances are imperfect, but nonetheless relatively less corrupt than what we have in the US. And I can hold up the UK as an empirical example.

3. Koch News, Soros News: bingo. Something like that would happen. In the case of Koch though it happens anyway: observe the Cato foundation etc. They just haven't achieved full vertical integration yet.

Point being, you can't silence "corporation" without silencing newspapers.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Sigh. For the third time, no. Not unless you can show that Michael Moore pitched a huge and bogus televised ad campaign for Fahrenheit 911, complete with a link to the You-Tube vid. That is what Citizen's United was about, not their actual documentary which nobody watched.

I have to admit that I nearly pissed myself laughing at this.

I apologize, I didn't realize just how little you knew about this argument.

I certainly assumed that you knew that Fahrenheit 911 was supported by a massive ad campaign sponsored by Miramax.

In fact, Citizens United made the documentary, Hillary: the Movie, in part to demonstrate the hypocrisy of those advocating campaign finance reform.

That said, obviously you should not be included in that since you've made it clear that you think the FEC was wrong not to ban all TV ads promoting Fahrenheit 911 and are outraged that they didn't sanction Miramax for doing so.

If of course, you are so stupid, intellectually inconsistent and hypocritical that you still think that the FEC was right in not banning ads for the movie Fahrenheit 911, then I'm interested in hearing what passes for logical arguments from you defending this position.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Point being, you can't silence "corporation" without silencing newspapers.

No, you can't silence "Corporation" without silencing "Editorial page". Unless you want to say that the editorial page reflects the views of the editors, not the publishers. I don't buy that either.

ibn Fahrenheit 911 was the highest grossing documentary of all time. The ad campaign was demonstrably, factually not a shill. That said, Citizens United was correct to investigate the matter in 2004.

The 30 second CU ad only mentioned the film at the very end: it was a Trojan Horse for a conventional negative advertisement. Cite: http://www.hillarythemovie.com/trailer.html
I see that their 10 second ads were pretty conventional though.

According to wikipedia:

The movie was highly critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, with the District Court describing the movie as an elongated version of a negative 30-second television spot. In January 2008, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the television advertisements for Hillary: The Movie violated the BCRA restrictions of "electioneering communications" within 30 days of a primary. Though the political action committee claimed that the film was fact-based and nonpartisan, the lower court found that the film had no purpose other than to discredit Clinton's candidacy for president.[9]

Judging from the trailers, I believe the lower court. Now SOCUS could have over-ruled them on narrow grounds of course. Or they could have agreed, and laid down some kind of guidance. Instead they decided to advance their pet theories of corporate personhood.

Bricker: All sound decisions by the what is possibly the world's finest newspaper. Endorsing a Democrat is hardly evidence of being a left-wing rag, especially given the stature of the Times' business pages and their consistent aversion to supporting striking workers.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Point being, you can't silence "corporation" without silencing newspapers.

Then again: c'mon. You don't think a first year law student couldn't craft a bright-line principle regarding editorials? That's rather naive. Heck, I would think Bricker could do it in about 30 seconds.

[2sense]

Originally Posted by Bricker

This is simply another cry for, "I don't care what the text says, do it my way!" (Option 1)

Options 2 and 3 are absolutely honest and consistent with our notions of self-government.

Originally Posted by XT

The thing is, we have a process by which the Constitution can be changed, and Amendments added, modified or even struck down.

Um, Option 1 (reinterpreting) is the main process we have for changing the Constitution. The formal amendment process is simply too cumbersome to address the needs of our nation. If only Options 2 or 3 were legitimate then it would have been "Burn the Constitution!!!" long ago when the national bank was disallowed, or the Louisiana Purchase, or the American System, or the annexation of Texas, or Reconstruction, or the New Deal. To support the Constitution is to support the legitimacy of Option 1. Without it there is no Constitution.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

ibn Fahrenheit 911 was the highest grossing documentary of all time. The ad campaign was demonstrably, factually not a shill. That said, Citizens United was correct to investigate the matter in 2004.

Er... you previously said that had there been an ad campaign promoting Fahrenheit 911 then it should have been sanctioned, but now you're saying it shouldn't have been after it was pointed out that it had a much more expensive and wider done ad campaign then Hillary the Movie.

At this point all I can do is laugh at the stupidity and the hypocrisy.

So, according to the logic of Measure for Measure, documentaries criticizing Republican candidates are kosher while documentaries criticizing Democratic candidates should be sanctioned.

Reasoning like that is why we should all celebrate the Citizens United ruling giving the finger to the book burners.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Endorsing a Democrat is hardly evidence of being a left-wing rag, especially given the stature of the Times' business pages and their consistent aversion to supporting striking workers.

Endorsing every Democrat probably is, though.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Bricker: All sound decisions by the what is possibly the world's finest newspaper. Endorsing a Democrat is hardly evidence of being a left-wing rag, especially given the stature of the Times' business pages and their consistent aversion to supporting striking workers.

Endorsing every single Democratic presidential since 1964? All sound decisions? No evidence of bias towards the Democrats in that?

Well, then, I think you've shown how your personal analytic process works insofar as judging left-wing vs. right wing.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by 2sense

Um, Option 1 (reinterpreting) is the main process we have for changing the Constitution. The formal amendment process is simply too cumbersome to address the needs of our nation. If only Options 2 or 3 were legitimate then it would have been "Burn the Constitution!!!" long ago when the national bank was disallowed, or the Louisiana Purchase, or the American System, or the annexation of Texas, or Reconstruction, or the New Deal. To support the Constitution is to support the legitimacy of Option 1. Without it there is no Constitution.

I absolutely disagree. And you will, too, when I get five like-minded justices on the Court and they discover a right to life in the Fourteenth Amendment for unborn children.

[dngnb8]

Freedom of Speech. I think they should amend the First Amendment to say


You are Free to say whatever you wish as long as I agree with it.

After all, that is how most people interpret it.

[Mijin]

Well no-one interprets it as "The unrestricted right to say anything in any situation" because that clearly would be unworkable.

[Max Torque]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I absolutely disagree. And you will, too, when I get five like-minded justices on the Court and they discover a right to life in the Fourteenth Amendment for unborn children.

Well, first they'd have to declare the unborn child a "person", which full-circles us back to the "personhood" argument again! Oh, the symmetry of it all....