Posted on 06/16/2003 8:29:54 AM PDT by AntiGuv
Ask yourself how difficult is has been for Conservatives to overturn Row V. Wade; or other landmark decisions.
I don't think it is entirely clear that the purpose of the court was to interpret laws however I think even in the case of say exxon it is clear. The first amendment makes no exception for money that is funneled through a corporation. If the law is designed to abridge speech by a group or individual it is by definition unconstitutional otherwise the exception would have been made as it was in regards to other constitutional provisions ie "In times of rebellion".
You are again using the "I said so" form of support for your arguments. If you want to hang Bush with his own words, shouldn't you be requird to give him the benefit of the doubt absent anything else ?
I think interpretation of laws has to be literalist while the words of politicians clearly can be read into. If you want to be literalist however he did state he had serious questions about the bill. Given that his job is to protect the constitution those questions alone should have been enough to veto it.
I realize I am providing a paraphrase of his comment but do you honestly come to a different conclusion of his meaning than I do?
In politics, there is -- by definition -- no such thing as a fair fight. HOWEVER, there is such a thing as ruling justly.
A politician that hews to the Consitution and BoR, rules justly. A politician that abrogates the Constitution and BoR, rules unjustly and sets us on the road to tyranny.
I don't care about a fair fighter. I care about making sure I do not help elect a would-be tyrant.
If you want to call that the 'ends justifying the means' so be it. Democrats must be defeated. Bush does a good job of that, so he is my man.
That really goes to the heart of the problem.
As a political 'group of folks' we would have to be strictly protected by assembly and free-speech rights.
Yet groups are incorporating as non-profits because it isn't practical (I assume: ie OSHA, liability, taxes...) to just be 'a group of folks'.
So, Catch 22, the groups rights aren't stricly protected.
That isn't the question I asked. I asked how you can arrrive at the conclusion that the bill of rights was meant to be extended to an imaginary being, a corporation. They did exist at the time.
If the bill of rights are not individual rights but are considered corporate rights then the argument that the second amendment only applies to "people" in the plural is the natural result of applying your logic and we have no individual right to own a gun.
There is a distinction between corporations which are imaginary beings created by state charter and which have special protections under the law including unlimited lives and real live human beings like you and I.
It is a leap on your part to conclude that these rights are supposed to be extended to corporations in the same manner as individuals. This SC has likewise said that corporations have been treated differently since the early 1900's so that this is not a new result for the SC.
I'm not particularly married to one view or the other on this case except as an example to demonstrate to you that their are issues that cannot be resolved by following the explict words and they do need to be applied to real life examples.
In doing so, making your personal judgement that Bush signed an unconstitutional bill, if upheld by the courts to be constitutional requires you to claim superior wisdom over the majority court.At the very least, to be consistant, you should call for the impeachment of the judges that voted on yes on this case. And you should acknowledge that good men might honestly disagree with you.
Regarding corporations. They are nothing more than a collection of individuals pooling their money for a common purpose. If I give my money to a corporation to forward my political agenda and the corporation is then restricted in its ability to do so you have abridged my ability to spread my message by cutting off an outlet for me to do so.
Or alternatively the first amendment just says congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech it does not say "only for people". Since it doesn't explicitly exclude corporations they must also be included unless you believe in a living breathing document where "only people" is implied.
Interesting argument but I don't think it applies. If I say that "People have two arms" It does not mean that 280 million people share the same two limbs.
While Bush is not someone I would call evil, I sure would call him someone who compromises too much of the Constitution away. If CFR does get a SCOTUS approval, as it stands, the 1st Amendment will be quite seriously damaged, and Bush would have been instrumental in causing that damage. Many people who voted for Bush because they expected a respect for the Constitution and BoR out of the man, will likely sit on their hands in the next few election cycles -- namely, 2004 and 2006.
If you believe that Bush is an enemy of the Constitution, would you rather have Democrats with the power to just end it now?
Honestly, I hold out no hope for either party; never did. I just want lower taxes, and less regulation. I've got no children, and I'll be long gone before official socialism returns.
They are more than that. Under state charters they have special protections and their shareholders have limited liability.
If I give my money to a corporation to forward my political agenda and the corporation is then restricted in its ability to do so you have abridged my ability to spread my message by cutting off an outlet for me to do so.
I believe one of the arguments regarding this is that you have no control over what happens with your money once you turn it over. They are free to spend it as they see fit for whatever cause they see fit. Or alternatively the first amendment just says congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech it does not say "only for people". Since it doesn't explicitly exclude corporations they must also be included unless you believe in a living breathing document where "only people" is implied.
The constitution doesn't provide that corporations are protected from having any limitations imposed on them. Just as they are creations of government, they can be destroyed by government or government can impose on them conditions in order to exist. Such laws are imposed on all corporations since the early 1900's that have imposed restrictions on their spending. This ruling merely clarifies that included in the list of corporations are nonprofits. Why would one corporation have superior rights than another ?
Fast.
Enough shock might shock the populace into action.
Government goals outweigh individual rights, according to the highest court, Congress, and virtually every bureau and agency you can think of. Is this still America?
Broad prophylactic caps on campaign contributions are unconsitional because "they are not narrowly tailored to meet any relevant compelling state interest,"
-in other words:-
Who gave you {congress} the right to write these laws?
Gotta luv those metafores!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.