Why is this such a difficult concept for liberals to grasp?
by Peter Lounsbury
63518066
# 1. 1/21/10 7:13 PM by Eric - Rochester, NY
Senator Chuck Schumer, the same guy who said it's not proper to question the Supreme Court, is going to hold hearings regarding today's decision. He says the ruling is "un-American".
hypocrite. Editor's Note: The arguments they are making are based on folks who agree with them in prior decisions (case law). The concept of actually interpreting the Constitution using the historical frame of reference of the intent of the writers of the Constitution is simply a concept that they are unable to fathom it seems. Thanks Eric!
Well that and the concept of the separation of powers :)
Here's the actual quote from Chief Justice Marshall in 1819: "A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created." Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 636 (1819).
Okay, that was his opinion in 1819. The Constitution doesn't say that or imply it. Does it?
1387599
# 2. 1/21/10 8:42 PM by Jim Mattison
To tell you the truth, I'm not all that far off from the Dems on this one. But of course they wouldn't dream of restricting their own contributors. I don't think campaign contributions by PACs of any sort should be allowed. They are simply vehicles to allow purchase of legislation and the opinions of the constituency get lost behind a sea of green. Corporations are, in a sense, PACs. While I think individuals should not be restricted, these lobbying formations are the driving force behind pressing the politicians to violate Constitutional construct. Let the share holders contribute individually, the union members individually, everybody...individually. I also don't like the fact that these organizations take money from groups NOT formed as political action entities (Corps and unions two good example) and contribute according to the wishes of the controllers when the individuals within the group may, or may not agree with what is being lobbied for. I don't think alleviating some of the power money has to direct legislation would be a bad thing. I'm not sure I know how to scipt such a law, but in principle I would support it. Editor's Note: I agree with most of what you said Jim. I totally agree that the "how" in scripting such a law would be difficult, but I see nothing in the Constitution that speaks to there being a Constitutional argument to prohibit corporations from contributing. Yes, the problems are real and need to be addressed, but we need to address it properly despite our personal feelings about it.
The problem is that when you start doing things like this, where does it end? The Constitution is silent in regards to creating respecting the conduct of powerful corporations, but ignoring their inherent freedoms is not the answer.
Thanks Jim!
1466275
# 3. 1/22/10 2:32 AM by John The Sophomore
 "With enough money, any law can be changed."
"With enough money, any office can be attained."
"Not only are term limits now unconstitutional, the 22nd Amendment can now be overturned; with enough corporate money."
"We The Corporations, Of The Corporations, By The Corporations, For the Corporations."(with corporate immunity for the little peoples laws. Like fraud, graft, corruption, embezzlement, influencing.)
Welcome to Corporate Democracy.
"Anything that can happen in NYC; the BIG city state, can happen to the whole apple barrel.
"Marc Rich my words."
Thanx John Editor's Note: Media outlets, which are OVERWHELMINGLY liberal have no restrictions on them. So now Xerox and GM can buy a few ads. Still, the mainstream media is the largest voice in this country, they are unelected, and somehow we manage to get it right from time to time. The way to fix things is to fix the rule set if need be, not abandon them. Liberal Supreme Court justices have a bad habit of trying to do the right thing despite the Constitutionality of their decision. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
54916728
# 4. 1/22/10 10:52 AM by Tom Dey - Springwater, NY
It is distinctly constitutional. In a rare lucid moment the justices actually performed their sworn duty. This may lead to extraordinairly corrupt elections - but that's a separate matter. Editor's Note: EXACTLY!!!
|
