Life, Liberty, Politics and Policy in the Land of Enchantment!
80% of Americans Don't Understand Constitution...Is it any surprise we are where we are?
Yahoo often has interesting stories on its front page. Today, an article appeared noting that 80% of Americans oppose the recent Supreme Court decision that opens the door for foreign and domestic corporations, labor unions, and other organizations to spend money directly from their general funds to influence campaigns. I know, it sounds pretty shady...allowing anyone to "buy" elections, right? Pretty dangerous stuff.
But was the Supreme Court correct? Simply put, the first amendment to the Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
"Congress shall make no law..." I kind of wish they'd just stopped there. Anyway, this is meant to be an expansive protection. There are no exceptions, so corporations, unions and the like are all protected. Simple stuff really, but of course our friends in the media will see their power diminished somewhat and are not explaining the issue.
While I disagree with him, at least lame duck Sen. Chris Dodd has embarked upon the one justifiable way to reverse this ruling, with a constitutional amendment of his own.
But was the Supreme Court correct? Simply put, the first amendment to the Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
"Congress shall make no law..." I kind of wish they'd just stopped there. Anyway, this is meant to be an expansive protection. There are no exceptions, so corporations, unions and the like are all protected. Simple stuff really, but of course our friends in the media will see their power diminished somewhat and are not explaining the issue.
While I disagree with him, at least lame duck Sen. Chris Dodd has embarked upon the one justifiable way to reverse this ruling, with a constitutional amendment of his own.
Views: 0
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Thomas Molitor on -
Remember, this made its way up to the SCOTUS by way of 527 group, Brought by Citizens United and its Hillary The Movie challenge to the FEC. SCOTUS broadened the case as a 1st Amendment isssue. The decision is an official coronation of corporatocracy is all. I don't think it's a 1st Amendment issue at all.
-
Permalink Reply by Lee Kershner on -
In agreement with you but can't get past the corporation as person issue. Welcome any of you to defend it in simple terms.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Gessing on -
Political speech is still speech. Corporations and unions engage in speech. Regarding free speech, the 1st amendment simply states: Congress shall make no law...
Regardless of whether corporations are "persons" under the law or not, under the first amendment it is pretty clear that they have the same rights to free speech as "persons." Seems pretty straightforward to me.
-
Permalink Reply by Thomas Molitor on
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Blessing on -
The people that comprise the corporation's officers, employees, contractors, clients, etc., still have the right to free speech as protected (or supposed to be protected) by the First Amendment, right?
Or do only the people opposing the corporation in question have those rights? That seems to be the fashionable ("politically correct") theory these days.
Groups
-
Job Creation
1 member
-
Support Unfairly Targete…
10 members
-
Liberty Talent
4 members
-
Open Source Users
4 members
-
Boston Tea Party
9 members
© 2012 Created by The Rio Grande Foundation.
