Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   Obama has destroyed America so thoroughly that California lawmakers propose the first Constitutional Convention since 1787   (latimes.com) divider line 256
    More: Hero, Citizens United, California State Senate, U.S. Constitution, joint resolutions  
•       •       •

4296 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jun 2014 at 1:38 PM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



256 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-24 02:39:25 PM  

Teiritzamna: sendtodave: The people are too stupid. But the ideal is that the people rule themselves.

The leaders are too selfish. But the ideal is that they represent the people first.

Oh agreed - but the whole point of this amendment/CC idea is that the people are too stupid to handle TV ads, and thus we must protect them from themselves.


Yeah, I know.  In this thread, the people are children who are too easily led.

In the next, they'll be the only possible hope against a corrupt, self-serving government.

"Power lies in the proles."

No, not really.
 
2014-06-24 02:39:29 PM  

Voiceofreason01: On the one hand there absolutely need to come up with better ways to finance elections, on the other we should be REALLY damned careful about how we limit free speech rights.


Step 1: Get it through everyone's thick skull: MONEY IS NOT SPEECH.

Everything else should fall into place.
 
2014-06-24 02:41:26 PM  

Headso: As people have mentioned corporations are not given all the rights human people have so why not just pass law that puts restrictions specifically on what a corporation can spend and do within the political realm.


because people dont lose their rights in the aggregate - Bill, you can spend money on a political advert.  Alice?  Same deal.  Bill and Alice working together? You can no longer spend money.

Oh you arent billionaires and joining together was the only way you could fight the messages of those who are?  tough titties.
 
2014-06-24 02:42:12 PM  
A while back I wrote a letter to my local paper saying that the biggest problem in politics is that no matter how low Congress approvial ratings go they still get reelected. My idea is to have a election six months before election day to determine if members of Congress shall be eligible for the upcoming election. If the voters say no then they can not run and are ineligible for federal office for ten years. This would cause members of Congress to work together to make things better because we will have a bigger voice.
 
2014-06-24 02:42:30 PM  

Teiritzamna: Such a license costs $1,000 and you must agree only to support officially sanctioned viewpoints.


Yeah, see, that right there is curtailing your right to express an opinion.

JammerJim: Printing presses, ink, computers and the like aren't speech either, but we wouldn't restrict them.


That is correct. But printing presses, ink, and computers aren't government regulated entities, either. The government owns the airwaves and leases them to private organizations, saying that you can't buy an ad spot on the public airwaves is a far, far cry from saying you can't buy a printer, or Teiritzamna's suggestion that government requiring a license for paper and pencil.

In short:

www.visi.com
 
2014-06-24 02:42:31 PM  

IlGreven: MONEY IS NOT SPEECH.


He said, using money to expand the reach of his expression on the internet, as protected by the First Amendment.
 
2014-06-24 02:42:36 PM  

keldaria: To anyone unfamiliar with how Macro Economies work, a balanced budget amendment is only logical, its just sad that they have no idea just how much of our economy would collapse if the federal budget was taken to slaughtered overnight


So it is instead a better idea to just keep printing money to infinity and eventually arrive at a collapse when things are out of our control?  I'd prefer to prepare for things in advance by making choices now instead of having forced choices later.
 
2014-06-24 02:43:13 PM  

JavierLobo: rogue49: Not Obama, SCOTUS

They need to do a whole Voter's Bill of Rights.
- Transparency
- Limitations
- Eliminate gerrymandering
- Easier voter privs  (national ID, like expand SSN and put a damn pic on it.)
- Make voting day a federal holiday.
- Make voting day through the weekend and that holiday.
- Control some announcements/speculation on media.  (can't state/project winners until end of time)
- And put in some incentive to vote.


And so on...we have so many things skewing and corrupting our votes, it's scary.


Mandatory ballot return.  If you don't return a ballot, you pay a $XX fine.  You don't have to vote in that ballot, but you must return it.


...and then wonder why so many black people have been fined.

/No to compulsory voting.
 
2014-06-24 02:44:03 PM  

Teiritzamna: Deneb81: Not to mention they just run 'issue ads' on their own dimes that align with with a particular candidate's platform. Seeing as how that speech is still 100% legal - and pretty much the entire point of first amendment political speech protections.

At some point you have to realize that the issue is how much unequal the means are. The problem ISN'T that a person can put their money where their mouth is. The PROBLEM is that some people have so much more money than other people that they can drown out most everyone else the same way a monopoly tries to limit competition.

Exactly - the analysis we want is less inequality overall + a return to the principle that regulating election contributions (but not ads) is well within the compelling interest of government.  Not throwing the First Amendment out with the bath water.


The real issue for me is that if you pass reforms that reduce (not eliminate - this isn't a bit for communism) the economic inequality then all of this arbitrary line drawing over what KIND of donation or speech is allowed becomes moot.

You enhance competition for ears and add voices to the discourse by ensuring more people have a the means to share their voice.
 
2014-06-24 02:44:16 PM  

Teiritzamna: Headso: As people have mentioned corporations are not given all the rights human people have so why not just pass law that puts restrictions specifically on what a corporation can spend and do within the political realm.

because people dont lose their rights in the aggregate - Bill, you can spend money on a political advert.  Alice?  Same deal.  Bill and Alice working together? You can no longer spend money.

Oh you arent billionaires and joining together was the only way you could fight the messages of those who are?  tough titties.


If the only options are A) let billionaires spend a bunch of money on elections while barring the little folk from spending and B) let everyone spend as much money as they want on elections, I vote for C) mercy nuke the country to death.
 
2014-06-24 02:44:27 PM  

Teiritzamna: Headso: As people have mentioned corporations are not given all the rights human people have so why not just pass law that puts restrictions specifically on what a corporation can spend and do within the political realm.

because people dont lose their rights in the aggregate - Bill, you can spend money on a political advert.  Alice?  Same deal.  Bill and Alice working together? You can no longer spend money.

Oh you arent billionaires and joining together was the only way you could fight the messages of those who are?  tough titties.


And if it worked that way, I'd agree with you.  But in reality, Bill and Alice don't work together; the billionaires do.
 
2014-06-24 02:45:15 PM  
A constitutional convention, with this congress? Ah, ha ha ha ha, no thanks. Take away corporate "personhood" instead. Corporations are NOT people until you can put one in prison, and I'm looking at YOU Comcast.
 
2014-06-24 02:45:31 PM  

worlddan: Nabb1:

It doesn't. A corporation is nothing but a bunch of people who agree to abide by what is on that piece of paper. And that piece of paper means it can sue and be sued, be bound by contracts, own and lease property. It can't vote. It can't adopt people. It doesn't have all the rights natural persons have.

That is a silly retort. The mere that that a corporation in some areas doesn't have the same power as a natural born person is no evidence that it doesn't have more power in other areas. In fact, when it comes to issues like liability, inheritance, perpetuity, and so on corporations do have more power than a natural born person.


Sure, it may have more raw economic power that most people. But if a Budweiser truck runs you over, do want liability limited to the driver or do you want Budweiser to be liable? Do you think the individual persons whose acts directly caused the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico could satisfy $40 billion in claims? Corporations are bound by contracts when people sign them on their behalf. Should contractual obligations of a company be limited only to the person who signed it? I'm not even sure what you are talking about with regard to inheritance. You'll have to elaborate on that.
 
2014-06-24 02:47:05 PM  
His plan all along...

swordattheready.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-06-24 02:47:09 PM  

Nabb1: worlddan: Nabb1:

It doesn't. A corporation is nothing but a bunch of people who agree to abide by what is on that piece of paper. And that piece of paper means it can sue and be sued, be bound by contracts, own and lease property. It can't vote. It can't adopt people. It doesn't have all the rights natural persons have.

That is a silly retort. The mere that that a corporation in some areas doesn't have the same power as a natural born person is no evidence that it doesn't have more power in other areas. In fact, when it comes to issues like liability, inheritance, perpetuity, and so on corporations do have more power than a natural born person.

Sure, it may have more raw economic power that most people. But if a Budweiser truck runs you over, do want liability limited to the driver or do you want Budweiser to be liable? Do you think the individual persons whose acts directly caused the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico could satisfy $40 billion in claims? Corporations are bound by contracts when people sign them on their behalf. Should contractual obligations of a company be limited only to the person who signed it? I'm not even sure what you are talking about with regard to inheritance. You'll have to elaborate on that.


Budweiser can theoretically declare itself bankrupt and then, through the magic of limited liability, not have to pay out anything for you getting run over by one of their trucks.
 
2014-06-24 02:47:18 PM  

Teiritzamna: IlGreven: MONEY IS NOT SPEECH.

He said, using money to expand the reach of his expression on the internet, as protected by the First Amendment.


So, his speech is equal to all other Farkers.

Wouldn't you say that those with more money have more of a microphone?
 
2014-06-24 02:47:33 PM  
2014-06-24 02:12:50 PM
AlgaeRancher:A mature conversation about where we want to go as a nation is overdue.
/wont happen though since we cannot even agree that people should have reasonably priced health care,


The problem is not a lack of conversation about where we want to go as a nation. The problem is that nobody seems to have the same destination in mind and where we are now seems about as good a compromise as any. You seem to be equating "mature conversation" with people need to be more liberal

People can decide for themselves what they want to "be", that is their business. We are the United States of America. Our strength comes from working together. Society is getting along with people you don't necessarily like or agree with. Fighting opponents until everyone thinks the same way is Tyranny, that is un-American and goes against the founding principals of our great nation.

Mature conversation goes beyond opinions or ideals and looks at the facts and what people need. Don't think anybody has all the answers because they don't. But maybe if we work together we can come up with better defined questions and actually take steps to make this nation a better place.

/or just go back to throwing partisan crap around, like a bunch of monkeys.
 
2014-06-24 02:47:53 PM  

Teiritzamna: IlGreven: MONEY IS NOT SPEECH.

He said, using money to expand the reach of his expression on the internet, as protected by the First Amendment.


Money may buy you a bullhorn, but it doesn't buy what you say through it.

/Again, MONEY IS NOT SPEECH.
 
2014-06-24 02:48:03 PM  

red5ish: A constitutional convention, with this congress? Ah, ha ha ha ha, no thanks. Take away corporate "personhood" instead. Corporations are NOT people until you can put one in prison, and I'm looking at YOU Comcast.


Corporations often provide limitation of civil liability, but corporate officers and employees cannot hide behind corporate structures for criminal liability. Many of the corporate officers responsible for ENRON went to prison. How are you going to imprison a whole corporation? Jail everyone who works for it? From the boardroom to the mailroom? Maybe the shareholders, too. Even those teachers whose union added the stock to the pension portfolio. Please explain what you mean by putting a whole corporation in prison.
 
2014-06-24 02:48:25 PM  

IvyLady: Corvus: rogue49: Not Obama, SCOTUS

They need to do a whole Voter's Bill of Rights.
- Transparency
- Limitations
- Eliminate gerrymandering
- Easier voter privs  (national ID, like expand SSN and put a damn pic on it.)
- Make voting day a federal holiday.
- Make voting day through the weekend and that holiday.
- Control some announcements/speculation on media.  (can't state/project winners until end of time)
- And put in some incentive to vote.


And so on...we have so many things skewing and corrupting our votes, it's scary.

It's harder to "eliminate gerrymandering" then just saying it.

What would really change things is allow others to bring bills to the floor (maybe with like a minimum or so many signatures) instead of only the party in power. This would  cause congress to pass bi-partisan bills instead of just the bills the party in power wanted and get rid of obstructionist congresses.

I agree.  This doesn't require a constitutional convention - it requires Congress mustering up the will and character to change its own rules.

Although....I"m kind of amazed that the Senate's 60 vote rule has never ended up in front of SCOTUS.  I keep wonder if it's because there's no mechanism for that kind of constitutional challenge.


They pretty explicitly get to make up their own rules for how the House and Senate are run.
 
2014-06-24 02:48:47 PM  
So, will the Super Pacs raise money/ spend money to support or defeat this issue? Who has bets of Soros/ Huffington/Brock will be for it or against it?
 
2014-06-24 02:49:00 PM  

Teiritzamna: Headso: As people have mentioned corporations are not given all the rights human people have so why not just pass law that puts restrictions specifically on what a corporation can spend and do within the political realm.

because people dont lose their rights in the aggregate - Bill, you can spend money on a political advert.  Alice?  Same deal.  Bill and Alice working together? You can no longer spend money.

Oh you arent billionaires and joining together was the only way you could fight the messages of those who are?  tough titties.


I don't think passing law that specifically limits the ability of corporations to sway elections has anything to do with individuals pooling money for political purposes.
 
2014-06-24 02:49:27 PM  

Serious Black: Nabb1: worlddan: Nabb1:

It doesn't. A corporation is nothing but a bunch of people who agree to abide by what is on that piece of paper. And that piece of paper means it can sue and be sued, be bound by contracts, own and lease property. It can't vote. It can't adopt people. It doesn't have all the rights natural persons have.

That is a silly retort. The mere that that a corporation in some areas doesn't have the same power as a natural born person is no evidence that it doesn't have more power in other areas. In fact, when it comes to issues like liability, inheritance, perpetuity, and so on corporations do have more power than a natural born person.

Sure, it may have more raw economic power that most people. But if a Budweiser truck runs you over, do want liability limited to the driver or do you want Budweiser to be liable? Do you think the individual persons whose acts directly caused the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico could satisfy $40 billion in claims? Corporations are bound by contracts when people sign them on their behalf. Should contractual obligations of a company be limited only to the person who signed it? I'm not even sure what you are talking about with regard to inheritance. You'll have to elaborate on that.

Budweiser can theoretically declare itself bankrupt and then, through the magic of limited liability, not have to pay out anything for you getting run over by one of their trucks.


You think Budweiser is going to declare bankruptcy over one tort claim? Do you think a bankruptcy judge is going to allow that? How is Budweiser going to avoid that? People can declare bankruptcy, too. Like that Budweiser truck driver if you sue him and can't get to Budweiser.
 
2014-06-24 02:50:46 PM  

nmrsnr: Yeah, see, that right there is curtailing your right to express an opinion.


No - it is curtailing your right to use money to expand that opinion.  If the expenditure of money to expand the reach of your expression is not protected, if, to use the facile construction "money is not speech"  then you have no such right.  If you have no such right, then there is nothing to infringe by putting limits on how you spend money ion the expression of ideas:  You can still have your opinion, but the Government could but barriers to how you get that opinion out in the world.

As to your argument that this is a slippery slope fallacy, the general principle is not - what you call "money is speech" is legally the principle that the expenditure of resources to further expression is just as protected as the original expression itself.

Now, i agree that my post was a tongue in cheek parade of horribles, but if you actually decouple the expenditure of resources in furtherance of expression from original oral expression then there is no natural limit to what the government could preclude.

Also if you want to see how purported slippery slopes are not always fallacies, especially in the context of rights, I would recommend Volokh
 
2014-06-24 02:52:52 PM  

IlGreven: And if it worked that way, I'd agree with you. But in reality, Bill and Alice don't work together; the billionaires do.


which is a problem with Bill and Alice and we should be working to fix that rather than reducing everyone's rights.

IlGreven: Money may buy you a bullhorn, but it doesn't buy what you say through it.

/Again, MONEY IS NOT SPEECH.


So if the Government banned all political speech over the internet tomorrow, you would think it was kosher because, hey it was just the bullhorn, i can totally still have my opinions?
 
2014-06-24 02:53:10 PM  
Relevant, from yesterday's thread:

The core problem with our democracy today is that we have outsourced the funding of campaigns to the tiniest fraction of the 1 percent.

no, the core problem with our democracy today is that people are by and large farking mongloid idiots who will vote for someone their name was mentioned enough on tv commercials or roadside signs



Ugh . . . stupid Fark formatting . . . you know what I mean.
 
2014-06-24 02:53:11 PM  

IlGreven: Teiritzamna: IlGreven: MONEY IS NOT SPEECH.

He said, using money to expand the reach of his expression on the internet, as protected by the First Amendment.

Money may buy you a bullhorn, but it doesn't buy what you say through it.

/Again, MONEY IS NOT SPEECH.


You know that kinda crazy guy that talks to himself on the train?  No one listens to him.

Is that speech?
 
2014-06-24 02:53:15 PM  

Nabb1: ut corporate officers and employees cannot hide behind corporate structures for criminal liability


I know remember all those people from hsbc that went to jail for money laundering
 
2014-06-24 02:54:08 PM  

The Name: the core problem with our democracy today is that people are by and large farking mongloid idiots who will vote for someone their name was mentioned enough on tv commercials or roadside signs


So, uh, the core problem with democracy is the democracy part of it?
 
2014-06-24 02:54:16 PM  

Headso: I don't think passing law that specifically limits the ability of corporations to sway elections has anything to do with individuals pooling money for political purposes.


What the heck do you think corporations are, magic entities from outer vega?

They are, alomst by definition, made up of individuals pooling their money for a purpose.
 
2014-06-24 02:55:31 PM  
I can't buy food with my freedom of speech.
 
2014-06-24 02:55:35 PM  

Nabb1: Serious Black: Nabb1: worlddan: Nabb1:

It doesn't. A corporation is nothing but a bunch of people who agree to abide by what is on that piece of paper. And that piece of paper means it can sue and be sued, be bound by contracts, own and lease property. It can't vote. It can't adopt people. It doesn't have all the rights natural persons have.

That is a silly retort. The mere that that a corporation in some areas doesn't have the same power as a natural born person is no evidence that it doesn't have more power in other areas. In fact, when it comes to issues like liability, inheritance, perpetuity, and so on corporations do have more power than a natural born person.

Sure, it may have more raw economic power that most people. But if a Budweiser truck runs you over, do want liability limited to the driver or do you want Budweiser to be liable? Do you think the individual persons whose acts directly caused the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico could satisfy $40 billion in claims? Corporations are bound by contracts when people sign them on their behalf. Should contractual obligations of a company be limited only to the person who signed it? I'm not even sure what you are talking about with regard to inheritance. You'll have to elaborate on that.

Budweiser can theoretically declare itself bankrupt and then, through the magic of limited liability, not have to pay out anything for you getting run over by one of their trucks.

You think Budweiser is going to declare bankruptcy over one tort claim? Do you think a bankruptcy judge is going to allow that? How is Budweiser going to avoid that? People can declare bankruptcy, too. Like that Budweiser truck driver if you sue him and can't get to Budweiser.


I didn't say they would do it. I just said they theoretically could. And if the claim were large enough, yes, I think just about any corporation would choose to go bankrupt.
 
2014-06-24 02:57:24 PM  

Teiritzamna: Headso: I don't think passing law that specifically limits the ability of corporations to sway elections has anything to do with individuals pooling money for political purposes.

What the heck do you think corporations are, magic entities from outer vega?

They are, alomst by definition, made up of individuals pooling their money for a purpose.


Well, as it stands, they're pooling their money to make more money, typically.  So, the corporation, speaking for the individuals, would say "Change the rules so that I may acquire more money!  Society be damned!"

Problem is, people live in society.

People prefer making money to caring about society, I've noticed.
 
2014-06-24 02:57:36 PM  

Serious Black: I like this proposal: use a computer algorithm that draws districts which are as compact as possible. It's a neutral criterion that can't be gamed whatsoever with arguments about communities of interest or adhering to natural landmarks. Here are some candidate results from the algorithm:

img.washingtonpost.com


It can be gamed by the people who develop the algorithm (complicated, but possible, especially if there is regular "maintenance" to the algorithm or the system[s] on which it lives).

Also, by the look of the MD map, someone decided that a line between Silver Spring and Rockville was a good idea (as well as separating out downtown Silver Spring into the Southern MD district). I get that districts don't need to be shaped down to the foot, but at least put the lines away from major population centers, and try not to divide up contiguous (though unincorporated) areas.

// I like the idea of putting the district borders along major thoroughfares (wide roads, train tracks), even bodies of water
 
2014-06-24 02:57:50 PM  

Serious Black: I didn't say they would do it. I just said they theoretically could. And if the claim were large enough, yes, I think just about any corporation would choose to go bankrupt.


So would any person if their liabilities so outweigh their assets and income that payment would be impossible. And only certain classes of debts are discharged altogether. Most bankruptcy proceedings are reorganization to pay off the debts.
 
2014-06-24 02:58:06 PM  

Teiritzamna: Headso: I don't think passing law that specifically limits the ability of corporations to sway elections has anything to do with individuals pooling money for political purposes.

What the heck do you think corporations are, magic entities from outer vega?

They are, alomst by definition, made up of individuals pooling their money for a purpose.


Ok, still not seeing what that has to do with limiting their ability to participate in the political process has to do with individuals participating in the political process.
 
2014-06-24 02:58:13 PM  
"Amendment 28:  No black guys.

Can we go home now?"
 
2014-06-24 03:00:03 PM  

Nabb1: worlddan: Nabb1:

It doesn't. A corporation is nothing but a bunch of people who agree to abide by what is on that piece of paper. And that piece of paper means it can sue and be sued, be bound by contracts, own and lease property. It can't vote. It can't adopt people. It doesn't have all the rights natural persons have.

That is a silly retort. The mere that that a corporation in some areas doesn't have the same power as a natural born person is no evidence that it doesn't have more power in other areas. In fact, when it comes to issues like liability, inheritance, perpetuity, and so on corporations do have more power than a natural born person.

Sure, it may have more raw economic power that most people. But if a Budweiser truck runs you over, do want liability limited to the driver or do you want Budweiser to be liable? Do you think the individual persons whose acts directly caused the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico could satisfy $40 billion in claims? Corporations are bound by contracts when people sign them on their behalf. Should contractual obligations of a company be limited only to the person who signed it? I'm not even sure what you are talking about with regard to inheritance. You'll have to elaborate on that.


Okay, let's talk about Budweiser.  Let's say Budweiser decided they wanted to challenge restrictions on TV advertising for alcohol during children's programs.  Of course it would be a PR disaster, but for the sake of argument, let's say they went to court on First Amendment grounds.  Given recent opinions, how do you think the Roberts court would rule?
 
2014-06-24 03:04:34 PM  

shroom: Okay, let's talk about Budweiser. Let's say Budweiser decided they wanted to challenge restrictions on TV advertising for alcohol during children's programs. Of course it would be a PR disaster, but for the sake of argument, let's say they went to court on First Amendment grounds. Given recent opinions, how do you think the Roberts court would rule?


Why should the speech issue be any different if it's a corporation like Budweiser or some really wealthy guy who wants to see Zima commercials during "My Little Pony"? (Also, that's a commercial speech issue, and they'll probably lose, even with the Roberts Court.)
 
2014-06-24 03:06:50 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Serious Black: I like this proposal: use a computer algorithm that draws districts which are as compact as possible. It's a neutral criterion that can't be gamed whatsoever with arguments about communities of interest or adhering to natural landmarks. Here are some candidate results from the algorithm:

img.washingtonpost.com

It can be gamed by the people who develop the algorithm (complicated, but possible, especially if there is regular "maintenance" to the algorithm or the system[s] on which it lives).

Also, by the look of the MD map, someone decided that a line between Silver Spring and Rockville was a good idea (as well as separating out downtown Silver Spring into the Southern MD district). I get that districts don't need to be shaped down to the foot, but at least put the lines away from major population centers, and try not to divide up contiguous (though unincorporated) areas.

// I like the idea of putting the district borders along major thoroughfares (wide roads, train tracks), even bodies of water


Here's a link that discusses this specific algorithm. For those who don't want to follow, it draws districts by grouping census blocks, the smallest geographic units used by the Census Bureau, together in such a manner that no other grouping results in the residents of the state having a lower average distance to the center of their district. I don't think this system can really be gamed unless you somehow get a bunch of people to infiltrate the Census Bureau and redraw the blocks in a manner that will benefit you. That seems quite unlikely.
 
2014-06-24 03:11:33 PM  

Nabb1: shroom: Okay, let's talk about Budweiser. Let's say Budweiser decided they wanted to challenge restrictions on TV advertising for alcohol during children's programs. Of course it would be a PR disaster, but for the sake of argument, let's say they went to court on First Amendment grounds. Given recent opinions, how do you think the Roberts court would rule?

Why should the speech issue be any different if it's a corporation like Budweiser or some really wealthy guy who wants to see Zima commercials during "My Little Pony"? (Also, that's a commercial speech issue, and they'll probably lose, even with the Roberts Court.)


Advertising is a different class of speech than political speech, under the first Amendment.   Also, the difference between Budweiser suing and some guy suing is that the First Amendment protects the speaker, not the listener.  

But whatever, the Roberts court would say the first Amendment protects Budweiser's right to have a cartoon mouse tell kids over public airwaves hat beer will make their mom love them more.  Then Roberts would offer blow the CEO to apologize for Congress making Budweiser go through the trouble of getting said opinion
 
2014-06-24 03:11:57 PM  

Teiritzamna: No - it is curtailing your right to use money to expand that opinion.


No, forcing you to agree to certain limits on your speech before being given a grant to speak is curtailing your right to express yourself, but let's not get caught up on your absurd hypothetical.

Teiritzamna: If the expenditure of money to expand the reach of your expression is not protected, if, to use the facile construction "money is not speech" then you have no such right.


This is akin to saying that since the government has laws that state that you can't own a bazooka, you have no right to bear arms. That ANY restriction or ruling saying that money is not equivalent to speech means that ALL restrictions on the use of money to enable the expression of an opinion are forbidden. To maintain this argument you'd have to agree that explicit bribery is acceptable, since that is merely expenditure of money to express how important a decision is to you. Which is equally as ridiculous a position the other direction.

Teiritzamna: what you call "money is speech" is legally the principle that the expenditure of resources to further expression is just as protected as the original expression itself.


Which is also a ridiculous standard. Imagine I hijacked a tv feed to make my message, since that's illegal you are curtailing all venues for me to state my opinion. By your logic, since there is one venue by which I have been barred in making my speech, the government is now welcome to bar an and all venues by which I might address the public, since if one is not protected, all are not protected. The principal that "any means by which you can get your opinion expressed" is not protected does not impinge on the freedom to express an idea. The logical underpinning of your argument just isn't true.
 
2014-06-24 03:12:03 PM  

Nabb1: shroom: Okay, let's talk about Budweiser. Let's say Budweiser decided they wanted to challenge restrictions on TV advertising for alcohol during children's programs. Of course it would be a PR disaster, but for the sake of argument, let's say they went to court on First Amendment grounds. Given recent opinions, how do you think the Roberts court would rule?

Why should the speech issue be any different if it's a corporation like Budweiser or some really wealthy guy who wants to see Zima commercials during "My Little Pony"? (Also, that's a commercial speech issue, and they'll probably lose, even with the Roberts Court.)


Because corporations are not people, and they should have no inalienable rights.
 
2014-06-24 03:13:58 PM  

wxboy: Gary-L: wxboy: An amendment would still have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states, and that's pretty unlikely for pretty much anything at the moment.

Pass the Amendment and then put a 10 or 15 year sunset provision for ratification.  Read your history as it can be done.

Sure, it can be done, but the types of things that seem to be "most desired" are too politically charged to have any chance.

Abolish the Electoral College?  That's a favorite of whatever party it would most benefit at the time, which nearly always means they don't control 2/3 or either house of Congress and also don't control 3/4 of state legislatures, making it a non-starter.

Campaign finance reform/overturn CU?  If enough people in power were seriously interested in that to get an amendment through, it would already have happened.  The people with the power to initiate such a thing are the same people whom it would most negatively affect.



Abolition of the Electoral College is as stupid as allowing for the direct election of Senators.
 
2014-06-24 03:14:16 PM  

Headso: Ok, still not seeing what that has to do with limiting their ability to participate in the political process has to do with individuals participating in the political process.


You cannot have a rational interpretation of the First Amendment that protects Alice and Bob in expressing themselves on their own as individuals, but that does not protect Alice and Bob when expressing themselves together.

The very fact that Alice and Bob have teamed up should not mean they lose their First Amendment rights.
 
2014-06-24 03:16:55 PM  

shroom: Nabb1: shroom: Okay, let's talk about Budweiser. Let's say Budweiser decided they wanted to challenge restrictions on TV advertising for alcohol during children's programs. Of course it would be a PR disaster, but for the sake of argument, let's say they went to court on First Amendment grounds. Given recent opinions, how do you think the Roberts court would rule?

Why should the speech issue be any different if it's a corporation like Budweiser or some really wealthy guy who wants to see Zima commercials during "My Little Pony"? (Also, that's a commercial speech issue, and they'll probably lose, even with the Roberts Court.)

Because corporations are not people, and they should have no inalienable rights.


The First Amendment doesn't grant rights. It limits the authority of the State to restrict speech. There is a difference. The "press" is not a person, either. How shall we treat MSNBC? Is it press? Is it a subdivision of a corporation?
 
2014-06-24 03:17:32 PM  

Gary-L: Abolition of the Electoral College is as stupid as allowing for the direct election of Senators.


Is the direct election of the governor of [insert your state here] stupid? What about your state legislators? Or your mayor? Or your city councilmen? Or your school board members?
 
2014-06-24 03:18:04 PM  

Teiritzamna: Headso: Ok, still not seeing what that has to do with limiting their ability to participate in the political process has to do with individuals participating in the political process.

You cannot have a rational interpretation of the First Amendment that protects Alice and Bob in expressing themselves on their own as individuals, but that does not protect Alice and Bob when expressing themselves together.

The very fact that Alice and Bob have teamed up should not mean they lose their First Amendment rights.


Nothing prevents them from teaming up.    Nothing requires you to form a corporation to team up with another person.  However, if Alice and Bob form a corporation to make Widgets that has no effect on their rights as citizens and as human beings.  It does not create a new person and here's the big thing: It should not confer additional rights on them.  The person that forms a corporation should not have twice the voice of the person who does not.  As it stands, if a corporation has the same rights as its owner  - independent of its owner - people who can afford to control corporations get additional voices.  That's some crazy shiat right there.
 
2014-06-24 03:18:35 PM  

Teiritzamna: The very fact that Alice and Bob have teamed up should not mean they lose their First Amendment rights.


It should not give them enhanced First Amendment rights, either.
 
2014-06-24 03:19:45 PM  

Jairzinho: whidbey: Unfortunately, when I hear "Constitutional Convention" it brings to mind a bunch of people brandishing weapons.

The teatards brandish them anyway.
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 800x600]


Indeed, a reasonable person has a fearful reaction to the idea of changing the Constitution by the explicitly proscribed method.
 
Displayed 50 of 256 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report