Comments on: Time to amend the Constitution: Quickly http://esrati.com/time-to-amend-the-constitution-quickly/4191/ Dayton Ohio revealed and discussed. Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:36:38 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: jstults http://esrati.com/time-to-amend-the-constitution-quickly/4191/#comment-54972 jstults Mon, 01 Feb 2010 01:01:56 +0000 http://esrati.com/?p=4191#comment-54972 From another interesting article on the recent ruling: <blockquote> Mr. Abrams points out that the first restrictions on corporate and union political speech—overturned along with McCain-Feingold in <em>Citizens United</em>—were part of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, a measure that aimed at curtailing labor's power. Taft-Hartley "was vetoed by Harry Truman on the ground that it violated the First Amendment," but the Republican-controlled Congress overrode the veto. That's a cautionary tale for anyone who seeks advantage by restricting the freedom of others—including media corporations that supported McCain-Feingold because they were exempt from it. If corporations have no First Amendment rights, it is dubious to suggest that media corporations do have such rights. <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029791336276632.html" rel="nofollow">The Media and Corporate Free Speech</a> </blockquote> From another interesting article on the recent ruling:

Mr. Abrams points out that the first restrictions on corporate and union political speech—overturned along with McCain-Feingold in Citizens United—were part of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, a measure that aimed at curtailing labor’s power. Taft-Hartley “was vetoed by Harry Truman on the ground that it violated the First Amendment,” but the Republican-controlled Congress overrode the veto.
That’s a cautionary tale for anyone who seeks advantage by restricting the freedom of others—including media corporations that supported McCain-Feingold because they were exempt from it. If corporations have no First Amendment rights, it is dubious to suggest that media corporations do have such rights.
The Media and Corporate Free Speech

Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: jstults http://esrati.com/time-to-amend-the-constitution-quickly/4191/#comment-54823 jstults Sat, 30 Jan 2010 19:02:17 +0000 http://esrati.com/?p=4191#comment-54823 Thanks Will.  That's why <a href="../../supreme-stupidity-best-politicians-money-can-buy/4165/#comment-54072" rel="nofollow">I linked to the actual opinion over in the original thread on this topic</a>.  So much <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt" rel="nofollow">FUD</a> can be so quickly dispensed with by going to the <em>primary sources.</em> Thanks Will.  That’s why I linked to the actual opinion over in the original thread on this topic.  So much FUD can be so quickly dispensed with by going to the primary sources.

Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Will Brooks http://esrati.com/time-to-amend-the-constitution-quickly/4191/#comment-54815 Will Brooks Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:30:38 +0000 http://esrati.com/?p=4191#comment-54815 I like Faux news about as much as I do CNN. But here is an interesting link.   http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/28/andrew-napolitano-obama-state-union-campaign-finance-alito-supreme-court/   Here is an excerpt: <blockquote>On Wednesday night, during his State of the Union address, the president attacked this decision by arguing that the ruling permits foreign nationals and foreign corporations to spend money on American campaigns. When he said this, Justice Samuel Alito, who was seated just 15 feet from the president, gently whispered: “That’s not true.” Justice Alito was right. The Supreme Court opinion, which is 183 pages in length, specifically excludes foreign nationals and foreign-owned corporations from its ruling. So the president, the former professor of law at the one of the country’s best law schools, either did not read the opinion, or was misrepresenting it.</blockquote>   I like Faux news about as much as I do CNN. But here is an interesting link.
 
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/28/andrew-napolitano-obama-state-union-campaign-finance-alito-supreme-court/
 
Here is an excerpt:

On Wednesday night, during his State of the Union address, the president attacked this decision by arguing that the ruling permits foreign nationals and foreign corporations to spend money on American campaigns. When he said this, Justice Samuel Alito, who was seated just 15 feet from the president, gently whispered: “That’s not true.” Justice Alito was right. The Supreme Court opinion, which is 183 pages in length, specifically excludes foreign nationals and foreign-owned corporations from its ruling. So the president, the former professor of law at the one of the country’s best law schools, either did not read the opinion, or was misrepresenting it.

 

Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Sarah http://esrati.com/time-to-amend-the-constitution-quickly/4191/#comment-54365 Sarah Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:19:03 +0000 http://esrati.com/?p=4191#comment-54365 JAMIE RASKIN!!! JAMIE RASKIN!!! David I may have pulled every hair out of my head on this one.  Professor Raskin taught one of the most radial law school courses that I ever attended.  Oh man is is almost as bad as the posting on the credibility of CREW. Fav thing that Professor Raskin did at the Washington College of law was hold an annual "dinner party" for his students every year.  Let your mind wander and you might get an idea of the credibility professionalism of the guy. ACK and ICK (I sound like Bill-the-Cat!) JAMIE RASKIN!!! JAMIE RASKIN!!!

David I may have pulled every hair out of my head on this one. 

Professor Raskin taught one of the most radial law school courses that I ever attended. 

Oh man is is almost as bad as the posting on the credibility of CREW.

Fav thing that Professor Raskin did at the Washington College of law was hold an annual ”dinner party” for his students every year.  Let your mind wander and you might get an idea of the credibility professionalism of the guy.

ACK and ICK (I sound like Bill-the-Cat!)

Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: David Esrati http://esrati.com/time-to-amend-the-constitution-quickly/4191/#comment-54264 David Esrati Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:54:03 +0000 http://esrati.com/?p=4191#comment-54264 <p>@Bandito - Gottlieb get's paid when pols buy ads from Cox. I don't.</p> <p>I say ban all donations. Back to Lincoln-Douglas style debates, and get everything in writing-</p> <p>they screw up- we sue them.</p> <p>Let the taxpayers buy the media- and deliver the forum. Screw the sound bite bs.</p> @Bandito – Gottlieb get’s paid when pols buy ads from Cox. I don’t.

I say ban all donations. Back to Lincoln-Douglas style debates, and get everything in writing-

they screw up- we sue them.

Let the taxpayers buy the media- and deliver the forum. Screw the sound bite bs.

Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Ice Bandit http://esrati.com/time-to-amend-the-constitution-quickly/4191/#comment-54251 Ice Bandit Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:33:37 +0000 http://esrati.com/?p=4191#comment-54251 The three most aggravating and annoying sounds to inflict the auditory canal are a first grader's fingernails on a blackboard, the dentist firing up his drill, and the never ending whining of leftists on the Supreme Court's recent ruling in the Citizens United case. Eventually the seven year old gets bored and the dentist eventually goes home, but liberals have their  burkas in a bundle 24 and 7 over this issue. The fact that this has been accepted case law since the time of Chief Justice John Marshall has no bearing on the Esrati-Olberman Outrage Axis, the constitution has to be amended quickly. Only problem with that is, the founders made it so that document cannot be easily or quickly changed. And neither left or right even considers a constitutional convention. The left is afraid the right will try to pack the document with amendments protecting school prayer and outlawing abortion. The rights is afraid the left will try to add amendments enshrining gay marraige and affirmative action. But of all the hyperbole coming out of the boo-hoo brigade, David, yours is far from being the most outrageous. That distinction goes to Marty Gottleib of the Dayton Daily News. Here is a guy who writes opinions in the employ of a giant corporation (Cox Publishing) who opines that other people working for corporations shouldn't be able to express their opinions 30 days before an election. That kinda public hypocrisy requires either giant cajones, a sense of entitlement, a lack of shame, or all of the above. In Marty's case, the Old Bandito believes it is all of the aforementioned.... The three most aggravating and annoying sounds to inflict the auditory canal are a first grader’s fingernails on a blackboard, the dentist firing up his drill, and the never ending whining of leftists on the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the Citizens United case. Eventually the seven year old gets bored and the dentist eventually goes home, but liberals have their  burkas in a bundle 24 and 7 over this issue. The fact that this has been accepted case law since the time of Chief Justice John Marshall has no bearing on the Esrati-Olberman Outrage Axis, the constitution has to be amended quickly. Only problem with that is, the founders made it so that document cannot be easily or quickly changed. And neither left or right even considers a constitutional convention. The left is afraid the right will try to pack the document with amendments protecting school prayer and outlawing abortion. The rights is afraid the left will try to add amendments enshrining gay marraige and affirmative action. But of all the hyperbole coming out of the boo-hoo brigade, David, yours is far from being the most outrageous. That distinction goes to Marty Gottleib of the Dayton Daily News. Here is a guy who writes opinions in the employ of a giant corporation (Cox Publishing) who opines that other people working for corporations shouldn’t be able to express their opinions 30 days before an election. That kinda public hypocrisy requires either giant cajones, a sense of entitlement, a lack of shame, or all of the above. In Marty’s case, the Old Bandito believes it is all of the aforementioned….

Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: David Esrati http://esrati.com/time-to-amend-the-constitution-quickly/4191/#comment-54225 David Esrati Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:28:48 +0000 http://esrati.com/?p=4191#comment-54225 <p>@Jstults- the finance reporting is almost impossible to really check out- all kinds of games played.</p> <p>The whole thing needs to be scrapped. It's cheaper for the taxpayer to pay for campaigns- and put them all on a level field.</p> @Jstults- the finance reporting is almost impossible to really check out- all kinds of games played.

The whole thing needs to be scrapped. It’s cheaper for the taxpayer to pay for campaigns- and put them all on a level field.

Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: jstults http://esrati.com/time-to-amend-the-constitution-quickly/4191/#comment-54224 jstults Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:25:10 +0000 http://esrati.com/?p=4191#comment-54224 Dan, that was kind of my point, that's what happens right now with PACs.  If the corporation were funding the speech directly <em>and</em> their were disclosure requirements, then it would actually be more transparent in trying to figure out what special interest is paying for the commercial you are watching.   David: <blockquote> it may grant the corporations the ability to give enough money to a candidate so that the message is from Mike Turner for Congress… no mention of the sponsor. </blockquote> Wouldn't the candidate still have to disclose the source of donations, even if not on individual ads?  Is that stuff disclosed before or after the election?  From your daily show on the financials of running for office, it seems like that info is made public <em>after</em> the election (which is a little less useful). <blockquote> We’re not getting our money’s worth. </blockquote> Somebody sure is... Dan, that was kind of my point, that’s what happens right now with PACs.  If the corporation were funding the speech directly and their were disclosure requirements, then it would actually be more transparent in trying to figure out what special interest is paying for the commercial you are watching.
 
David:

it may grant the corporations the ability to give enough money to a candidate so that the message is from Mike Turner for Congress… no mention of the sponsor.

Wouldn’t the candidate still have to disclose the source of donations, even if not on individual ads?  Is that stuff disclosed before or after the election?  From your daily show on the financials of running for office, it seems like that info is made public after the election (which is a little less useful).

We’re not getting our money’s worth.

Somebody sure is…

Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: David Esrati http://esrati.com/time-to-amend-the-constitution-quickly/4191/#comment-54208 David Esrati Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:43:06 +0000 http://esrati.com/?p=4191#comment-54208 <p>I think you are missing the point- it may grant the corporations the ability to give enough money to a candidate so that the message is from Mike Turner for Congress... no mention of the sponsor.</p> <p>Either way- elections cost too much. We're not getting our money's worth. It's bad enough with the lobbyists.</p> I think you are missing the point- it may grant the corporations the ability to give enough money to a candidate so that the message is from Mike Turner for Congress… no mention of the sponsor.

Either way- elections cost too much. We’re not getting our money’s worth. It’s bad enough with the lobbyists.

Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Dan http://esrati.com/time-to-amend-the-constitution-quickly/4191/#comment-54206 Dan Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:08:25 +0000 http://esrati.com/?p=4191#comment-54206 @jsults The problem is that the 'political speech' would be: “Drilling in ANWAR is the coolest!! (paid for by By Americans for America*)” ? *buried at the bottom of their website- paid for in part by ExxonMobil @jsults
The problem is that the ‘political speech’ would be:
“Drilling in ANWAR is the coolest!! (paid for by By Americans for America*)” ?

*buried at the bottom of their website- paid for in part by ExxonMobil

Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: jstults http://esrati.com/time-to-amend-the-constitution-quickly/4191/#comment-54203 jstults Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:25:47 +0000 http://esrati.com/?p=4191#comment-54203 This seems like a storm in a teacup, corporations have always been able to form political action committees and spend, spend, spend.  Now the Republic is threatened because they don't have to take that step?  Sure the disclosure laws are significant for PACs, but there's no reason they can't be significant for corporate political speech, this recent opinion positively acknowledged that the government can regulate and require disclosure, they just can't censor completely.   How effective do you think this 'political speech' would be: "Drilling in ANWAR is the coolest!! (paid for by Exxon)" ? This seems like a storm in a teacup, corporations have always been able to form political action committees and spend, spend, spend.  Now the Republic is threatened because they don’t have to take that step?  Sure the disclosure laws are significant for PACs, but there’s no reason they can’t be significant for corporate political speech, this recent opinion positively acknowledged that the government can regulate and require disclosure, they just can’t censor completely.
 
How effective do you think this ‘political speech’ would be: “Drilling in ANWAR is the coolest!! (paid for by Exxon)” ?

Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Dan http://esrati.com/time-to-amend-the-constitution-quickly/4191/#comment-54156 Dan Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:04:51 +0000 http://esrati.com/?p=4191#comment-54156 If you use Digg you might want to dig this up: http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_Solution_A_Free_Speech_for_People_Amendment_freespeec If you use Digg you might want to dig this up:
http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_Solution_A_Free_Speech_for_People_Amendment_freespeec

Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>