Obama's Clash With Alito Triggers Firestorm
leona...@gmail.com
Obama's Clash With Alito Triggers Firestorm
Thursday, 28 Jan 2010 03:53 PM
Article Font Size
By: David A. Patten
The White House is aggressively defending President Obama's sharp
criticism of the Supreme Court during Wednesday's State of the Union
address, which appeared to prompt Justice Samuel Alito to mouth the
reply: "That is not true." (See the video below)
The remarkable sight of a Supreme Court justice and the president of
the United States contradicting each other during a State of the Union
address, especially over a ruling from the constitutionally
independent judiciary, immediately set talking heads abuzzing on cable
television, and touched off a firestorm of commentary on the Internet.
"I don't recall any president ever attacking the Supreme Court so
directly at a State of the Union," Tom Fitton, president of the
Judicial Watch organization, tells Newsmax. "Obama's attack was a
disgrace that undermines the rule of law."
In his address Wednesday, the president prefaced his remarks with the
statement, “With all due deference to separation of powers. . .”
He then remarked: “Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of
law to open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign
corporations, to spend without limit in our elections."
øø [But unions have no such restrictions]
"Well,” he continued in reference to the controversial Citizens United
v. Federal Election Commission decision, “I don't think American
elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests,
or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American
people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a
bill that helps to right this wrong."
Immediately after the speech, the liberal blogosphere erupted.
Salon commentator Glenn Greenwald commented that Justice Alito's
reaction was more serious than South Carolina GOP Congressman Joe
Wilson's blurting out "You lie!" during Obama's speech to Congress
last year.
Greenwald labeled it "a serious and substantive breach of protocol
that reflects very poorly on Alito and only further undermines the
credibility of the Court."
Firebrand liberal Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y, meanwhile, was quoted by
Politico saying that Alito "deserved to be criticized, if he didn't
like it, he can mouth whatever they want.
"These Supreme Court justices sometimes forget that we live in the
real world," Weiner said. "They got a real world reminder tonight, if
you make a boneheaded decision, someone's going to call you out on
it."
The president's open scolding of the judicial branch — and Alito's
response — triggered a sharp reaction from conservatives as well.
"I tell you, this is why people are disenchanted and are becoming more
and more disengaged really from what their government is doing,"
former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin told Fox News' Sean
Hannity. "Because when we see an issue like this, words spoken that
may not be true, coming from our president and embarrassing our
Supreme Court and not respecting the separation of powers, we have a
problem. And that is illustrated there by that justice mouthing those
words, 'Not true.'"
"The president’s swipe at the Supreme Court was a breach of decorum,"
wrote election-law expert Bradley A. Smith of the Center for
Competitive Politics wrote on National Review's The Corner, “and
represents the worst of Washington politics — scapegoating ‘special
interest’ bogeymen for all that ails Washington in attempt to silence
the diverse range of speakers in our democracy.”
A broad range of experts challenged the accuracy of the president's
assertions Thursday.
The Politifact.org fact-checking organizing evaluated Obama's
statements and determined they were "barely true," adding, "We found
Obama was exaggerating the impact of the ruling."
The president, who taught constitutional law at the University of
Chicago before he ran for the U.S. Senate, was wrong on two counts,
Judicial Watch's Fitton said: There was no century-old precedent in
the case, and the ruling did not alter restrictions involving
electioneering by foreign-based companies.
It was unclear from the video of the incident whether Alito's response
objection was because of the president's suspect 100-year timetable or
his controversial assertion that the court's decision would allow
foreign corporations to meddle in U.S. elections.
Heritage Foundation senior legal expert Hans A. von Spakovsky tells
Newsmax he can't recall a president scolding the Supreme Court during
a State of the Union message before. "And what makes it even worse is
he was patently wrong," von Spakovsky says. "I mean I'm just amazed
that he would do that, and he's not even right."
The Supreme Court ruling in no way opens the door to foreign
influences in U.S. elections, he says.
"There is a specific provision of the law which was not at issue in
the case which prohibits foreign nations, and is specifically designed
to include foreign corporations, from contributing or donating any
money not just in connection with federal elections, but also with
state and local elections," he tells Newsmax. "…And they can't make
any independent expenditures for an electioneering communication. So
that is just a flat out lie what he said about foreign corporations."
Von Spakovsky also says that the president's claim the precedent was
100 years old was also "flat-out wrong."
The president apparently was referring to was Tillman Act of 1907,
which prohibited direct contributions to a candidate by a corporation.
Most legal scholars agree that last week's Citizens United ruling did
nothing to alter that ban, however. Rather, it allows companies to
spend money on advertising that favors a candidate they like, or that
criticizes a candidate they oppose. Companies are also free now to
place those ads within 30 days of an election.
The McCain-Feingold law that was the focus of the case took effect in
November 2002.
The White House pushed back Thursday morning against the suggestion
that the president had breached decorum by criticizing a ruling by an
independent branch of government.
On ABC's Good Morning America, Vice President Joe Biden insisted, "The
president didn't question the integrity of the court. He questioned
the judgment of it." And Biden added, "I think [the ruling] was dead
wrong and we have to correct it."
An anonymous White House official told Politico, “There is a loophole
that we need to address and are working with Congress to address.
There are U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-controlled corporations that
could influence our elections because of this ruling."
The Supreme Court's public information unit did not respond to a
Newsmax request for further clarification of Alito's remarks. Alito
has not objected to the characterizations of his reaction in the
media.
Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissenting opinion to the Supreme
Court's 5-4 ruling, warned that the ruling appeared to give foreign-
based corporations the same First Amendment protection offered to
individual Americans.
“The Court all but confesses that a categorical approach to speaker
identity is untenable when it acknowledges that Congress might be
allowed to take measures aimed at 'preventing foreign individuals or
associations from influencing our Nation’s political process,'"
Stevens wrote. "… Such measures have been a part of U. S. campaign
finance law for many years. The notion that Congress might lack the
authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of
electioneering would certainly have surprised the Framers.”
The majority of justices obviously did not find Stevens' concerns
persuasive, however.
The incident ironically came as the president attempted to renew his
for bipartisanship on Capitol Hill.
Von Spakovsky tells Newsmax that a larger concern is the president's
attitude toward the independent judiciary branch. As a constitutional
law professor, Obama once lamented on a Chicago radio station that
"unfortunately" the Supreme Court had not sought to impose social-
injustice remedies from the bench.
"I think this is reflective of a liberal or a left-wing ideology, that
when the Constitution is in the way, you ignore it or change it," von
Spakovsky says. "What the Supreme Court was basically doing was
restoring the First Amendment from inroads on it unfortunately put in
by Congress and prior court decisions.
"All of the arguments that have been made critical of this decision,
they all haven't been constitutional arguments. They've all been
policy arguments," says von Spakovsky. "People say, well, they don't
like the policy of corporations being able to speak.
"Well, that's not a Constitutional issue. And the president in saying
he wants to ignore this is basically saying he wants to ignore the
First Amendment. That is dangerous."
Fitton tells Newsmax the presidential upbraiding also could intimidate
justices "for fear of being attacked in person in front of a national
audience."
Peter Franks
> Obama's Clash With Alito Triggers Firestorm
> Thursday, 28 Jan 2010 03:53 PM
> Article Font Size
>
> By: David A. Patten
>
> The White House is aggressively defending President Obama's sharp
> criticism of the Supreme Court during Wednesday's State of the Union
> address, which appeared to prompt Justice Samuel Alito to mouth the
> reply: "That is not true." (See the video below)
>
> The remarkable sight of a Supreme Court justice and the president of
> the United States contradicting each other during a State of the Union
> address, especially over a ruling from the constitutionally
> independent judiciary, immediately set talking heads abuzzing on cable
> television, and touched off a firestorm of commentary on the Internet.
>
> "I don't recall any president ever attacking the Supreme Court so
> directly at a State of the Union," Tom Fitton, president of the
> Judicial Watch organization, tells Newsmax. "Obama's attack was a
> disgrace that undermines the rule of law."
>
> In his address Wednesday, the president prefaced his remarks with the
>
> He then remarked: �Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of
> law to open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign
> corporations, to spend without limit in our elections."
>
>
> "Well,� he continued in reference to the controversial Citizens United
> v. Federal Election Commission decision, �I don't think American
> elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests,
> or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American
> people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a
> bill that helps to right this wrong."
>
> Immediately after the speech, the liberal blogosphere erupted.
>
> Salon commentator Glenn Greenwald commented that Justice Alito's
> reaction was more serious than South Carolina GOP Congressman Joe
> Wilson's blurting out "You lie!" during Obama's speech to Congress
> last year.
>
> Greenwald labeled it "a serious and substantive breach of protocol
> that reflects very poorly on Alito and only further undermines the
> credibility of the Court."
>
> Firebrand liberal Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y, meanwhile, was quoted by
> Politico saying that Alito "deserved to be criticized, if he didn't
> like it, he can mouth whatever they want.
>
> "These Supreme Court justices sometimes forget that we live in the
> real world," Weiner said. "They got a real world reminder tonight, if
> you make a boneheaded decision, someone's going to call you out on
> it."
>
> response � triggered a sharp reaction from conservatives as well.
>
> "I tell you, this is why people are disenchanted and are becoming more
> and more disengaged really from what their government is doing,"
> former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin told Fox News' Sean
> Hannity. "Because when we see an issue like this, words spoken that
> may not be true, coming from our president and embarrassing our
> Supreme Court and not respecting the separation of powers, we have a
> problem. And that is illustrated there by that justice mouthing those
> words, 'Not true.'"
>
> wrote election-law expert Bradley A. Smith of the Center for
> represents the worst of Washington politics � scapegoating �special
> interest� bogeymen for all that ails Washington in attempt to silence
> the diverse range of speakers in our democracy.�
> any independent expenditures for an electioneering communication. So
> that is just a flat out lie what he said about foreign corporations."
>
> Von Spakovsky also says that the president's claim the precedent was
> 100 years old was also "flat-out wrong."
>
> The president apparently was referring to was Tillman Act of 1907,
> which prohibited direct contributions to a candidate by a corporation.
>
> Most legal scholars agree that last week's Citizens United ruling did
> nothing to alter that ban, however. Rather, it allows companies to
> spend money on advertising that favors a candidate they like, or that
> criticizes a candidate they oppose. Companies are also free now to
> place those ads within 30 days of an election.
>
> The McCain-Feingold law that was the focus of the case took effect in
> November 2002.
>
> The White House pushed back Thursday morning against the suggestion
> that the president had breached decorum by criticizing a ruling by an
> independent branch of government.
>
> On ABC's Good Morning America, Vice President Joe Biden insisted, "The
> president didn't question the integrity of the court. He questioned
> the judgment of it." And Biden added, "I think [the ruling] was dead
> wrong and we have to correct it."
>
> that we need to address and are working with Congress to address.
> There are U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-controlled corporations that
> could influence our elections because of this ruling."
>
> The Supreme Court's public information unit did not respond to a
> Newsmax request for further clarification of Alito's remarks. Alito
> has not objected to the characterizations of his reaction in the
> media.
>
> Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissenting opinion to the Supreme
> Court's 5-4 ruling, warned that the ruling appeared to give foreign-
> based corporations the same First Amendment protection offered to
> individual Americans.
>
> identity is untenable when it acknowledges that Congress might be
> allowed to take measures aimed at 'preventing foreign individuals or
> Stevens wrote. "� Such measures have been a part of U. S. campaign
> finance law for many years. The notion that Congress might lack the
> authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of
>
> The majority of justices obviously did not find Stevens' concerns
> persuasive, however.
>
> The incident ironically came as the president attempted to renew his
> for bipartisanship on Capitol Hill.
>
> Von Spakovsky tells Newsmax that a larger concern is the president's
> attitude toward the independent judiciary branch. As a constitutional
> law professor, Obama once lamented on a Chicago radio station that
> "unfortunately" the Supreme Court had not sought to impose social-
> injustice remedies from the bench.
>
> "I think this is reflective of a liberal or a left-wing ideology, that
> when the Constitution is in the way, you ignore it or change it," von
> Spakovsky says. "What the Supreme Court was basically doing was
> restoring the First Amendment from inroads on it unfortunately put in
> by Congress and prior court decisions.
>
> "All of the arguments that have been made critical of this decision,
> they all haven't been constitutional arguments. They've all been
> policy arguments," says von Spakovsky. "People say, well, they don't
> like the policy of corporations being able to speak.
>
> "Well, that's not a Constitutional issue. And the president in saying
> he wants to ignore this is basically saying he wants to ignore the
> First Amendment. That is dangerous."
>
> Fitton tells Newsmax the presidential upbraiding also could intimidate
> justices "for fear of being attacked in person in front of a national
> audience."
Obama is wrong, as are the four dissenting justices. The amendment is
clear and unequivocal:
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press..."
Limiting political expression by a corporation is clearly
unconstitutional. The majority clearly ruled correctly, there is no
question.
IF there is a desire or need to change the breadth of speech, Article V
must be invoked. Period. At which point, protectionist provisions wrt
rights mentioned within the Declaration of Independence are called into
play.
Josh
Would a Congressional law prohibiting dogs from barking on the Capitol
grounds be an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of speech?
Josh Rosenbluth
hal
wrote:
>Obama is wrong, as are the four dissenting justices. The amendment is
>clear and unequivocal:
>
>"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of
>the press..."
>
>Limiting political expression by a corporation is clearly
>unconstitutional. The majority clearly ruled correctly, there is no
>question.
>
>IF there is a desire or need to change the breadth of speech, Article V
>must be invoked. Period. At which point, protectionist provisions wrt
>rights mentioned within the Declaration of Independence are called into
>play.
Corporations are NOT individuals. The Constitution was written to
protect INDIVIDUAL freedoms. Not for abstract legal entities.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Liberals don't care, they seek *Social Justice* and that's what the
constitution is NOT.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Did the government make dogs into corporations, because the corporations
are seen by law as people, the government needs a warrant to search a
corporation's property don't they?
Do you want that repealed so government can search any corporation
property without a warrant?
Should the government be able to just seize any corporate property?
Peter Franks
Don't know; don't care. Totally irrelevant.
Peter Franks
Individuals REMAIN free, their protections REMAIN intact with this ruling.
Amendment I is a prohibition on Congress, and Congress has acted outside
of that bound. The court reigned in congressional authority to the
bounds established by the Constitution.
Amendment I is clear as to what congress can (and can't do). It makes
NO mention of the applicability. Period.
Plain, simple, clear.
Josh Rosenbluth
> are seen by law as people, the government needs a warrant to search a
> corporation's property don't they?
>
> Do you want that repealed so government can search any corporation
> property without a warrant?
>
> Should the government be able to just seize any corporate property?
No, I would not. But nor would I want corporations to get the right
to vote. Therefore, corporations are treated like people in some
respects, but not in others. What is the criteria for deciding when
corporations get treated like people, and what conclusion do we draw
when applying that criteria to Free Speech?
I argue that corporations are strictly never people, but rather are a
collection of people organizing for various purposes. So,
Constitutional protections should apply to the collection of people,
and corporations get treated like people when applying the
Constitutional protection to the corporation is an appropriate proxy
for the protection mandated for the collection of people.
Under this criterion, the corporation can't vote (the collection of
people already can vote, and we have one person, one vote), but is
afforded search and seizure protections because that protects the same
rights for the collection of people.
And Free Speech? You might argue that McCain-Feingold restrictions on
the corporation imperssibly abridge the speech of the collection of
people, and thus the corporation gets Free Speech rights under our
criterion. I disagree. That collection of people (the stockholders)
did not approve using general corporate treasury dollars for political
expenditures. Thus, the speech isn't coming from the collection of
people, no Free Speech rights from these people are at stake, and thus
the corporation isn't a proxy for the collection of people and is not
afforded Free Speech rights.
Note that McCain-Feingold permits the corporation to form a Political
Action Committee whose expressed purpose is to engage in political
speech, and thus people who give to the PAC would have their speech
impermissibly abridged if these PACs were impacted by the law. Thus,
it is the PAC, not the corporation, that has Free Speech rights.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
My hypothetical law would abridge the free speech of those dogs. How
is it not relevant under your hyper-literal reading of the First
Amendment?
Josh Rosenbluth
cpt banjo
> Corporations are NOT individuals. The Constitution was written to
> protect INDIVIDUAL freedoms. Not for abstract legal entities.
If this is true, it follows that corporations have no right to freedom
of the press. Therefore, the government may censor any material
produced by corporate-owned media upopn any grounds it chooses. Is
this really where you want to go?
Josh Rosenbluth
Per <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/msg/
f1319dd1369d2b2a>, the right belongs to the people who comprise the
corporation. Unlike most corporations, the stockholders of a media
corporation are well aware of, and consent to, the political nature
inherent in their corporation. Thus, these stockholders would have
their Free Press rights infringed, whereas the stockholders of the
typical corporation do not have their Free Speech rights infringed by
McCain-Feingold.
Josh Rosenbluth
cpt banjo
The same thing can be said of any non-media corporation. For example,
if GE were to start making political expenditures, people who remain
its shareholders impliedly consent just as much as shareholders of a
media corporation.
Free speech rights shouldn't depend on the particular business a
corporation is in. The shareholders of an electronics corporation
have as much right to pool their resources for purposes of political
speech as shareholders of a media corporation.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Jan 29, 12:27 pm, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Jan 29, 11:05 am, cpt banjo <cptba...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 29, 7:50 am, hal wrote:
>>
>>>> Corporations are NOT individuals. The Constitution was written to
>>>> protect INDIVIDUAL freedoms. Not for abstract legal entities.
>>
>>> If this is true, it follows that corporations have no right to freedom
>>> of the press. Therefore, the government may censor any material
>>> produced by corporate-owned media upopn any grounds it chooses. Is
>>> this really where you want to go?
>>
>> Per <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/msg/
>> f1319dd1369d2b2a>, the right belongs to the people who comprise the
>> corporation. Unlike most corporations, the stockholders of a media
>> corporation are well aware of, and consent to, the political nature
>> inherent in their corporation. Thus, these stockholders would have
>> their Free Press rights infringed, whereas the stockholders of the
>> typical corporation do not have their Free Speech rights infringed by
>> McCain-Feingold.
>
> The same thing can be said of any non-media corporation. For example,
> if GE were to start making political expenditures, people who remain
> its shareholders impliedly consent just as much as shareholders of a
> media corporation.
CNBC, NBC, MSNBC and "we bring good things to life" are all propaganda
from GE and the distribute it via their media outlets.
Why don't all U.S. corporations deserve the same freedom?
Peter Franks
Hyper-literal? How do you arrive at that conclusion?
Can congress abridge the freedom of speech or not?
Amendment I says that it can't. Do you disagree?
Peter Franks
The right to free speech doesn't come from the amendment as you allude
to in your response.
The issue at hand is simply this: does congress have the authority to
abridge free speech?
Peter Franks
This isn't about rights; Amendment I makes NO mention of rights wrt to
the topic at hand.
This is simply about the bound of the authority of congress.
Congressional legislation that prohibits speech is clearly outside the
bound of delegated authority, and the ruling has simply reigned that in.
cpt banjo
>
> - Show quoted text -
It all depends on what is encompassed within the phrase "freedom of
speech", doesn't it?
Beam Me Up Scotty
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On Jan 29, 11:05 am, cpt banjo <cptba...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 29, 7:50 am, hal wrote:
>>>
>>>> Corporations are NOT individuals. The Constitution was written to
>>>> protect INDIVIDUAL freedoms. Not for abstract legal entities.
>>> If this is true, it follows that corporations have no right to freedom
>>> of the press. Therefore, the government may censor any material
>>> produced by corporate-owned media upopn any grounds it chooses. Is
>>> this really where you want to go?
>>
>> Per <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/msg/
>> f1319dd1369d2b2a>, the right belongs to the people who comprise the
>> corporation. Unlike most corporations, the stockholders of a media
>> corporation are well aware of, and consent to, the political nature
>> inherent in their corporation. Thus, these stockholders would have
>> their Free Press rights infringed, whereas the stockholders of the
>> typical corporation do not have their Free Speech rights infringed by
>> McCain-Feingold.
>>
>> Josh Rosenbluth
>
You choose to tax a corporation without them being able to get
representation? If they are gagged, corporations are getting the same
treatment that triggered the American Revolution, and the Declaration of
independence would authorize them to overthrow the government.
Josh Rosenbluth
> On Jan 29, 12:27 pm, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 29, 11:05 am, cpt banjo <cptba...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 29, 7:50 am, hal wrote:
>
> > > > Corporations are NOT individuals. The Constitution was written to
> > > > protect INDIVIDUAL freedoms. Not for abstract legal entities.
>
> > > If this is true, it follows that corporations have no right to freedom
> > > of the press. Therefore, the government may censor any material
> > > produced by corporate-owned media upopn any grounds it chooses. Is
> > > this really where you want to go?
>
> > Per <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/msg/
> > f1319dd1369d2b2a>, the right belongs to the people who comprise the
> > corporation. Unlike most corporations, the stockholders of a media
> > corporation are well aware of, and consent to, the political nature
> > inherent in their corporation. Thus, these stockholders would have
> > their Free Press rights infringed, whereas the stockholders of the
> > typical corporation do not have their Free Speech rights infringed by
> > McCain-Feingold.
>
> The same thing can be said of any non-media corporation. For example,
> if GE were to start making political expenditures, people who remain
> its shareholders impliedly consent just as much as shareholders of a
> media corporation.
I disagree. The nature of the company makes a difference. Most
corporations only gain the consent of the shareholders through PACs.
> Free speech rights shouldn't depend on the particular business a
> corporation is in. The shareholders of an electronics corporation
> have as much right to pool their resources for purposes of political
> speech as shareholders of a media corporation.
Josh Rosenbluth
Peter Franks
I guess so.
There isn't much in the text to circumscribe it, so it must be pretty
broad in scope...
Josh Rosenbluth
If Congress is forbidden to abridge freedom of speech, then it can't
forbid those dogs from barking on the Capitol grounds, right (or at
least in a hyper-literal interpretation)?
Now, if you concede that the dog hypothetical is nonsense (and it is,
of course Congress can prohibit the barking), then we can discuss the
nuances of what is meant by "freedom of speech" as cpt banjo suggests.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
dog.com> wrote:
> > Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> >> On Jan 29, 11:05 am, cpt banjo <cptba...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> On Jan 29, 7:50 am, hal wrote:
>
> >>>> Corporations are NOT individuals. The Constitution was written to
> >>>> protect INDIVIDUAL freedoms. Not for abstract legal entities.
> >>> If this is true, it follows that corporations have no right to freedom
> >>> of the press. Therefore, the government may censor any material
> >>> produced by corporate-owned media upopn any grounds it chooses. Is
> >>> this really where you want to go?
>
> >> Per <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/msg/
> >> f1319dd1369d2b2a>, the right belongs to the people who comprise the
> >> corporation. Unlike most corporations, the stockholders of a media
> >> corporation are well aware of, and consent to, the political nature
> >> inherent in their corporation. Thus, these stockholders would have
> >> their Free Press rights infringed, whereas the stockholders of the
> >> typical corporation do not have their Free Speech rights infringed by
> >> McCain-Feingold.
>
>
> representation? If they are gagged, corporations are getting the same
> treatment that triggered the American Revolution, and the Declaration of
> independence would authorize them to overthrow the government.
The stockholders, who are the people impacted by the tax, can vote.
Josh Rosenbluth
cpt banjo
> On Jan 29, 2:13 pm, cpt banjo <cptba...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > The same thing can be said of any non-media corporation. For example,
> > if GE were to start making political expenditures, people who remain
> > its shareholders impliedly consent just as much as shareholders of a
> > media corporation.
>
> I disagree. The nature of the company makes a difference. Most
> corporations only gain the consent of the shareholders through PACs.
>
"The media exemption discloses further difficulties with the law now
under consideration. There is no precedent supporting laws that
attempt to distinguish between corporations which are deemed to be
exempt as media corporations and those which are not. “We have
consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has
any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers.” Id., at
691 (SCALIA, J., dissenting) (citing Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 782); see
Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U. S. 749, 784
(1985) (Brennan, J., joined by Marshall, Blackmun, and STEVENS, JJ.,
dissenting); id., at 773 (White, J., concurring in judgment). With
the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast
media, moreover, the line between the media and others who wish to
comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.
The law’s exception for media corporations is, on its own terms, all
but an admission of the invalidity of the antidistortion rationale.
And the exemption results in a further, separate reason for finding
this law invalid: Again by its own terms, the law exempts some
corporations but covers others, even though both have the need or the
motive to communicate their views. The exemption applies to media
corporations owned or controlled by corporations that have diverse and
substantial investments and participate in endeavors other than news.
So even assuming the most doubtful proposition that a news
organization has a right to speak when others do not, the exemption
would allow a conglomerate that owns both a media business and an
unrelated business to influence or control the media in order to
advance its overall business interest. At the same time, some other
corporation, with an identical business interest but no media outlet
in its ownership structure,
would be forbidden to speak or inform the public about thesame issue.
This differential treatment cannot be squared with the First
Amendment."
Incidentally, the statute does not distinguish between publicly-traded
corporations and closely-held ones, at least with regard to federal
elections. This means that if I own 100% of a corporation, I couldn't
have it engage in political speech that the statute proscribes. This
makes no sense.
Josh Rosenbluth
Firstly, as I stated earlier, I reject Kennedy's claim that it is
doubtful that a news organization has a right to speak where others do
not based on the distinction about the consent of the stockholders.
But his observation about media conglomerates is a good one.
In an ideal world, the media would be independent of corporate
giants. But since they are not, GE could use MSNBC's media identity
as a pre-text for using general treasury funds for what amount to
independent expenditures on candidates. In such a case, I see a
statute properly halting that. However, that statute would have to
require the pre-text to be proven.
> Incidentally, the statute does not distinguish between publicly-traded
> corporations and closely-held ones, at least with regard to federal
> elections. This means that if I own 100% of a corporation, I couldn't
> have it engage in political speech that the statute proscribes. This
> makes no sense.
I agree on this point, and had the Court correctly upheld the facial
validity of McCain/Fiengold, it could have found it wanting as-applied
to your example in a future case.
Josh Rosenbluth
Wayne
"Josh" <us...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:hjul8n$9fv$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
> Peter Franks wrote:
>> leona...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Obama's Clash With Alito Triggers Firestorm
>>> Thursday, 28 Jan 2010 03:53 PM
>>> Article Font Size
>>>
>>> By: David A. Patten
>>>
>>> The White House is aggressively defending President Obama's sharp
>>> criticism of the Supreme Court during Wednesday's State of the Union
>>> address, which appeared to prompt Justice Samuel Alito to mouth the
>>> reply: "That is not true." (See the video below)
>>>
>>> The remarkable sight of a Supreme Court justice and the president of
>>> the United States contradicting each other during a State of the Union
>>> address, especially over a ruling from the constitutionally
>>> independent judiciary, immediately set talking heads abuzzing on cable
>>> television, and touched off a firestorm of commentary on the Internet.
>>>
>>> "I don't recall any president ever attacking the Supreme Court so
>>> directly at a State of the Union," Tom Fitton, president of the
>>> Judicial Watch organization, tells Newsmax. "Obama's attack was a
>>> disgrace that undermines the rule of law."
>>>
>>> In his address Wednesday, the president prefaced his remarks with the
>>>
>>> He then remarked: �Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of
>>> law to open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign
>>> corporations, to spend without limit in our elections."
>>>
>>>
>>> "Well,� he continued in reference to the controversial Citizens United
>>> v. Federal Election Commission decision, �I don't think American
>>> elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests,
>>> or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American
>>> people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a
>>> bill that helps to right this wrong."
>>>
>>> Immediately after the speech, the liberal blogosphere erupted.
>>>
>>> Salon commentator Glenn Greenwald commented that Justice Alito's
>>> reaction was more serious than South Carolina GOP Congressman Joe
>>> Wilson's blurting out "You lie!" during Obama's speech to Congress
>>> last year.
>>>
>>> Greenwald labeled it "a serious and substantive breach of protocol
>>> that reflects very poorly on Alito and only further undermines the
>>> credibility of the Court."
>>>
>>> Firebrand liberal Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y, meanwhile, was quoted by
>>> Politico saying that Alito "deserved to be criticized, if he didn't
>>> like it, he can mouth whatever they want.
>>>
>>> "These Supreme Court justices sometimes forget that we live in the
>>> real world," Weiner said. "They got a real world reminder tonight, if
>>> you make a boneheaded decision, someone's going to call you out on
>>> it."
>>>
>>> response � triggered a sharp reaction from conservatives as well.
>>>
>>> "I tell you, this is why people are disenchanted and are becoming more
>>> and more disengaged really from what their government is doing,"
>>> former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin told Fox News' Sean
>>> Hannity. "Because when we see an issue like this, words spoken that
>>> may not be true, coming from our president and embarrassing our
>>> Supreme Court and not respecting the separation of powers, we have a
>>> problem. And that is illustrated there by that justice mouthing those
>>> words, 'Not true.'"
>>>
>>> wrote election-law expert Bradley A. Smith of the Center for
>>> represents the worst of Washington politics � scapegoating �special
>>> interest� bogeymen for all that ails Washington in attempt to silence
>>> the diverse range of speakers in our democracy.�
>>> any independent expenditures for an electioneering communication. So
>>> that is just a flat out lie what he said about foreign corporations."
>>>
>>> Von Spakovsky also says that the president's claim the precedent was
>>> 100 years old was also "flat-out wrong."
>>>
>>> The president apparently was referring to was Tillman Act of 1907,
>>> which prohibited direct contributions to a candidate by a corporation.
>>>
>>> Most legal scholars agree that last week's Citizens United ruling did
>>> nothing to alter that ban, however. Rather, it allows companies to
>>> spend money on advertising that favors a candidate they like, or that
>>> criticizes a candidate they oppose. Companies are also free now to
>>> place those ads within 30 days of an election.
>>>
>>> The McCain-Feingold law that was the focus of the case took effect in
>>> November 2002.
>>>
>>> The White House pushed back Thursday morning against the suggestion
>>> that the president had breached decorum by criticizing a ruling by an
>>> independent branch of government.
>>>
>>> On ABC's Good Morning America, Vice President Joe Biden insisted, "The
>>> president didn't question the integrity of the court. He questioned
>>> the judgment of it." And Biden added, "I think [the ruling] was dead
>>> wrong and we have to correct it."
>>>
>>> that we need to address and are working with Congress to address.
>>> There are U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-controlled corporations that
>>> could influence our elections because of this ruling."
>>>
>>> The Supreme Court's public information unit did not respond to a
>>> Newsmax request for further clarification of Alito's remarks. Alito
>>> has not objected to the characterizations of his reaction in the
>>> media.
>>>
>>> Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissenting opinion to the Supreme
>>> Court's 5-4 ruling, warned that the ruling appeared to give foreign-
>>> based corporations the same First Amendment protection offered to
>>> individual Americans.
>>>
>>> identity is untenable when it acknowledges that Congress might be
>>> allowed to take measures aimed at 'preventing foreign individuals or
>>> Stevens wrote. "� Such measures have been a part of U. S. campaign
>>> finance law for many years. The notion that Congress might lack the
>>> authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of
Stopping dogs from barking is not a freedom of speech issue, because dogs
are not people. The courts have ruled on numerous occasions that
corporations are "people", and the gummint uses that ruling to tax their
asses off.
Zerkon
> corporations being able to speak.
Corporations do not 'speak'. This is a metaphor for 'spend money'.
The First Amendment pertains to flesh and blood human beings not some
'thing' merely conjured up by a contract and given life by a court as a
undead 'legal person'.
Peter Franks
I don't see any delegated authority that allows congress to prohibit
barking. And speaking from a rational standpoint on the proper form and
organization of government, nor should they.
Regarding 'nuances', we aren't discussing /nuances/. We are discussing
legislation that quite clearly and broadly abridges speech. There is no
'nuance' about it.
Peter Franks
> "Josh" <us...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:hjul8n$9fv$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>> leona...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Obama's Clash With Alito Triggers Firestorm
>>>> Thursday, 28 Jan 2010 03:53 PM
>>>> Article Font Size
>>>>
>>>> By: David A. Patten
>>>>
>>>> The White House is aggressively defending President Obama's sharp
>>>> criticism of the Supreme Court during Wednesday's State of the Union
>>>> address, which appeared to prompt Justice Samuel Alito to mouth the
>>>> reply: "That is not true." (See the video below)
>>>>
>>>> The remarkable sight of a Supreme Court justice and the president of
>>>> the United States contradicting each other during a State of the Union
>>>> address, especially over a ruling from the constitutionally
>>>> independent judiciary, immediately set talking heads abuzzing on cable
>>>> television, and touched off a firestorm of commentary on the Internet.
>>>>
>>>> "I don't recall any president ever attacking the Supreme Court so
>>>> directly at a State of the Union," Tom Fitton, president of the
>>>> Judicial Watch organization, tells Newsmax. "Obama's attack was a
>>>> disgrace that undermines the rule of law."
>>>>
>>>> In his address Wednesday, the president prefaced his remarks with the
>>>>
>>>> law to open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign
>>>> corporations, to spend without limit in our elections."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Well,� he continued in reference to the controversial Citizens United
>>>> v. Federal Election Commission decision, �I don't think American
>>>> elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests,
>>>> or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American
>>>> people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a
>>>> bill that helps to right this wrong."
>>>>
>>>> Immediately after the speech, the liberal blogosphere erupted.
>>>>
>>>> Salon commentator Glenn Greenwald commented that Justice Alito's
>>>> reaction was more serious than South Carolina GOP Congressman Joe
>>>> Wilson's blurting out "You lie!" during Obama's speech to Congress
>>>> last year.
>>>>
>>>> Greenwald labeled it "a serious and substantive breach of protocol
>>>> that reflects very poorly on Alito and only further undermines the
>>>> credibility of the Court."
>>>>
>>>> Firebrand liberal Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y, meanwhile, was quoted by
>>>> Politico saying that Alito "deserved to be criticized, if he didn't
>>>> like it, he can mouth whatever they want.
>>>>
>>>> "These Supreme Court justices sometimes forget that we live in the
>>>> real world," Weiner said. "They got a real world reminder tonight, if
>>>> you make a boneheaded decision, someone's going to call you out on
>>>> it."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "I tell you, this is why people are disenchanted and are becoming more
>>>> and more disengaged really from what their government is doing,"
>>>> former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin told Fox News' Sean
>>>> Hannity. "Because when we see an issue like this, words spoken that
>>>> may not be true, coming from our president and embarrassing our
>>>> Supreme Court and not respecting the separation of powers, we have a
>>>> problem. And that is illustrated there by that justice mouthing those
>>>> words, 'Not true.'"
>>>>
>>>> wrote election-law expert Bradley A. Smith of the Center for
>>>> represents the worst of Washington politics � scapegoating �special
>>>> the diverse range of speakers in our democracy.�
>>>> any independent expenditures for an electioneering communication. So
>>>> that is just a flat out lie what he said about foreign corporations."
>>>>
>>>> Von Spakovsky also says that the president's claim the precedent was
>>>> 100 years old was also "flat-out wrong."
>>>>
>>>> The president apparently was referring to was Tillman Act of 1907,
>>>> which prohibited direct contributions to a candidate by a corporation.
>>>>
>>>> Most legal scholars agree that last week's Citizens United ruling did
>>>> nothing to alter that ban, however. Rather, it allows companies to
>>>> spend money on advertising that favors a candidate they like, or that
>>>> criticizes a candidate they oppose. Companies are also free now to
>>>> place those ads within 30 days of an election.
>>>>
>>>> The McCain-Feingold law that was the focus of the case took effect in
>>>> November 2002.
>>>>
>>>> The White House pushed back Thursday morning against the suggestion
>>>> that the president had breached decorum by criticizing a ruling by an
>>>> independent branch of government.
>>>>
>>>> On ABC's Good Morning America, Vice President Joe Biden insisted, "The
>>>> president didn't question the integrity of the court. He questioned
>>>> the judgment of it." And Biden added, "I think [the ruling] was dead
>>>> wrong and we have to correct it."
>>>>
>>>> that we need to address and are working with Congress to address.
>>>> There are U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-controlled corporations that
>>>> could influence our elections because of this ruling."
>>>>
>>>> The Supreme Court's public information unit did not respond to a
>>>> Newsmax request for further clarification of Alito's remarks. Alito
>>>> has not objected to the characterizations of his reaction in the
>>>> media.
>>>>
>>>> Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissenting opinion to the Supreme
>>>> Court's 5-4 ruling, warned that the ruling appeared to give foreign-
>>>> based corporations the same First Amendment protection offered to
>>>> individual Americans.
>>>>
>>>> identity is untenable when it acknowledges that Congress might be
>>>> allowed to take measures aimed at 'preventing foreign individuals or
>>>> Stevens wrote. "� Such measures have been a part of U. S. campaign
>>>> finance law for many years. The notion that Congress might lack the
>>>> authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of
It doesn't matter. The congress doesn't have the authority to abridge
speech, regardless of the origination.
Amendment I is BROAD in scope. By design.
Peter Franks
> On Jan 29, 4:40 pm, cpt banjo <cptba...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 29, 3:00 pm, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:> On Jan 29, 2:13 pm, cpt banjo <cptba...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The same thing can be said of any non-media corporation. For example,
>>>> if GE were to start making political expenditures, people who remain
>>>> its shareholders impliedly consent just as much as shareholders of a
>>>> media corporation.
>>> I disagree. The nature of the company makes a difference. Most
>>> corporations only gain the consent of the shareholders through PACs.
>> How do you answer Justice Kennedy's analysis:
>>
>> "The media exemption discloses further difficulties with the law now
>> under consideration. There is no precedent supporting laws that
>> attempt to distinguish between corporations which are deemed to be
>> consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has
>> 691 (SCALIA, J., dissenting) (citing Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 782); see
>> Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U. S. 749, 784
>> (1985) (Brennan, J., joined by Marshall, Blackmun, and STEVENS, JJ.,
>> dissenting); id., at 773 (White, J., concurring in judgment). With
>> the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast
>> media, moreover, the line between the media and others who wish to
>> comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.
>> but an admission of the invalidity of the antidistortion rationale.
>> And the exemption results in a further, separate reason for finding
>> this law invalid: Again by its own terms, the law exempts some
>> corporations but covers others, even though both have the need or the
>> motive to communicate their views. The exemption applies to media
>> corporations owned or controlled by corporations that have diverse and
>> substantial investments and participate in endeavors other than news.
>> So even assuming the most doubtful proposition that a news
>> organization has a right to speak when others do not, the exemption
>> would allow a conglomerate that owns both a media business and an
>> unrelated business to influence or control the media in order to
>> advance its overall business interest. At the same time, some other
>> corporation, with an identical business interest but no media outlet
>> in its ownership structure,
>> would be forbidden to speak or inform the public about thesame issue.
>> This differential treatment cannot be squared with the First
>> Amendment."
>
> Firstly, as I stated earlier, I reject Kennedy's claim that it is
> doubtful that a news organization has a right to speak where others do
> not based on the distinction about the consent of the stockholders.
> But his observation about media conglomerates is a good one.
>
> In an ideal world, the media would be independent of corporate
You are being too selective in your condemnation, rather: in an ideal
world, the media would be independent of influence.
We don't live in an ideal world, and the media has ALWAYS been subject
to minority influence, corporate or otherwise. It's sad that you have
to resort to calling out 'corporate giants' to make your point when the
problem is clearly NOT 'corporate giants'.
None of this really matters wrt the case at hand. Congress is expressly
forbidden to abridge speech or the press; so, making a distinction
between impartial media, influenced media, and non-media is irrelevant
-- the congressional authority is limited on all fronts.
Peter Franks
Sorry, but that isn't the case. The full text of the Amendment is
included here:
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.
The relevant portion to this discussion is the phrase between the first
and second semi-colon, specifically:
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press ...
It makes no mention of the applicability of speech/press. It singly and
solely is a limitation on congress -- Congress shall make NO LAW...
CONGRESS CAN'T PROHIBIT THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
It doesn't matter who, what, where, or why is speaking.
Trying to entangle this into a
corporate/non-corporate/media/non-media/person/place/thing issue is
nothing more than a deliberate attempt at obfuscation as it has NO
RELEVANCE to the case at hand.
I'll gladly retract ALL of what I've written if someone can point out
where my argument fails.
Josh
It's a pathetic absurdity that the First Amendment prohibits Congress
from passing a law disallowing dogs from barking on the Capitol grounds.
Yet, you argue this absurdity is true.
Josh Rosenbluth
liberal
> leonard7...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Obama's Clash With Alito Triggers Firestorm
> > Thursday, 28 Jan 2010 03:53 PM
> > Article Font Size
>
> > By: David A. Patten
>
> > The White House is aggressively defending President Obama's sharp
> > criticism of the Supreme Court during Wednesday's State of the Union
> > address, which appeared to prompt Justice Samuel Alito to mouth the
> > reply: "That is not true." (See the video below)
>
> > The remarkable sight of a Supreme Court justice and the president of
> > the United States contradicting each other during a State of the Union
> > address, especially over a ruling from the constitutionally
> > independent judiciary, immediately set talking heads abuzzing on cable
> > television, and touched off a firestorm of commentary on the Internet.
>
> > "I don't recall any president ever attacking the Supreme Court so
> > directly at a State of the Union," Tom Fitton, president of the
> > Judicial Watch organization, tells Newsmax. "Obama's attack was a
> > disgrace that undermines the rule of law."
>
> > In his address Wednesday, the president prefaced his remarks with the
>
> > He then remarked: “Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of
> > law to open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign
> > corporations, to spend without limit in our elections."
>
>
> > "Well,” he continued in reference to the controversial Citizens United
> > v. Federal Election Commission decision, “I don't think American
> > elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests,
> > or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American
> > people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a
> > bill that helps to right this wrong."
>
> > Immediately after the speech, the liberal blogosphere erupted.
>
> > Salon commentator Glenn Greenwald commented that Justice Alito's
> > reaction was more serious than South Carolina GOP Congressman Joe
> > Wilson's blurting out "You lie!" during Obama's speech to Congress
> > last year.
>
> > Greenwald labeled it "a serious and substantive breach of protocol
> > that reflects very poorly on Alito and only further undermines the
> > credibility of the Court."
>
> > Firebrand liberal Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y, meanwhile, was quoted by
> > Politico saying that Alito "deserved to be criticized, if he didn't
> > like it, he can mouth whatever they want.
>
> > "These Supreme Court justices sometimes forget that we live in the
> > real world," Weiner said. "They got a real world reminder tonight, if
> > you make a boneheaded decision, someone's going to call you out on
> > it."
>
> > response — triggered a sharp reaction from conservatives as well.
>
> > "I tell you, this is why people are disenchanted and are becoming more
> > and more disengaged really from what their government is doing,"
> > former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin told Fox News' Sean
> > Hannity. "Because when we see an issue like this, words spoken that
> > may not be true, coming from our president and embarrassing our
> > Supreme Court and not respecting the separation of powers, we have a
> > problem. And that is illustrated there by that justice mouthing those
> > words, 'Not true.'"
>
> > wrote election-law expert Bradley A. Smith of the Center for
> > represents the worst of Washington politics — scapegoating ‘special
> > interest’ bogeymen for all that ails Washington in attempt to silence
> > the diverse range of speakers in our democracy.”
> > any independent expenditures for an electioneering communication. So
> > that is just a flat out lie what he said about foreign corporations."
>
> > Von Spakovsky also says that the president's claim the precedent was
> > 100 years old was also "flat-out wrong."
>
> > The president apparently was referring to was Tillman Act of 1907,
> > which prohibited direct contributions to a candidate by a corporation.
>
> > Most legal scholars agree that last week's Citizens United ruling did
> > nothing to alter that ban, however. Rather, it allows companies to
> > spend money on advertising that favors a candidate they like, or that
> > criticizes a candidate they oppose. Companies are also free now to
> > place those ads within 30 days of an election.
>
> > The McCain-Feingold law that was the focus of the case took effect in
> > November 2002.
>
> > The White House pushed back Thursday morning against the suggestion
> > that the president had breached decorum by criticizing a ruling by an
> > independent branch of government.
>
> > On ABC's Good Morning America, Vice President Joe Biden insisted, "The
> > president didn't question the integrity of the court. He questioned
> > the judgment of it." And Biden added, "I think [the ruling] was dead
> > wrong and we have to correct it."
>
> > that we need to address and are working with Congress to address.
> > There are U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-controlled corporations that
> > could influence our elections because of this ruling."
>
> > The Supreme Court's public information unit did not respond to a
> > Newsmax request for further clarification of Alito's remarks. Alito
> > has not objected to the characterizations of his reaction in the
> > media.
>
> > Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissenting opinion to the Supreme
> > Court's 5-4 ruling, warned that the ruling appeared to give foreign-
> > based corporations the same First Amendment protection offered to
> > individual Americans.
>
> > identity is untenable when it acknowledges that Congress might be
> > allowed to take measures aimed at 'preventing foreign individuals or
> > Stevens wrote. "… Such measures have been a part of U. S. campaign
> > finance law for many years. The notion that Congress might lack the
> > authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of
>
> Limiting political expression by a corporation is clearly
> unconstitutional. The majority clearly ruled correctly, there is no
> question.
So you fully support the right of a Chinese corporation to influence
and control US elections?
Peter Franks
Further, the absurdity is yours, my good friend. You raise this clearly
absurd argument and then demand that I defend it.
This case isn't about dogs, it isn't about barking, and it isn't about
the capital grounds.
This case IS about the freedom of speech, of which congress has NO
authority over.
Period.
Peter Franks
If dogs barking is encompassed within the freedom of speech, then
congress is POWERLESS to enact any laws.
Absurd or not, that is the content of the amendment. I'm not here to
justify the intent, merely state the fact.
Josh
No, you are stating your hyper-literalist opinion, an opinion which
instantly makes you not credible.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh
I'm so sorry that I put forth a hypothetical that is inconvenient to
your position. But, that's the way Constitutional law in the USA works.
Josh Rosenbluth
Peter Franks
It's not inconvenient at all. Your example is absurd, and I've
addressed it.
Now, back to the topic at hand, if you please.
So, Mr. Rosenbluth, what's /your/ position?
Peter Franks
Again with the hyper-literalist?
Drop your dogs and argue the relevant case.
Point out where Congress has the authority to abridge the freedom of
speech. Take all the time you need, but please focus on the ACTUAL
topic instead of your make-believe nonsense.
Thanks!
Josh
Peter Franks
And I already dissected that response.
The "right" isn't what isn't the core of the issue, regardless of your
implications. The issue is whether or not congress has the authority to
abridge the freedom of speech.
Your own nail in your own coffin:
"Thus, the speech isn't coming from the collection of
people,"
You admit that it is speech, and therefore, congress is POWERLESS to
abridge. Period.
The case was decided correctly wrt to the Constitution.
Josh
> Josh wrote:
>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>>
>>> So, Mr. Rosenbluth, what's /your/ position?
>>
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/msg/f1319dd1369d2b2a>
>
>
> And I already dissected that response.
If you already new my position, why did you ask for it?
> The "right" isn't what isn't the core of the issue, regardless of your
> implications. The issue is whether or not congress has the authority to
> abridge the freedom of speech.
>
> Your own nail in your own coffin:
>
> "Thus, the speech isn't coming from the collection of people,"
>
> You admit that it is speech, and therefore, congress is POWERLESS to
> abridge. Period.
And we are back to the dogs hypothetical, or if you prefer, can Congress
pass a law proscribing people from shouting "fire" in the House's
visitor gallery (when there is no fire)?
Only a hyper-literalist (someone who reads the words so literally,
absurdity results) comes to the conclusion such a law violates Free
Speech - and that's you.
Josh Rosenbluth
Peter Franks
It's quite interesting that you won't actually argue the case at hand,
but rather create false analogies to argue.
Let's try the actual case for a change, shall we?
Peter Franks
And just so that we don't have to play any more senseless games, let's
get to the specific core:
Do you consider communication by an organization composed of two or more
people as exercising freedom of speech?
Josh
I addressed this case in detail in the link I posted. Why do you 1)
claim that I haven't and 2) keep asking me to address it when you know I
already have?
Josh Rosenbluth
Peter Franks
Because you haven't answered my question. Instead, you diverge w/ your
"only a hyper-literalist...".
Or, we can say that you have answered the question when you admitted
that it is speech, and then I pointed out that Congress then can't
abridge it.
Or, we can say that you think that communication by an organization can
be abridged because anything else is 'hyper-literalist'.
Which is it?
Josh Rosenbluth
> Josh wrote:
> > Peter Franks wrote:
> >> Peter Franks wrote:
> >>> Josh wrote:
> >>>> Peter Franks wrote:
> >>>>> Josh wrote:
> >>>>>> Peter Franks wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> So, Mr. Rosenbluth, what's /your/ position?
>
The last one - only a hyper-literalist believes Congress cannot
abridge speech from non-persons.
Josh Rosenbluth
cpt banjo
> cpt banjo wrote:
> >>>> Josh wrote:
> >>>>> Peter Franks wrote:
> >>>>>> clear and unequivocal:
> >>>>>> Limiting political expression by a corporation is clearly
> >>>>>> unconstitutional. The majority clearly ruled correctly, there is no
> >>>>>> question.
> >>>>>> V must be invoked. Period. At which point, protectionist provisions
> >>>>>> wrt rights mentioned within the Declaration of Independence are called
> >>>>>> into play.
> >>>>> grounds be an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of speech?
> >>> My hypothetical law would abridge the free speech of those dogs. How
> >>> is it not relevant under your hyper-literal reading of the First
> >>> Amendment?
> >> Hyper-literal? How do you arrive at that conclusion?
>
> >> Can congress abridge the freedom of speech or not?
>
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > It all depends on what is encompassed within the phrase "freedom of
> > speech", doesn't it?
>
> I guess so.
>
> There isn't much in the text to circumscribe it, so it must be pretty
> broad in scope
Yes, but it's not unlimited. The concepts of "freedom of speech" and
"freedom of the press" do not prohibit libel and slander laws. They
don't preclude punishing someone for publishing troop movements during
wartime or falsely shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre and thereby
causing a panic. They don't prohibit civil actions for copyright
infringement. They don't prohibit civil and criminal actions for
fraud or misrepresentation.
So the question remains: what kinds of speech or published material is
entitled to constitutional protection?
ZX
The first fact is this: speech has a specific definition which pivots
upon the physics of sound and the human anatomy. No more no less. Using
the word 'speech' to suggest any other interpretation of the word is
derivative and moves into the figurative, the metaphorical and poetry.
Money, the object, is defined physically in any number of ways, as metal
objects, paper notes, cows or corn. Money and speech are physically
different as money is different from any other sound.
The second fact is this: The entire purpose of incorporation is to
remove human liability. To remove a individual human responsibility from
the human act. It is a figment of a contract created as a legal entity
only by the anointment of government, made in private then given legal
life by the force of law only. How can this now be 'free' from
government control when it is a government creation to begin with?
Lastly, money is lawfully created and controlled by Congress. How can it
be possible then that money by nature be 'free' from Congressional
control? This thing which is given value now simply based upon 'full
faith and credit' of a Federal government which then as it seems creates
speech?
Josh
>
> The first fact is this: speech has a specific definition which pivots
> upon the physics of sound and the human anatomy. No more no less. Using
> the word 'speech' to suggest any other interpretation of the word is
> derivative and moves into the figurative, the metaphorical and poetry.
The argument isn't that money is speech, but rather the advertisement
that was financed is speech. Thus, I disagree that speech is limited to
something vocal. It covers all sorts of communication vehicles
including symbols of protest (e.g., burning the American flag).
> Money, the object, is defined physically in any number of ways, as metal
> objects, paper notes, cows or corn. Money and speech are physically
> different as money is different from any other sound.
>
> The second fact is this: The entire purpose of incorporation is to
> remove human liability. To remove a individual human responsibility from
> the human act. It is a figment of a contract created as a legal entity
> only by the anointment of government, made in private then given legal
> life by the force of law only. How can this now be 'free' from
> government control when it is a government creation to begin with?
I agree with some of the sentiment expressed here. The corporation, not
being human, isn't the speaker, and thus Congress might to be able to
regulate what speech the corporation produces on behalf of others.
To me, the standard should be if the corporation is accurately
portraying the speech of a collection of people, then Congress can't
regulate that. But, when monies are taken from the general treasury of
a for-profit corporation that is not in the business of opinion
politics, the shareholders have not consented. Thus, a select few in
the corporation are attempting to speak for the whole when they do not
have permission, and that can be regulated.
Josh Rosenbluth
Peter Franks
Well, I think that it is pretty clear. Troop movements are covered
under treason, copyright under patent provisions (both are
constitutionally-delegated authorities).
The 'shout fire' situation is NOT within the purview of the federal
Congress; regulation of such should be the EXCLUSIVE domain of the state.
Peter Franks
A group of two or more people is a "non-person"?
Drop your hyper-literalist label, it detracts from the discussion, isn't
established, and I'm not going to defend it.
Peter Franks
> ZX wrote:
>>
>> The first fact is this: speech has a specific definition which pivots
>> upon the physics of sound and the human anatomy. No more no less.
>> Using the word 'speech' to suggest any other interpretation of the
>> word is derivative and moves into the figurative, the metaphorical and
>> poetry.
>
> The argument isn't that money is speech, but rather the advertisement
> that was financed is speech. Thus, I disagree that speech is limited to
> something vocal. It covers all sorts of communication vehicles
> including symbols of protest (e.g., burning the American flag).
>
>> Money, the object, is defined physically in any number of ways, as
>> metal objects, paper notes, cows or corn. Money and speech are
>> physically different as money is different from any other sound.
>>
>> The second fact is this: The entire purpose of incorporation is to
>> remove human liability. To remove a individual human responsibility
>> from the human act. It is a figment of a contract created as a legal
>> entity only by the anointment of government, made in private then
>> given legal life by the force of law only. How can this now be 'free'
>> from government control when it is a government creation to begin with?
>
> I agree with some of the sentiment expressed here. The corporation, not
> being human, isn't the speaker, and thus Congress might to be able to
> regulate what speech the corporation produces on behalf of others.
The distinction of a "corporation" is irrelevant. Corporations are
formed merely for liability purposes. A group can establish the exact
same organization as a corporation, but not be legally called a
corporation. Under your 'interpretation', would that organization NOT
be subject to Congressional abridgment?
> To me, the standard should be if the corporation is accurately
> portraying the speech of a collection of people, then Congress can't
> regulate that. But, when monies are taken from the general treasury of
> a for-profit corporation that is not in the business of opinion
> politics, the shareholders have not consented. Thus, a select few in
> the corporation are attempting to speak for the whole when they do not
> have permission, and that can be regulated.
Then it becomes incumbent upon the /board of directors/ to regulate
that, NOT the federal government. That is typically done through
corporate resolutions. Government has NO business in the matter. If
the shareholder disagrees w/ the action(s), then they participate as
they can, or sell their shares.
Or, what about a corporation that IS in the business (for-profit or not,
public or not) of politics? Is congress then prohibited from abridgment?
Honestly, do you look to a central government to regulate /everything/?!
Josh
No, Congress is permitted to abridge speech when the people who comprise
the corporation do not consent to the speech. The standard is the same
whether they are legally a corporation or not.
>> To me, the standard should be if the corporation is accurately
>> portraying the speech of a collection of people, then Congress can't
>> regulate that. But, when monies are taken from the general treasury
>> of a for-profit corporation that is not in the business of opinion
>> politics, the shareholders have not consented. Thus, a select few in
>> the corporation are attempting to speak for the whole when they do not
>> have permission, and that can be regulated.
>
> Then it becomes incumbent upon the /board of directors/ to regulate
> that, NOT the federal government. That is typically done through
> corporate resolutions. Government has NO business in the matter. If
> the shareholder disagrees w/ the action(s), then they participate as
> they can, or sell their shares.
That makes sense if the speech were salient to the purpose of the
corporation (such as the examples given below). But when the speech is
not salient, we cannot assume shareholder decisions are tied to the speech.
> Or, what about a corporation that IS in the business (for-profit or not,
> public or not) of politics? Is congress then prohibited from abridgment?
Yes, for example a media corporation, or a right-to-life advocacy
non-profit corporation.
Josh Rosenbluth
Beam Me Up Scotty
Churches don't have free speech?
Beam Me Up Scotty
Churches don't have free speech?
Newspapers don't have free speech?
Political parties are corporations, again no free speech?
A College is a corporation and they have no free speech?
Incorporated Science societies have no free speech?
An amendment that starts out "congress shall make no law" and some
people think that was just a suggestion?
Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty
Churches don't have free speech?
Newspapers don't have free speech?
Political parties are corporations, again no free speech?
A College is a corporation and they have no free speech?
Incorporated Science societies have no free speech?
If The IPCC and the AL Gore Global Warming Corporation have no free
speech, shouldn't the Federal Government be cracking down on them for
their lies and banning them from any further public statements, since
they are panicking the great unwashed masses.....
cpt banjo
> The 'shout fire' situation is NOT within the purview of the federal
> Congress; regulation of such should be the EXCLUSIVE domain of the state.-
Except that Congress can legislate against such conduct that occurs
within D.C. and other federal areas.
I also didn't mention obscenity, which can be regulated by both state
and federal law (e.g., obscene materials in interstate commerce).
The point is, simply because something is speech or published material
doesn't necessarily mean it's protected by the First Amendment.
Beam Me Up Scotty
You are trying to shift to what free speech is, not who can pass laws on
free speech.
Strabo
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:44:08 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Obama is wrong, as are the four dissenting justices. The amendment is
>> clear and unequivocal:
>>
>> "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of
>> the press..."
>>
>> Limiting political expression by a corporation is clearly
>> unconstitutional. The majority clearly ruled correctly, there is no
>> question.
>>
>> IF there is a desire or need to change the breadth of speech, Article V
>> must be invoked. Period. At which point, protectionist provisions wrt
>> rights mentioned within the Declaration of Independence are called into
>> play.
>
> protect INDIVIDUAL freedoms. Not for abstract legal entities.
>
The recent SCOTUS ruling does not afford 1st A. guarantees to the
corporation but to *individuals within* the organization whose rights
were restrained by the McCain-Feingold Act.
Josh
Only the few in leadership who wanted to pay for campaign ads, not the
stockholders.
Josh Rosenbluth
Peter Franks
Exactly.
Congress can't pass laws abridging the freedom of speech.
Peter Franks
> On Feb 3, 8:47 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>
>> The 'shout fire' situation is NOT within the purview of the federal
>> Congress; regulation of such should be the EXCLUSIVE domain of the state.-
>
> Except that Congress can legislate against such conduct that occurs
> within D.C. and other federal areas.
>
> I also didn't mention obscenity, which can be regulated by both state
> and federal law (e.g., obscene materials in interstate commerce).
Regulated by states, if the authority is delegated, but not regulated by
the feds (IF the power /was/ delegated in the Commerce Clause, it was
retracted in Amendment I).
> The point is, simply because something is speech or published material
> doesn't necessarily mean it's protected by the First Amendment.
It is protected from Federal abridgment.
Peter Franks
I'm still looking for that distinction mentioned in Amendment I. When
you get a chance, can you point it out?
Peter Franks
The relevant phrase in Amendment I is an explicit restriction on
government, not a protection for individuals.
Read the phrase, there is NO mention of applicability, and that is by
design.
Peter Franks
Apparently that is called a "hyper-literalist interpretation", also
known as a cop-out defending a bogus basis.
Peter Franks
Ok, and exactly where are these distinctions of abridgable speech
captured? I surely don't see it in the Amendment, perhaps you could
point it out...
Josh
You didn't answer his question about a Congressional law prohibiting the
shouting of "fire" in a crowded theatre in Washington, D.C.
Josh Rosenbluth
Beam Me Up Scotty
Lets see.... "Congress shall make no law"
What does that mean?
Does the City of DC where the Mayor works make any laws or is that Mayor
just a figure head? Maybe the city mayor could try to pass a law against
"endangering" people in a public place.... call it inciting panic.
Poetic Justice
Then D.C. could prosecute the IPCC for inciting Global Warming panic also.
dracc...@gmail.com
> leonard7...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Obama's Clash With Alito Triggers Firestorm
> > Thursday, 28 Jan 2010 03:53 PM
> > Article Font Size
>
> > By: David A. Patten
>
> > The White House is aggressively defending President Obama's sharp
> > criticism of the Supreme Court during Wednesday's State of the Union
> > address, which appeared to prompt Justice Samuel Alito to mouth the
> > reply: "That is not true." (See the video below)
>
> > The remarkable sight of a Supreme Court justice and the president of
> > the United States contradicting each other during a State of the Union
> > address, especially over a ruling from the constitutionally
> > independent judiciary, immediately set talking heads abuzzing on cable
> > television, and touched off a firestorm of commentary on the Internet.
>
> > "I don't recall any president ever attacking the Supreme Court so
> > directly at a State of the Union," Tom Fitton, president of the
> > Judicial Watch organization, tells Newsmax. "Obama's attack was a
> > disgrace that undermines the rule of law."
>
> > In his address Wednesday, the president prefaced his remarks with the
> > statement, “With all due deference to separation of powers. . .”
>
> > He then remarked: “Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of
> > law to open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign
> > corporations, to spend without limit in our elections."
>
> > øø [But unions have no such restrictions]
>
> > "Well,” he continued in reference to the controversial Citizens United
> > v. Federal Election Commission decision, “I don't think American
> > elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests,
> > or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American
> > people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a
> > bill that helps to right this wrong."
>
> > Immediately after the speech, the liberal blogosphere erupted.
>
> > Salon commentator Glenn Greenwald commented that Justice Alito's
> > reaction was more serious than South Carolina GOP Congressman Joe
> > Wilson's blurting out "You lie!" during Obama's speech to Congress
> > last year.
>
> > Greenwald labeled it "a serious and substantive breach of protocol
> > that reflects very poorly on Alito and only further undermines the
> > credibility of the Court."
>
> > Firebrand liberal Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y, meanwhile, was quoted by
> > Politico saying that Alito "deserved to be criticized, if he didn't
> > like it, he can mouth whatever they want.
>
> > "These Supreme Court justices sometimes forget that we live in the
> > real world," Weiner said. "They got a real world reminder tonight, if
> > you make a boneheaded decision, someone's going to call you out on
> > it."
>
> > The president's open scolding of the judicial branch — and Alito's
> > response — triggered a sharp reaction from conservatives as well.
>
> > "I tell you, this is why people are disenchanted and are becoming more
> > and more disengaged really from what their government is doing,"
> > former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin told Fox News' Sean
> > Hannity. "Because when we see an issue like this, words spoken that
> > may not be true, coming from our president and embarrassing our
> > Supreme Court and not respecting the separation of powers, we have a
> > problem. And that is illustrated there by that justice mouthing those
> > words, 'Not true.'"
>
> > "The president’s swipe at the Supreme Court was a breach of decorum,"
> > wrote election-law expert Bradley A. Smith of the Center for
> > Competitive Politics wrote on National Review's The Corner, “and
> > represents the worst of Washington politics — scapegoating ‘special
> > interest’ bogeymen for all that ails Washington in attempt to silence
> > the diverse range of speakers in our democracy.”
>
> > A broad range of experts challenged the accuracy of the president's
> > assertions Thursday.
>
> > The Politifact.org fact-checking organizing evaluated Obama's
> > statements and determined they were "barely true," adding, "We found
> > Obama was exaggerating the impact of the ruling."
>
> > The president, who taught constitutional law at the University of
> > Chicago before he ran for the U.S. Senate, was wrong on two counts,
> > Judicial Watch's Fitton said: There was no century-old precedent in
> > the case, and the ruling did not alter restrictions involving
> > electioneering by foreign-based companies.
>
> > It was unclear from the video of the incident whether Alito's response
> > objection was because of the president's suspect 100-year timetable or
> > his controversial assertion that the court's decision would allow
> > foreign corporations to meddle in U.S. elections.
>
> > Heritage Foundation senior legal expert Hans A. von Spakovsky tells
> > Newsmax he can't recall a president scolding the Supreme Court during
> > a State of the Union message before. "And what makes it even worse is
> > he was patently wrong," von Spakovsky says. "I mean I'm just amazed
> > that he would do that, and he's not even right."
>
> > The Supreme Court ruling in no way opens the door to foreign
> > influences in U.S. elections, he says.
>
> > "There is a specific provision of the law which was not at issue in
> > the case which prohibits foreign nations, and is specifically designed
> > to include foreign corporations, from contributing or donating any
> > money not just in connection with federal elections, but also with
> > state and local elections," he tells Newsmax. "…And they can't make
> > any independent expenditures for an electioneering communication. So
> > that is just a flat out lie what he said about foreign corporations."
>
> > Von Spakovsky also says that the president's claim the precedent was
> > 100 years old was also "flat-out wrong."
>
> > The president apparently was referring to was Tillman Act of 1907,
> > which prohibited direct contributions to a candidate by a corporation.
>
> > Most legal scholars agree that last week's Citizens United ruling did
> > nothing to alter that ban, however. Rather, it allows companies to
> > spend money on advertising that favors a candidate they like, or that
> > criticizes a candidate they oppose. Companies are also free now to
> > place those ads within 30 days of an election.
>
> > The McCain-Feingold law that was the focus of the case took effect in
> > November 2002.
>
> > The White House pushed back Thursday morning against the suggestion
> > that the president had breached decorum by criticizing a ruling by an
> > independent branch of government.
>
> > On ABC's Good Morning America, Vice President Joe Biden insisted, "The
> > president didn't question the integrity of the court. He questioned
> > the judgment of it." And Biden added, "I think [the ruling] was dead
> > wrong and we have to correct it."
>
> > An anonymous White House official told Politico, “There is a loophole
> > that we need to address and are working with Congress to address.
> > There are U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-controlled corporations that
> > could influence our elections because of this ruling."
>
> > The Supreme Court's public information unit did not respond to a
> > Newsmax request for further clarification of Alito's remarks. Alito
> > has not objected to the characterizations of his reaction in the
> > media.
>
> > Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissenting opinion to the Supreme
> > Court's 5-4 ruling, warned that the ruling appeared to give foreign-
> > based corporations the same First Amendment protection offered to
> > individual Americans.
>
> > “The Court all but confesses that a categorical approach to speaker
> > identity is untenable when it acknowledges that Congress might be
> > allowed to take measures aimed at 'preventing foreign individuals or
> > associations from influencing our Nation’s political process,'"
> > Stevens wrote. "… Such measures have been a part of U. S. campaign
> > finance law for many years. The notion that Congress might lack the
> > authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of
> > electioneering would certainly have surprised the Framers.”
>
> > The majority of justices obviously did not find Stevens' concerns
> > persuasive, however.
>
> > The incident ironically came as the president attempted to renew his
> > for bipartisanship on Capitol Hill.
>
> > Von Spakovsky tells Newsmax that a larger concern is the president's
> > attitude toward the independent judiciary branch. As a constitutional
> > law professor, Obama once lamented on a Chicago radio station that
> > "unfortunately" the Supreme Court had not sought to impose social-
> > injustice remedies from the bench.
>
> > "I think this is reflective of a liberal or a left-wing ideology, that
> > when the Constitution is in the way, you ignore it or change it," von
> > Spakovsky says. "What the Supreme Court was basically doing was
> > restoring the First Amendment from inroads on it unfortunately put in
> > by Congress and prior court decisions.
>
> > "All of the arguments that have been made critical of this decision,
> > they all haven't been constitutional arguments. They've all been
> > policy arguments," says von Spakovsky. "People say, well, they don't
> > like the policy of corporations being able to speak.
>
> > "Well, that's not a Constitutional issue. And the president in saying
> > he wants to ignore this is basically saying he wants to ignore the
> > First Amendment. That is dangerous."
>
> > Fitton tells Newsmax the presidential upbraiding also could intimidate
> > justices "for fear of being attacked in person in front of a national
> > audience."
>
> Obama is wrong, as are the four dissenting justices. The amendment is
> clear and unequivocal:
>
> "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of
> the press..."
>
> Limiting political expression by a corporation is clearly
> unconstitutional. The majority clearly ruled correctly, there is no
> question.
>
> IF there is a desire or need to change the breadth of speech, Article V
> must be invoked. Period. At which point, protectionist provisions wrt
> rights mentioned within the Declaration of Independence are called into
>
> - Show quoted text -
What they did was reversed 100 years of Precedent to make a partisian
case that is not upheld by the Constitution The President is correct
as are desenting Justices this was Activist Judges of The Right who
got it Wrong just like you.
dracc...@gmail.com
> >> Josh wrote:
> >>> Peter Franks wrote:
> >>>> clear and unequivocal:
> >>>> "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of
> >>>> the press..."
> >>>> Limiting political expression by a corporation is clearly
> >>>> unconstitutional. The majority clearly ruled correctly, there is no
> >>>> question.
> >>>> IF there is a desire or need to change the breadth of speech, Article
> >>>> V must be invoked. Period. At which point, protectionist provisions
> >>>> wrt rights mentioned within the Declaration of Independence are called
> >>> Would a Congressional law prohibiting dogs from barking on the Capitol
> >>> grounds be an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of speech?
> >> Don't know; don't care. Totally irrelevant.
>
> > My hypothetical law would abridge the free speech of those dogs. How
> > is it not relevant under your hyper-literal reading of the First
> > Amendment?
>
> Hyper-literal? How do you arrive at that conclusion?
>
> Can congress abridge the freedom of speech or not?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yo expect everyone to accept the literal reading of the Amendments you
try and leave out the need for people to read them in the context of
the case and the moment. The words have changed and the media has
changed if we follow your reading then only newspapers and books and
printed media would have First Amendment protections a person using
the internet, radio or TV would have none. Furthermore this case is
not about speech it is about money, money is not speech if it were
then some would be more equal than others.
dracc...@gmail.com
> >>> On Jan 29, 7:50 am, hal wrote:
>
> >>>> Corporations are NOT individuals. The Constitution was written to
> >>>> protect INDIVIDUAL freedoms. Not for abstract legal entities.
> >>> of the press. Therefore, the government may censor any material
> >>> produced by corporate-owned media upopn any grounds it chooses. Is
> >>> this really where you want to go?
>
> >> Per <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/msg/
> >> f1319dd1369d2b2a>, the right belongs to the people who comprise the
> >> corporation. Unlike most corporations, the stockholders of a media
> >> corporation are well aware of, and consent to, the political nature
> >> inherent in their corporation. Thus, these stockholders would have
> >> their Free Press rights infringed, whereas the stockholders of the
> >> typical corporation do not have their Free Speech rights infringed by
> >> McCain-Feingold.
>
> >> Josh Rosenbluth
>
> You choose to tax a corporation without them being able to get
> representation? If they are gagged, corporations are getting the same
> treatment that triggered the American Revolution, and the Declaration of
> independence would authorize them to overthrow the government.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
No they are fully represented as individuals.
dracc...@gmail.com
> >>>> Josh wrote:
> >>>>> Peter Franks wrote:
> >>>>>> Obama is wrong, as are the four dissenting justices. The amendment is
> >>>>>> clear and unequivocal:
> >>>>>> "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of
> >>>>>> the press..."
> >>>>>> Limiting political expression by a corporation is clearly
> >>>>>> unconstitutional. The majority clearly ruled correctly, there is no
> >>>>>> question.
> >>>>>> IF there is a desire or need to change the breadth of speech, Article
> >>>>>> V must be invoked. Period. At which point, protectionist provisions
> >>>>>> wrt rights mentioned within the Declaration of Independence are called
> >>>>>> into play.
> >>>>> Would a Congressional law prohibiting dogs from barking on the Capitol
> >>>>> grounds be an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of speech?
> >>>> Don't know; don't care. Totally irrelevant.
> >>> My hypothetical law would abridge the free speech of those dogs. How
> >>> is it not relevant under your hyper-literal reading of the First
> >>> Amendment?
> >> Hyper-literal? How do you arrive at that conclusion?
>
> >> Can congress abridge the freedom of speech or not?
>
> >> Amendment I says that it can't. Do you disagree?
>
> > forbid those dogs from barking on the Capitol grounds, right (or at
> > least in a hyper-literal interpretation)?
>
> > Now, if you concede that the dog hypothetical is nonsense (and it is,
> > of course Congress can prohibit the barking), then we can discuss the
> > nuances of what is meant by "freedom of speech" as cpt banjo suggests.
>
> I don't see any delegated authority that allows congress to prohibit
> barking. And speaking from a rational standpoint on the proper form and
> organization of government, nor should they.
>
> Regarding 'nuances', we aren't discussing /nuances/. We are discussing
> legislation that quite clearly and broadly abridges speech. There is no
> 'nuance' about it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
By this stance Congress can not pass any law that would limit speech
including those preventing someone from libel or shouting fire in a
crowded theater.
dracc...@gmail.com
> >> On Jan 29, 3:00 pm, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:> On Jan 29, 2:13 pm, cpt banjo <cptba...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> The same thing can be said of any non-media corporation. For example,
> >>>> if GE were to start making political expenditures, people who remain
> >>>> its shareholders impliedly consent just as much as shareholders of a
> >>>> media corporation.
> >>> I disagree. The nature of the company makes a difference. Most
> >>> corporations only gain the consent of the shareholders through PACs.
> >> How do you answer Justice Kennedy's analysis:
>
> >> "The media exemption discloses further difficulties with the law now
> >> under consideration. There is no precedent supporting laws that
> >> attempt to distinguish between corporations which are deemed to be
> >> exempt as media corporations and those which are not. “We have
> >> consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has
> >> any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers.” Id., at
> >> 691 (SCALIA, J., dissenting) (citing Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 782); see
> >> Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U. S. 749, 784
> >> (1985) (Brennan, J., joined by Marshall, Blackmun, and STEVENS, JJ.,
> >> dissenting); id., at 773 (White, J., concurring in judgment). With
> >> the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast
> >> media, moreover, the line between the media and others who wish to
> >> comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.
> >> The law’s exception for media corporations is, on its own terms, all
> >> but an admission of the invalidity of the antidistortion rationale.
> >> And the exemption results in a further, separate reason for finding
> >> this law invalid: Again by its own terms, the law exempts some
> >> corporations but covers others, even though both have the need or the
> >> motive to communicate their views. The exemption applies to media
> >> corporations owned or controlled by corporations that have diverse and
> >> substantial investments and participate in endeavors other than news.
> >> So even assuming the most doubtful proposition that a news
> >> organization has a right to speak when others do not, the exemption
> >> would allow a conglomerate that owns both a media business and an
> >> unrelated business to influence or control the media in order to
> >> advance its overall business interest. At the same time, some other
> >> corporation, with an identical business interest but no media outlet
> >> in its ownership structure,
> >> would be forbidden to speak or inform the public about thesame issue.
> >> This differential treatment cannot be squared with the First
> >> Amendment."
>
> > Firstly, as I stated earlier, I reject Kennedy's claim that it is
> > doubtful that a news organization has a right to speak where others do
> > not based on the distinction about the consent of the stockholders.
> > But his observation about media conglomerates is a good one.
>
> > In an ideal world, the media would be independent of corporate
> > giants. ...
>
> You are being too selective in your condemnation, rather: in an ideal
> world, the media would be independent of influence.
>
> We don't live in an ideal world, and the media has ALWAYS been subject
> to minority influence, corporate or otherwise. It's sad that you have
> to resort to calling out 'corporate giants' to make your point when the
> problem is clearly NOT 'corporate giants'.
>
> None of this really matters wrt the case at hand. Congress is expressly
> forbidden to abridge speech or the press; so, making a distinction
> between impartial media, influenced media, and non-media is irrelevant
> -- the congressional authority is limited on all fronts.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is also not about speech it is about money.
dracc...@gmail.com
> Peter Franks wrote:
> > Josh wrote:
> >> Peter Franks wrote:
> >>> Josh wrote:
> >>>> Peter Franks wrote:
>
>
> >>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/msg/f131...>
>
> >>> And I already dissected that response.
>
> >> If you already new my position, why did you ask for it?
>
> >>> The "right" isn't what isn't the core of the issue, regardless of
> >>> your implications. The issue is whether or not congress has the
> >>> authority to abridge the freedom of speech.
>
> >>> Your own nail in your own coffin:
>
> >>> "Thus, the speech isn't coming from the collection of people,"
>
> >>> You admit that it is speech, and therefore, congress is POWERLESS to
> >>> abridge. Period.
>
> >> And we are back to the dogs hypothetical, or if you prefer, can
> >> Congress pass a law proscribing people from shouting "fire" in the
> >> House's visitor gallery (when there is no fire)?
>
> >> Only a hyper-literalist (someone who reads the words so literally,
> >> absurdity results) comes to the conclusion such a law violates Free
> >> Speech - and that's you.
>
> > It's quite interesting that you won't actually argue the case at hand,
> > but rather create false analogies to argue.
>
> > Let's try the actual case for a change, shall we?
>
> And just so that we don't have to play any more senseless games, let's
> get to the specific core:
>
> Do you consider communication by an organization composed of two or more
>
> - Show quoted text -
The group does not have a right to anything the individuals have the
right.
dracc...@gmail.com
>
> > I addressed this case in detail in the link I posted. Why do you 1)
> > claim that I haven't and 2) keep asking me to address it when you know I
> > already have?
>
> Because you haven't answered my question. Instead, you diverge w/ your
> "only a hyper-literalist...".
>
> Or, we can say that you have answered the question when you admitted
> that it is speech, and then I pointed out that Congress then can't
> abridge it.
>
> Or, we can say that you think that communication by an organization can
> be abridged because anything else is 'hyper-literalist'.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
The case was and is about money and not speech.
dracc...@gmail.com
> cpt banjo wrote:
> > On Jan 29, 3:04 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >> cpt banjo wrote:
> >>>>>> Josh wrote:
> >>>>>>> Peter Franks wrote:
> >>>>>>>> clear and unequivocal:
> >>>>>>>> "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of
> >>>>>>>> the press..."
> >>>>>>>> Limiting political expression by a corporation is clearly
> >>>>>>>> unconstitutional. The majority clearly ruled correctly, there is no
> >>>>>>>> question.
> >>>>>>>> IF there is a desire or need to change the breadth of speech, Article
> >>>>>>>> V must be invoked. Period. At which point, protectionist provisions
> >>>>>>>> wrt rights mentioned within the Declaration of Independence are called
> >>>>>>>> into play.
> >>>>>>> Would a Congressional law prohibiting dogs from barking on the Capitol
> >>>>>>> grounds be an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of speech?
> >>>>>> Don't know; don't care. Totally irrelevant.
> >>>>> My hypothetical law would abridge the free speech of those dogs. How
> >>>>> is it not relevant under your hyper-literal reading of the First
> >>>>> Amendment?
> >>>> Hyper-literal? How do you arrive at that conclusion?
> >>>> Can congress abridge the freedom of speech or not?
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> speech", doesn't it?
> >> I guess so.
>
> >> There isn't much in the text to circumscribe it, so it must be pretty
> >> broad in scope
>
> > Yes, but it's not unlimited. The concepts of "freedom of speech" and
> > "freedom of the press" do not prohibit libel and slander laws. They
> > don't preclude punishing someone for publishing troop movements during
> > wartime or falsely shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre and thereby
> > causing a panic. They don't prohibit civil actions for copyright
> > infringement. They don't prohibit civil and criminal actions for
> > fraud or misrepresentation.
>
> > So the question remains: what kinds of speech or published material is
> > entitled to constitutional protection?
>
> Well, I think that it is pretty clear. Troop movements are covered
> under treason, copyright under patent provisions (both are
> constitutionally-delegated authorities).
>
> The 'shout fire' situation is NOT within the purview of the federal
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Capitol is outside the pervue of any State and thus it is under
the control of Congress, further each of these would limit free speech
with action by Congress thus Congress can indeed regulate speech.
dracc...@gmail.com
The arguments go hand in hand for if it is not protected it can be
regulated if it all is then none of it can be.
dracc...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Except even you have admit it can.
dracc...@gmail.com
You are a white man who speaks with a forked tounge.
dracc...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Where is TV, Radio and the Internet mentioned? If they are not
mentioned by your logic they have no protection.
dracc...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
No Franks this is you being the pig and all of us getting dirty
wresting in the mud with you because you are too ignorant to grasp
even basic concepts.
dracc...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Since Congress controls the budget and can override the City Council
no the Mayor can not pass anything.
dracc...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry that actual falls under the Facts overriding you it would
require a false statement that you morons have not shown a single one.
cpt banjo
> cpt banjo wrote:
>
> > I also didn't mention obscenity, which can be regulated by both state
> > and federal law (e.g., obscene materials in interstate commerce).
>
> Regulated by states, if the authority is delegated, but not regulated by
> the feds (IF the power /was/ delegated in the Commerce Clause, it was
> retracted in Amendment I).
By the same argument, then, the First Amendment's free press provision
trumps the patent/copyright provision in Article I, Section 8, so that
one can infringe a copyright at will.
Once again, you are straying from what can be regulated to who can
regulate it. Not surprisingly, you have chosen not to discuss what is
encompassed by the phrase "freedom of speech", most likely because you
don't want to admit that there is certain speech that can be regulated
by the federal government because it falls outside the legal principle
embodied in the phrase.
Strabo
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:44:08 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Obama is wrong, as are the four dissenting justices. The amendment is
>> clear and unequivocal:
>>
>> "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of
>> the press..."
>>
>> Limiting political expression by a corporation is clearly
>> unconstitutional. The majority clearly ruled correctly, there is no
>> question.
>>
>> IF there is a desire or need to change the breadth of speech, Article V
>> must be invoked. Period. At which point, protectionist provisions wrt
>> rights mentioned within the Declaration of Independence are called into
>> play.
>
> Corporations are NOT individuals. The Constitution was written to
> protect INDIVIDUAL freedoms. Not for abstract legal entities.
>
The recent SCOTUS ruling does not afford 1st A. guarantees to the
corporation but to *individuals within* the organization who were
Peter Franks
This isn't about the nuances of the powers of the governing body of the
federal district. Whatever the conclusion is, it is irrelevant to the
discussion at hand.
Peter Franks
No straying intended, nor implied.
Amendment I does /not/ trump patent/copyright. Focusing on copyright:
copyright laws PROTECT the freedom of speech -- ensuring that the rights
and privileges of the originator are protected from infringement by others.
Also, we are talking about "abridgment", not "regulation". There are
differences in the meaning of the terms, they are NOT interchangeable.
Please use the term that coincides with the text unless you can
substantiate your use of other terms.
Peter Franks
The relevant clause is not a guarantee to an individual, corporation, or
whatever. Amendment II is an example of a guarantee.
The relevant clause Amendment I is an explicit *restriction* on government.
Peter Franks
And yes, no I didn't.
Are you conceding?
Josh Rosenbluth
Please give examples of permissible "regulation" and imperssible
"abridgement" that illustrate the distinction between the two.
Josh Rosenbluth
Peter Franks
No thanks, I have no need nor desire to chase around the unsubstantiated
interchangeability of terms introduced by others.
If you want to continue your line of reasoning, then *YOU*:
Please give examples of how "regulation" and "abridgment" are synonyms
in this discussion.
Peter Franks
Also: I see that you have been noticeably absent in some of my follow-on
questions. Are you finally seeing the correct interpretation and
application of the Amendment and (federal) legislative authority?
Josh
>> "abridgment" that illustrate the distinction between the two.
>
> Also: I see that you have been noticeably absent in some of my follow-on
> questions. Are you finally seeing the correct interpretation and
> application of the Amendment and (federal) legislative authority?
No. Because your replies are continually unresponsive to cpt banjo's
and my questions, I've given up trying to have a debate with you. I
completely concur with cpt banjo's analysis of your refusal to engage in
the discussion.
Josh Rosenbluth
Peter Franks
Wow, ok. Well, I haven't been unresponsive at all, and I've addressed
all relevant questions as near as I can tell. I haven't played into
your diversionary and irrelevant tactics, if that is what you are
referring to. ?
To date, you haven't addressed one iota of my argument; rather you
resort to calling it 'hyper-literalist'. It isn't, and that hasn't been
substantively countered by ANYTHING that I've read in this thread.
Hopefully we'll have a discussion on a different topic, if not, your
choice and your loss, and good day, my good friend.
cpt banjo
> Amendment I does /not/ trump patent/copyright.
But you claim it trumps the Commerce Clause. You're being
inconsistent.
Peter Franks
Not at all.
1) The Commerce Clause is a grant of authority to the Congress.
2) The Copyright Clause is an explicit protection for the citizens.
3) The Free Speech Clause is an explicit limit on the authority of Congress.
See the differences? 1 and 3 are restrictions on congress. 2 is a
protection for the citizens, 3 reinforces that from /government/
infringement.
There is no disparity here.
cpt banjo
Wrong. The patent/copyright clause is also a grant of power to the
government -- it permits the government to award a monopoly to
inventors, composers, authors, etc. This monopoly may be for such
time period and under such terms as the government may prescribe. The
clause in no way limits the power of government regarding patents or
copyrights. The government could lower the term of a copyright to one
year, after which anyone could publish the work.
The Commerce Clause is a grant of power, not a restriction.
So if the First Amendment modifies Congress' power to regulate
commerce, it also modifies its power to grant a monopoly to an
author.