As you've no doubt heard by now, in an extraordinary escalation of tension between President Barack Obama and the sitting justices of the Supreme Court during last night's State of the Union address, Justice Samuel Alito gave us this year's "Joe Wilson moment" by shaking his head and mouthing "Not true..." in response to the following statement by the President:
With all due deference to separation of powers, 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 I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.
Conservatives and progressives may argue this morning about whether President Obama should have criticized the Court and about the severity of Justice Alito's breach of protocol, but Justice Alito faces a bigger problem: Obama's comment is true.
In fact, Obama's carefully-phrased comment to the justices highlights two critical aspects of the majority's decision in Citizens United v. FEC, both of which constitute dangerous and revolutionary shifts in long-settled law:
If Justice Alito wanted to disclaim any of this, or if he thought that the majority's opinion was not as far-reaching as Justice Stevens' powerful dissenting opinion demonstrated, he should have written a concurring opinion. He should have explained how the logic of the Court's opinion doesn't change course on over a century of campaign finance law that seeks to limit corporate influence in elections and showed us that the Court's formalistic approach to the First Amendment and corporations won't lead to foreign corporate spending in U.S. elections. But muttering at the State of the Union clarifies nothing.
The stakes here are extraordinarily high. As Obama alluded in his comment, the last century has witnessed a historic trend toward greater enfranchisement of American citizens, accompanied by a significant increase in restrictions on corporate spending to influence elections. The Court's decision in Citizens United unequivocally halts and reverses that trend, pulling the rug out from under decades of progress toward achieving the democracy envisioned by the Founders, and improved upon by successive generations of Americans that amended the Constitution to guarantee the right to vote to all citizens, irrespective of race, sex, age, and class. If Justice Alito believes that the damage done to our electoral system by the majority's opinion in Citizens United can be contained, we hope that he will explain it in a judicial opinion in the next case that seeks to chip away further at what remains of our Nation's campaign finance laws.
1. While focusing on a breach of protocol, the blame seems go to Justice Alito for raising tensions between the judicial and executive branches of government. I submit that the President unnecessarily increased tensions between everyone who is paying attention by injecting his broken logic into the state of the union address.
2. Justice Stevens' remark seem a little disingenuous as well. Consider that the Supreme Court ruled that money equals speech and is protected. Now because it comes from a group of people who aren't union members, all of a sudden it's a bad thing.
I have a better idea than giving the vote to corporations. How about we decide that if you cannot vote then you cannot donate to campaign and that money is not speech, but merely the ability to ramp up the volume of speech. Companies are entities within the country and should be able to advocate for issues that affect their ability to continue providing jobs, but they have no right to advocate for or against any candidate.
I guess from what I've read of his history that he has been a corporate pawn for most if not all of his career, and for that reason he, along with the other four, voted the way they did. He's been trained to protect corporate interests, and there is no way that he will break training to protect the country. The same goes for Roberts especially, since he stated during his questioning that he would follow the law when a citizen was in conflict with a corporation. Somehow, however, he has never seen a case where the law couldn't be distorted to favor the corporation.
What kind of logic is that?
More likely, it was a natural response to having been insulted in a most public way by the children who bamboozled about half of the electorate, and are still doing so.
Perhaps its time the American people stood up for something and went around the supreme court. I know the implications this would have on aboriton and other hot topic issues; as ridiculous as it sounds, I think the American consitution should be amended to define what a person is, what types of rights are fluid to entities like corporations and groups, and what are individual rights. I don't think the Amendment should ever touch congresses hands. I think we should use other method... the one only used for 21st... where local areas call for local and state constituional conventions on the topic and for from there.
I am pro-choice, but I think that Rowe v. Wade was the worst decision in the Supreme Court's history except for Dred Scott.
Why? Because it has led to a bloodless civil war stretching back to the mid-1970s showing no sign of coming to an end.
Follow my logic: no Rowe v. Wade, no religious revival that seeped over into the political arena and caused the appointment of Thomas, Alito ,Saclia, and Roberts.These men were appointed because they passed the anti-Rowe litmus test, but their decisions in business cases have been a disaster,while there have been very few abortion cases.
I never understood the logic of the 14th Amendment , which after all was enacted for the benefit of emancipated slaves, being used to extend the ebnefits of the Bill of Rights to corporations.
Were there incorporated slaves?
Corporations and other "entities", such as PACs and unions, are "legal persons" for contract and litigation purposes. Oh, and to keep the personal fortunes made by company, PAC and union executives relatively safe of lawsuits (you have to do a lot to get their money back).
As far as political speech goes, these entities, are made up of real persons, and should be heard on specific issues that effect their livelihood. But the idea that they should be able to influence a candidate's election is very murky to me. Of course, these entities are taxed as individuals are, so they deserve to be represented in government the same as people do. Right?
Taxation without representation.
Since they just pass along the increased cost of taxes to the consumers, maybe we shouldn't tax them at all and they would have no legal standing in elections at all.
Yes? No? Maybe?
After all, do you want to pay taxes twice? Once on what you earn, and again with the hidden tax on what you buy. Government just wastes your money anyway, why give them more?
The second method (which has never been used) is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions.
But there is nothing to say that the corporate leaders (individuals) can't be tried and convicted on some level of homicide (negligent, intentional, etc.)
Given where we are this is what I believe the president should ask congress to do.
1. All corporate contributions must be given directly to candidates and not laundered through 3rd party entities.
2. All corporate contributions must be published quarterly in newspapers and on the web.
3. When a member of congress is speaking on the floor require C-Span to scroll the amount and source of all corporate contiributions and their recent voting record on issues relevant to the current floor debate.
4. Require a slow roll scrolling of corporate contributions at the end of every campaign ad.
These are just a few ideas that quickly come to mind.
Can a citizen be a dual citizen of the same country, ie, a corporate citizen and a natural citizen? A partial citizen, perhaps, i.e, 1/2, 3/4,1/4?
At time of employment will the employee sign over some portion of the citizenship and the corporation "bundles" these votes to determine how many votes IT has? Each citizen is suppose to be entitled on one vote, right?
Obama claimed that this would open the floodgates to even foreign entities.... well this ruling didn't effect how foreign entities can appropriate their funds..... everything related with foreign entities is the same as it was before this ruling.... If you have specific problems with the law today don't blame Alito.... he had nothing to do with it.
Another point.... why you people are so against corporations is beyond me.... You guys would limit the rights of all Americans just so you can limit corporations, which are nothing more than groups of Americans??? That's fine.... your entitled to your opinions... but at least don't lie to yourselves claiming you have the moral high ground.
Heaven knows, before this ruling we had such a good campaign finance system which allowed the sitting president to raise more money then anyone in history and outspend his opponent, by 5:1...
I Have a solution to this problem of politics and money. The solution is for the Congress to stop spending taxpayer money... If the federal budget were to shrink to say a few 10's of billions a year say, and the tax code was modified to a few simple pages, then we would not have to worry about corporations spending money to try and influence our politicians, because it would be of no good use of their money.
The fact is that as Washington has taken an ever larger share of the economic pie, and with healthcare it will grow even larger, controlling nearly 18% more of the economy. When all is said and done, the government will exert power over 70-75% of all economic activity either through direct ownership, influence or effective control. This phenomenon attracts corporate money, like a fly to sh*t... You get the government you deserve!
Oh, it most assuredly did. Before this decision, corporations were prohibited from directly entering campaigns. Now they can fund any piece of campaign advertising that they want from TV ads to robocalls to billboards to fliers and beyond. And foreign corporations with US subsidiaries can use them to funnel money into political campaigns where before they couldn't. Foreign corporations without US subsidiaries by and large don't care what the US government does.
"Lynn Gobbell was fired because her boss didn’t like the bumper sticker on her car. During the 2004 presidential election, Gobbell put a “Kerry for President” sticker on her bumper. When her boss saw it, he ordered her to the sticker off. When she refused, he fired her.
Most people think that what happened to Gobbell was illegal, but they’re wrong. What her boss did was wrong, but it wasn’t illegal.
What about the Constitution? Doesn’t the First Amendment protect our right to freedom of speech? The answer is yes, but only where the government is concerned. Unlike millions of people in other countries, Americans can openly criticize the government or advocate for positions that are controversial or even offensive without fear of retribution.
But the first amendment applies only to the government. A private corporation, no matter how large or powerful, can legally ignore the first amendment. Too many employees have learned this the hard way, when their boss fires them for something they say on their personal blog or MySpace page."
Ah, free speech: absolute for corporations, relative for their employees. Where is Alito on this kind of censorship?
Julian Mansfield The First Amendment: 'SCALIA IS MY HOMEBOY' facebook group
there has been a need to make a group called 'Scalia is my homeboy'... here it is... and invite your sensibly minded friends too...
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=app_2373072738&gid=249781775145#/group.php?v=wall&gid=249781775145
Scalia Is My Homeboy
For all who affirm the proposition, Judges should interpret the law, not make it.
January 12 at 12:29pm · Comment · Like · Share · Report
First Amendment rights purchased by corporations! What good is a First Amendment right when the loudmouths are the only ones who can afford megaphones? Speak now or forever be SHOUTED DOWN!
A level playing field is all any real American wants.