|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is it time to overturn the first amendment?
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
To suggest that you have to 'become' a person is honestly the most idiotic suggestion I've heard in years. And that's saying something.
It's the equivalent of telling the judge that you haven't been born yet and asking him how to go about doing it.
[ 12. February 2010, 01:57: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
IF, on the other hand, the question was whether you were the KIND of person to which the statute applied, that would be because the statute said it didn't apply to everyone.
Laws say this kind of thing all the time. Laws about medical malpractice might say they apply to persons who are registered medical practitioners.
In which case, you might want to know how to become a registered medical practitioner. But only a trained Dachshund would need to ask how to become a person.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
A Feminine Force
Ship's Onager
# 7812
|
Posted
Well, here's the nearest way I can describe what I am getting at.
Will Shakespeare is a human being. Hamlet is a person. In the imagination of Will Shak., the person "Hamlet" has certain attributes and undertakes certain actions that characterize him as "Hamlet". He is a figment of William Shakespeare's imagination that exists only as a bunch of words on paper. Hamlet has no substance other than in the flesh and blood human being who undertakes to represent Hamlet.
"Procter and Gamble" is a person. It is a figment of someone's imagination that has certain attributes and characteristics and which exists only as a bunch of words on paper. It has no substance and it relies wholly on flesh and blood human beings who represent the corporation. In court, I guess these are attorneys. But a human being is not a corporation, a human being can only represent a corporation.
So here I am, simply asking the judge to tell me if I represent the person he's referring to, or am I, in actual fact, that person?
It was quite interesting, to say the least.
I don't know about "medical practitioners" - but I suspect that they are persons as well, in the same sense that Hamlet is a person. Someone has to represent that person. Practicing medicine is something people do or act out, it's not what they are. My guess is that you are right and a "medical practitioner" is probably a person defined somewhere and which exists as a body of words that relies completely on some flesh and blood human being to represent it.
LAFF
[ 12. February 2010, 02:26: Message edited by: A Feminine Force ]
--------------------
C2C - The Cure for What Ails Ya?
Posts: 2115 | From: Kingdom of Heaven | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE IS A PERSON!
And no judge would tell you otherwise.
For you to even ask such a question is completely bizarre. This isn't an issue about how judges use the word, it's an issue about how YOU use the word - which apparently is different to how the rest of the English-speaking world uses it.
[ 12. February 2010, 02:42: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
A Feminine Force
Ship's Onager
# 7812
|
Posted
You may be right. There's quite a bit of debate about whether the playwright was a human being or a "name" that was used by several human beings.
"William Shakespeare" the playwright may well have been a person, but we'll never know for certain.
And about English, well, lawyers use a language that sounds like English, but isn't. They even have their own dictionary. Webster's isn't one of the ones they acknowledge. Maybe you should refer to the same one as you go about crafting your legislation?
LAFF
[ 12. February 2010, 02:51: Message edited by: A Feminine Force ]
--------------------
C2C - The Cure for What Ails Ya?
Posts: 2115 | From: Kingdom of Heaven | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
A Feminine Force
Ship's Onager
# 7812
|
Posted
Wow - I'm being compared to ignorant looney losers and dachshunds tonight. I must be hitting all the right buttons. Ad hominems are my favorite arguments.
Have a pleasant evening, gentlemen.
LAFF
--------------------
C2C - The Cure for What Ails Ya?
Posts: 2115 | From: Kingdom of Heaven | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
You may be right. There's quite a bit of debate about whether the playwright was a human being or a "name" that was used by several human beings.
"William Shakespeare" the playwright may well have been a person, but we'll never know for certain.
LAFF
Oh for goodness sake, you are being devious. YOU'RE the one who said William Shakespeare was a human being. Not several human beings.
I can only think that the reason the judge refused to hear anything from you was that he/she had quickly assessed you were being a complete smartarse.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
And about English, well, lawyers use a language that sounds like English, but isn't. They even have their own dictionary. Webster's isn't one of the ones they acknowledge. Maybe you should refer to the same one as you go about crafting your legislation?
I could spend about a page outlining to you precisely what legislative drafting involves, how there is a move to use plain English rather than antiquated English peppered with bad Latin, and so on.
Or I could just say that's the second time you have casually cast a slur on my professional competence, and in return I would like to casually cast another slur on your membership of the human race.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Orfeo , May I suggest that there's no point in proceeding. AFF has already shown ,on this and other threads, no ability to understand, or to try to understand, basic legal concepts, let alone simple English. Plan a pleasant dinner instead.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
No problem, I'd already reached that conclusion.
This was a massive distraction from the original point of the thread anyway. I do think it's genuinely worthwhile to discuss whether NON-natural persons should have the benefits of what are generally described as human rights.
There was an article today in the Australian newspaper about this American decision. It was by Professor David Weisbrot, who is originally from America but has lived in Australia for several decades. He talks about the differing approaches in the US and Australia to rights. Of course, we don't currently have any kind of 'bill of rights' here, but it's an issue being debated.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Yes, I know David Weisbrot. I don't take the Australian, but I'll see if I can get it on the net.
You may know of the High Court decision a few years ago now that a corporation does not have. the right against self-incrimination. I can't quickly find it, but it arose from a prosecution in the Land and Environment Court. That's the sort of authority you're talking of.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I had read that decision at some point, but I'd forgotten all about it. Thanks for the reminder. I remember it did have quite a detailed discussion about the reasons and origin for the privilege against self-incrimination.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Orfeo , the reference is:
Environment Protection Authority v Caltex Refining Co Pty Ltd [1993] HCA 74; (1993) 178 CLR 477 (24 December 1993)
which probably will not work as a hyperlink. As Ken has pointed out on a thread in Hell, the US decision is consistent with well established authority, pre-dating the War of Independence. There would have to be clear words in any legislation to take from a corporation any rights which a natural person has, but this decision is based upon common law authority.
There is no doubt that a corporation may commit offences. The usual penalty is a fine, and the maximum sums for fines are usually much larger than those for natural persons. As a matter of principle, there is no reason why a guilty corporation could not be wound up as if in insolvency, with barring orders for directors and officers. If a company is guilty of contempt of court, it may be sequestrated.
There were a few posts earlier about partnerships. In Australian law, and AFAIK English, Canadian and NZ law, a partnership has no legal identity beyond the identities of the partners. The partners must be legal people, either natural or corporations. I would be surprised if the law in any of the US states were different.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
For us non-US persons, can someone please summarise what this is all about? e.g.
- What is SCOTUS? Are these initials? What do they stand for?
- What is the First amendment?
- Is it regarded as unconstitutional to restrict the size of political donations?
- Who is Senator Dodd?
- With 'no taxation without representation' (which is what I thought the 1770s were about), do legal persons have votes? (ours don't)
- Do legal persons pay taxes (ours do) or is it only the natural persons behind or inside them that pay taxes?
- What is the problem about natural and legal persons? Under our system it is very straightforward. A natural person is a human being. They become a person by being born. They have an objective natural physical existence. A legal person is an abstract entity. It does not have a natural physical existence. It is given an identity as a person by the law, the Companies Acts, a charter, the Local Government Act 1972 etc etc etc. Otherwise it does not exist.
- A natural person and a legal person can both enter into contracts etc. An apparent abstract entity that has not been given legal personhood can't. This is because it does not exist.
- William Shakespeare was a natural person but is now dead. Hamlet was never any sort of person because he is fiction.
- The Queen is both sorts of person, Elizabeth Windsor as a natural person from birth, and the Crown as a legal person from Feb 1952 when her father died. Many clergy are in a similar position.
- A natural person can't argue they aren't a person because they just are one by being born. It would be a nonsense argument.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I can answer the SCOTUS one: Supreme Court of the United States.
Most of the things in the second half of your list aren't problems for anyone other than one poster, who may or may not be a natural person depending on who you ask.
The stuff in the middle, I'd best leave to Americans to sort out.
[ 12. February 2010, 09:33: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
No, a corporation is not a partnership in the legal sense. When two or more people make an agreement to run a business together for profit, without any other actions, they are a partnership. ...
Which is what I meant, but did not well explain - "a group of persons is not a corporation, but may be a partnership".
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
A corporation is neither a citizen (only individuals are citizens), nor a group of citizens (although it might be a partnership).
But we are talking about US corporations that pay US taxes. So chip away at the rights of one group of taxpayers undermines the rights of all taxpayers. ...
No, that is just the making of tax law - the rules change all the time, without it being a "taking away of rights".
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Here are some answers which are from an ignorant lay person and should not be relied on to make legal decisions.
SCOTUS is of course the Supreme Court of the United States. It is often referred to as the Supreme Court, but so are the state supreme courts as well as some foreign countries high courts, so so SCOTUS is more specific.
The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees rights of free speech: quote:
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.
Due to later amendments these rights apply to people in the U.S. irrespective of state law as well. Also most state constitutions have similar language.
It was not considered unconstitutional to restrict political donations until a recent landmark case. This case basically overturned all political financing laws.
Senator Dodd is the (senior?) senator from the state of Connecticut. He's a Democrat if you care about that.
The Fourteenth Amendment deals with issues of citizenship. It was passed after the Civil War to overturn the Dread Scott decision. Persons must be born or naturalized to be citizens. Since legal persons are not born or naturalized (yet) they are not citizens and can not vote.
The problem arises because, in article 1 section 10, the constitution forbids interfering with contracts. A corporation is a contract as well as a person. Common law as well as state law grants them the privileges of people. Since any law we pass now restricting them would interfere with the contracts, they are difficult to control.
Is there anyone besides Sober Preacher's Kid who thinks overturning the First Amendment is a good idea?
I think the world is rapidly changing and several successful countries have moved away from free speech (Russia, China, and apparently Canada). I can see lots of benefits to this approach (monolithic goals, less person hours wasted on porn, etc.). There are big disadvantages as well.
Are there other social systems that could mitigate the stasis problems? By stasis problems I refer to the inability to change brought on by a lack of dissent. Perhaps other venues for dissent?
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Is there anyone besides Sober Preacher's Kid who thinks overturning the First Amendment is a good idea?
I think the world is rapidly changing and several successful countries have moved away from free speech (Russia, China, and apparently Canada).
I don't think many Americans would advocate overturning the First Amendment. But I don't think that's what's being proposed, nor do I think Canada has "moved away from free speech".
As has already been shown on this thread, all freedoms exist within boundaries. There are already all sorts of limits on free speech that have been deemed constitutional-- libel laws, for example, deal with some of these. Pharmaceutical companies are not allowed to make certain medical claims that can't be supported by the data-- a limit on their "free speech". Many other examples could be given.
All freedoms exist within certain parameters. Again, most/all legislation is merely the process of defining both the extent and limits of those freedoms. Given the recent SCOTUS decision, apparently additional legislation, possibly even a constitutional amendment, is needed to limit the freedom of corporations to purchase US Congressional reps/Senators-- just as a constitutional amendment was needed to limit the freedom of white Southerners to buy and sell human slaves.
So what's being proposed is not an "overturning" of the first amendment, it is simply a more precise definition of the extent and limits of that freedom.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
One of my favorite legal reporters, Slate's Dahlia Lithwick, wrote a piece on this decision here. FWIW.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I can see plenty of arguments for and against capping political donations, but I thought freedom of speech was about the right to say what you like, not the right pay people, to subscribe, what you like. What has this got to do specifically with freedom of speech, or for that matter the other things, freedom to assemble, freedom to petition etc?
The article is interesting, but it doesn't answer that particular question.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I can see plenty of arguments for and against capping political donations, but I thought freedom of speech was about the right to say what you like, not the right pay people, to subscribe, what you like. What has this got to do specifically with freedom of speech, or for that matter the other things, freedom to assemble, freedom to petition etc?
The article is interesting, but it doesn't answer that particular question.
Her quote, "Even former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist once warned that treating corporate spending as the First Amendment equivalent of individual free speech is 'to confuse metaphor with reality.'" is directed at that. The point is that no-one saw curtailing corporate spending to influence elections as a violation of free speech until these right-wing ideologues became a majority of the Supreme Court. It is a very troubling development for our democracy.
The SCOTUS has been the difficult leg of our democracy one way or the other from the very beginning. It is always problematic to have people unelected and appointed for life in a position that allows them to overturn the decisions of the elected officials (a power that wasn't even included in the constitution that these justices insist should be read in its "original intent" -- Justice Marshall snookered that power into the court in Marbury v. Madison, more than a decade after the constitution was adopted. Before that, it wasn't clear that the Supreme Court had anything of significance to do.)
At various points in our history, the arrogance of the justices has created problems for the country. Oddly, we have never resorted to the constitutional remedy of subjecting these folks to the democratic process by impeaching them and removing them from office. This has only been attempted once in the history of the country -- Samual P. Chase was impeached at Thomas Jefferson's instigation, but was not convicted by the Senate. Since then, the SCOTUS has been untouchable. The idea was to make the justices "free" from political influence, but the effect is that they are free to wreak whatever political influence they like without the need of facing any political consequences.
ISTM that the pretense of these justices of just interpreting precedent instead of making law (a rallying cry of the right-wingers as they sought appointment) has been adequately demonstrated to be a lie under oath during their confirmation hearings, and would serve as a perfectly acceptable basis for canning the lot of them.
--Tom Clune
[ 13. February 2010, 02:10: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Enoch, the court ruled that spending money on advertising was speech. Therefore, limiting such money was limiting speech.
I agree with the court on this. I even think the court handed down the right decision. The law is clear and what started out as a rule to prevent bribes became twisted into a rule to ensure good government.
But IMO it's not the court's job to ensure good government. That's the job of the voters. If there's a problem with corporate donations (and there was even before the court's ruling), limit those. Don't limit everyone else's speech.
A simple amendment defining natural born people as the one's with the rights is all that's needed.
Cliffdweller, the First Amendment rights have always existed within boundaries. But amending the Constitution to allow congress the power to limit free speech on a political basis right before an election is the exact opposite of "congress can pass no law".
BTW, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws did just that. They disallowed most groups except formal candidates from publishing political material some months before elections. They also limited the amount candidates could spend.
When President Bush signed that law he lost my support. I resigned as precinct chair. I did not vote for him for a second term. The law was clearly the exact opposite of what the Constitution says.
I just didn't think SCOTUS had the balls to strike it down. I was wrong.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Enoch, the court ruled that spending money on advertising was speech. Therefore, limiting such money was limiting speech.
That's a bit odd. Speech is speech. Free speech is the right to say something without being put in prison or made to shut up. The right to spend money isn't the same thing.
Is the argument, that spending the money is how you get your words out to those you want to hear what you have to say?
The SCOTUS has been the difficult leg of our democracy one way or the other from the very beginning. It is always problematic to have people unelected and appointed for life in a position that allows them to overturn the decisions of the elected officials.
Why? What's so magic about the elected?
The problem we have with our unwritten constitution is that our elected representatives do (or did until very recently) constitute a completely untrammelled dictatorship. Once they have enacted something, that is it. It is law. However unreasonable, however inconsistent with many peoples' ideas about fundamentals etc., there is no part of the constitution that can hold it up to the light.
There is something equally unsavory about letting 50% + 1 men and women, all politicians, chosen on a dodgy franchise, which they acclaim as sacrosanct because it elected them, exercise that sort of power.
Many other countries have some sort of constitutional court. People agree with it or disagree with it - like everything else - according to whether it does what they agree with. Whichever solution a country adopts, there is a tension there that some people will be unhappy about - 'who will judge the judges'.
There's obviously an issue about who appoints the judges. Will they pack the bench with people who think like they do? But what's the alternative? Either someone's got to choose them, or they self select. You couldn't elect them. How would people, campaign to be a judge - 'vote for me and if a case comes before me about immigrants, I'll throw them out of the country'? That's a really horrible thought.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It may be a horrible thought for you or I, Enoch, but it's already a reality in some cases in America.
I even find the confirmation process in America to be somewhat strange. It's a requirement of sufficient popularity.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
There's obviously an issue about who appoints the judges. Will they pack the bench with people who think like they do? But what's the alternative? Either someone's got to choose them, or they self select. You couldn't elect them. How would people, campaign to be a judge - 'vote for me and if a case comes before me about immigrants, I'll throw them out of the country'? That's a really horrible thought.
In this country, most of our judges are elected. It is only at the federal level that this is not the norm. It has not proven to be a really horrible thought. We have had an increasing string of anti-democratic actions by our SCOTUS in recent years. The intrusion of the court into the election of GW was just the most egregious (even the court itself acknowledged that there was no basis in law for their action - the constitution provides for the US Congress to decide these political questions of presidential election. It would have most likely decided in favor of GW because, at that time, there was a Reepublican majority in that body. So it was all the more shocking that the court did this unconstitutional usurpation.) The fact that five men can undermine our form of government without our having any recourse is a working definition of tyranny on this side of the ocean.
Personally, I don't think that the virtue of limiting judicial overreaching hinges on whether I agree with the overreach. For example, in my state the Supreme Judicial Court declared homosexual marriage to be required by our state constitution. I agree with the virtue of legalizing homosexual marriage, but it clearly was not a part of our state constitution. Even the court acknowledged that there was nothing in the constitution or precedent that would lead to that conclusion. Nonetheless, they thought it was the right thing to do.
Now, it just isn't their right to change the law of the land based on their personal preferences. They should have been impeached and removed from office for that overreaching. It is fine for them to exercise their personal conscience, but it should carry a personal cost, too. They simply don't have the democratic right to foist their personal views onto the law of the land like that. Once there is a political cost associated with political acts, balance will be restored to the power of the judiciary.
--Tom Cune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Tclune, the SCOTUS has the responsibility, in addition to ruling on constitutional issues, to mediate lawsuits between the states. The Florida official responsible for certifying the election certified it. The state court ruled that null. But it was a federal election.
The point is that there was no good solution. Republicans are convinced that the Democrats were trying to steal the election by dominating the recount process. The Democrats are convinced they won and the courts stole the election. If it had been left to a normal litigation process, the presidential term would have been over before the courts finished the recount.
Someone had to decide. Get over it. Win the next election (Oh, you did.)
Enoch, does that mean the congress can pass a law placing anyone they don't want to hear in a soundproof room? They can still speak their piece, but no one will hear.
In our world, the feds control the media due to bandwidth considerations. They have to be fair about who gets access. To a large extent they've done this by auctioning off the bandwidth to various large companies who sublet media access on a pay basis.
If they then forbid people to pay, they have forbidden them to speak so other people can hear them.
I suppose another possibility would be to divide the media bandwidth evenly so every citizen gets an equal amount of time. What would you do with your 100 milli-seconds of time this year?
You will notice that the government has made some effort to keep the internet open to all people. Here bandwidth is more plentiful, so it's not as large an issue.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Enoch, does that mean the congress can pass a law placing anyone they don't want to hear in a soundproof room? They can still speak their piece, but no one will hear.
I can't speak for the American constitution, but would assume not. That would strike me as being a piece of legislation that the Scotus could strike down as being unconstitutional.
Our Parliament could pass such a law, and it would be law, except that it might be in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights which we have now imported, as being imprisonment without trial.
Apart from that, it is possible for Parliament to pass an act of attainder, although I don't think it has done since the C17.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Does that mean the congress can pass a law placing anyone they don't want to hear in a soundproof room? They can still speak their piece, but no one will hear.
If only! Sarah Palin would be the first in line for it.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
There's obviously an issue about who appoints the judges. Will they pack the bench with people who think like they do? But what's the alternative? Either someone's got to choose them, or they self select. You couldn't elect them. How would people, campaign to be a judge - 'vote for me and if a case comes before me about immigrants, I'll throw them out of the country'? That's a really horrible thought.
In this country, most of our judges are elected. It is only at the federal level that this is not the norm. It has not proven to be a really horrible thought. We have had an increasing string of anti-democratic actions by our SCOTUS in recent years. The intrusion of the court into the election of GW was just the most egregious (even the court itself acknowledged that there was no basis in law for their action - the constitution provides for the US Congress to decide these political questions of presidential election. It would have most likely decided in favor of GW because, at that time, there was a Reepublican majority in that body. So it was all the more shocking that the court did this unconstitutional usurpation.) The fact that five men can undermine our form of government without our having any recourse is a working definition of tyranny on this side of the ocean.
Personally, I don't think that the virtue of limiting judicial overreaching hinges on whether I agree with the overreach. For example, in my state the Supreme Judicial Court declared homosexual marriage to be required by our state constitution. I agree with the virtue of legalizing homosexual marriage, but it clearly was not a part of our state constitution. Even the court acknowledged that there was nothing in the constitution or precedent that would lead to that conclusion. Nonetheless, they thought it was the right thing to do.
Now, it just isn't their right to change the law of the land based on their personal preferences. They should have been impeached and removed from office for that overreaching. It is fine for them to exercise their personal conscience, but it should carry a personal cost, too. They simply don't have the democratic right to foist their personal views onto the law of the land like that. Once there is a political cost associated with political acts, balance will be restored to the power of the judiciary.
--Tom Cune
One serious problem is that the Citizens United decision may make it possible for corporations to buy state judgeships. Judges are not high-profile politicians, and they don't typically run for office on a platform of how they will decide cases (in fact, they generally refuse to talk about that at all). Consequently, they get elected mostly on name recognition, which makes money a huge factor. Sandra Day O'Connor has warned about this at length, most recently in a speech very shortly after the SCOTUS decision.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Judges are not high-profile politicians, and they don't typically run for office on a platform of how they will decide cases (in fact, they generally refuse to talk about that at all). Consequently, they get elected mostly on name recognition, which makes money a huge factor.
And they seldom bother to campaign, and they often run unopposed. The voter's revenge is to vote NO for all of them.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
A slippery slope it does seem to be. If you can change the Constitution to limit the rights of corporate persons the next thing will be a change to limit the free speech of natural persons.
And wanking off causes warts.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
One serious problem is that the Citizens United decision may make it possible for corporations to buy state judgeships. Judges are not high-profile politicians, and they don't typically run for office on a platform of how they will decide cases (in fact, they generally refuse to talk about that at all). Consequently, they get elected mostly on name recognition, which makes money a huge factor. Sandra Day O'Connor has warned about this at length, most recently in a speech very shortly after the SCOTUS decision.
But none of that is a problem if corporations are people and money is speech. You say "mega corporation buys a judge," I say "concerned citizen participates in the democratic process." Once you go down the rabbit hole, it all makes perfect sense...
--Tom Clune
[ETA: I may be willing to go along with this nonsense if the court rigorously applies the logic of corporation = man and money = speech to the principle of one man, one vote and redistributes the trillions given to Wall Street to me.]
[ 15. February 2010, 15:11: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
