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  
•       •       •

4304 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jun 2014 at 1:38 PM (1 year 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
 
2014-06-25 10:24:10 AM  

Teiritzamna: While i like the way the argument is crafted, as a later drafted amendment, the First Amendment trumps the Commerce Clause.


Well, in practice, not quite "trumps"; but Central Hudson Gas & Electric v Public Service Commission of NY seems to make it clear that state legislatures (much less the federal Congress) can't ban commercial speech outright. So, it would clearly need more work.

Clearly, political activity is lawful; contrariwise, "misleading" is commonplace -- but nohow, makes for a problematic threshold in speech. This in turns suggests another (silly) possibility. How about an argument that accurate information in politics is a substantial governmental and public interest; and that since it would be so dangerous for the government to determine the threshold of "misleading" in political speech, the narrowest possible regulation to advance the interest while avoiding the hazard would be the categorical ban of political speech/contributions by commercial entities?

Teiritzamna: At which point the shareholders can either A) bring a derivative action alleging that the company is improperly using their money


It looks like thehobbes was referring to employees, rather than shareholders.

However, that brings up another couple points. Might a private group effect the same ends by buying one share in every publicly traded company that does this, waiting one election cycle, and then filing a mass of such lawsuits?

And might a narrow federal ban be implemented on speech where the corporation specifically purports to represent the interest of its employees?
 
2014-06-25 10:41:15 AM  

abb3w: Well, in practice, not quite "trumps"; but Central Hudson Gas & Electric v Public Service Commission of NY seems to make it clear that state legislatures (much less the federal Congress) can't ban commercial speech outright. So, it would clearly need more work.


Yeah. Also it is highly unlikely that political advocacy, even if it was for candidates that one believed would be beneficial to later financial performance would be commercial speech.

abb3w: How about an argument that accurate information in politics is a substantial governmental and public interest; and that since it would be so dangerous for the government to determine the threshold of "misleading" in political speech, the narrowest possible regulation to advance the interest while avoiding the hazard would be the categorical ban of political speech/contributions by commercial entities?


Once again, i like its cleverness, but it is a fairly disingenuous argument, as there are already a series of federal agencies entirely predicated on determining whether advertisements are false or misleading and a long history of federal law distinguishing misleading, false and fraudulent speech from mere opinion or fact.  So to argue that all of that could not handle political advertising seems like it would be too cute to work. 

Also narrowness works the exact opposite way - it is not narrowness of action (ban everything) it is narrowness of impact.  The incredibly expensive and complex option that leaves the maximum amount of speech available is the narrowest under First Amendment scrutiny. 

abb3w: However, that brings up another couple points. Might a private group effect the same ends by buying one share in every publicly traded company that does this, waiting one election cycle, and then filing a mass of such lawsuits?


They could, i suppose, but as they would lose the vast majority of them (the standard for a derivative suit is not "you did something i didnt like, but you did something that hurt my investment) it would be far more expensive for the private group than it would be for the companies and they would crater under the weight of the filing costs alone. 

abb3w: And might a narrow federal ban be implemented on speech where the corporation specifically purports to represent the interest of its employees?


Likley not - again that would be the realm of contract or corporate law.  I.e. if your company said that it only takes political positions based on a vote of all employees, and then it donates to a candidate that 56% of the employees disagree with, that would be a matter for contract law - the company breached its agreement to its staff.  Now i suppose the federal government could draft a law creating a special right of action for such employees so they could get some sort of special damages or injunctions, but i would figure that if the law was onerous to actually have teeth, such companies would stop making such promises real fast.
 
2014-06-25 10:42:40 AM  

Teiritzamna: Once again, i like its cleverness, but it is a fairly disingenuous argument, as there are already a series of federal agencies entirely predicated on determining whether advertisements are false or misleading and a long history of federal law distinguishing misleading, false and fraudulent speech from mere opinion or fact. So to argue that all of that could not handle political advertising seems like it would be too cute to work.


Note, when i say it is disingenuous i was not suggesting that you were being disingenuous btw, more that i was talking like a lawyer without thinking for a sec there. 

/Wanted to make sure i wasn't coming off as insulting, as you always tend to bring the good arguments
 
2014-06-25 12:18:20 PM  

SauronWasFramed: and on the third hand, once a convention is convened. there is no way to stop the delegates from dumping the whole thing


And that still doesn't mean anything, since it still has to be submitted to the individual states for approval, like any amendment would.
 
2014-06-25 03:29:08 PM  

Serious Black: SauronWasFramed: and on the third hand, once a convention is convened. there is no way to stop the delegates from dumping the whole thing

So? That's what our ancestors did with the Articles of Confederation. They were solely tasked to come up with amendments to that document, and they said "Fark this shiat" before writing an entirely new document.


So?  Do you think you will have freedom of speech or assembly if those opposed to such frivilous concepts get through with it?  How about the police have the right to search you, your car, your home, your office, your computer without a warrant? 

There is a danger to a constitutional convention:  Say goodbye to the right to own a handgun, and others.
 
2014-06-25 09:25:13 PM  
How could California propose the first Constitutional Convention since 1787? California didn't become a state until 1850!
 
Displayed 6 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