RE: is money speech?

RE: is money speech? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Musicmystery -> RE: is money speech? (9/10/2014 11:35:14 AM)
I think you're ignoring the difference between legislation and principles. It's a Constitutional Amendment, not a law. The law(s) come(s) later. And the REASON for proposing the Amendment (other than the political ones) is this Supreme Court cannot be trusted to use their heads. The Amendment clarifies the silly logic the Court used to articulate a principle.

Musicmystery -> RE: is money speech? (9/10/2014 11:47:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Only the wealthy will have the money to run against an incumbent. This makes no sense. Without this Amendment only the wealthy have the money to run against an incumbent. If you want to open up challenges to incumbents, a better solution would be addressing gerrymandering. I'd love to see a law mandating limits on the ratio of a district's perimeter to its area. Then actual regions would be represented, and not collections of supporters. Only an independent commission could do it - incumbents are never going to do so.

Marc2b -> RE: is money speech? (9/10/2014 11:50:12 AM)
quote: I think you're ignoring the difference between legislation and principles. It's a Constitutional Amendment, not a law. The law(s) come(s) later. And the REASON for proposing the Amendment (other than the political ones) is this Supreme Court cannot be trusted to use their heads. The Amendment clarifies the silly logic the Court used to articulate a principle. The Constitution is law but, that aside, it is precisely the laws that come after which worry me. Imagine a Republican majority Congress that decided that in order to qualify for funds a candidate must publicly affirm that "America is a Christian nation" or opposes abortion or supports the teaching of creationism in public schools or that homosexuality is a sin or . . . Now imagine somebody like Scalia ruling on the Constitutionality of such and using that amendment as their guide. "Hmmm... it says Congress has the authority to raise and allocate campaign funds but it doesn't say any such funds have to be given to godless heathens."

Musicmystery -> RE: is money speech? (9/10/2014 11:52:28 AM)
Since your scenario violates the first Amendment (freedom of religion), Scalia can only do so by ignoring the Constitution. If your point is that someone like Scalia will do whatever he wants, then the Constitution is meaningless anyway. [8\|]

Aylee -> RE: is money speech? (9/10/2014 12:06:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Since your scenario violates the first Amendment (freedom of religion), Scalia can only do so by ignoring the Constitution. If your point is that someone like Scalia will do whatever he wants, then the Constitution is meaningless anyway. [8\|] No it does not violate the 1st amendment. It violates the "no religious test for office." Article VI, paragraph 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

mnottertail -> RE: is money speech? (9/10/2014 12:08:43 PM)
Therein lies the rub, even today. The republican party can ask a religious test before they will back a candidate, with no impediment. It is not an office holding issue, it is a 'club' issue.

Musicmystery -> RE: is money speech? (9/10/2014 12:12:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Since your scenario violates the first Amendment (freedom of religion), Scalia can only do so by ignoring the Constitution. If your point is that someone like Scalia will do whatever he wants, then the Constitution is meaningless anyway. [8\|] No it does not violate the 1st amendment. It violates the "no religious test for office." Article VI, paragraph 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. Fine. Point is, his scenario violates the Constitution.

Musicmystery -> RE: is money speech? (9/10/2014 12:13:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Therein lies the rub, even today. The republican party can ask a religious test before they will back a candidate, with no impediment. It is not an office holding issue, it is a 'club' issue. I don't have a problem with that -- I disagree with it, but if a club wants to field a candidate, they can try.

Marc2b -> RE: is money speech? (9/10/2014 12:15:37 PM)
quote: Since your scenario violates the first Amendment (freedom of religion), Scalia can only do so by ignoring the Constitution. If your point is that someone like Scalia will do whatever he wants, then the Constitution is meaningless anyway. [8\|] You haven't been keeping up on your reading. Haven't you heard? The separation of church and state is a myth. Go ahead, look it up, there are all sorts of God fearing people who will tell you this. All that talk about keeping religion out of our schools is just a bunch of liberal atheist talk. This is a Christian Nation! As for Scalia, of course he can't do whatever he want's on his own . . . he'll need help from at least four other people. Do you really want to chance that he'll get it? Why not avoid the possibility in the first place. I really do not understand why people are opposed to a little more language that would make it clear that congress can't favor some candidates and discriminate against others. I mean, whats the big fucking deal? Were talking about adding a few more sentences to the proposed amendment: The allocation of all campaign funds and airtime on the public airwaves, shall be distributed equally among the eligible candidates. No candidate shall be deemed ineligible on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or political or religious affiliation, or lack thereof. There now! Was that so difficult? All that is needed is a few lines about the qualifications for eligibility (the aforementioned petitions). What is so scary about that to some people? I really do not understand why anyone would be opposed to this . . . well, anyone who truly believes in the democratic process as well as equality.

Musicmystery -> RE: is money speech? (9/10/2014 12:35:34 PM)
You're making shit up. No one finds it "scary" or "difficult" -- just redundant.

Marc2b -> RE: is money speech? (9/10/2014 12:54:55 PM)
quote: You're making shit up. No one finds it "scary" or "difficult" -- just redundant. If it is not scary then why oppose it? I was being rhetorical when I used the word scary. Truthfully, the only reason for supporting the amendment as is - not counting genuine stupidity - is a desire and expectation to be the party which decides who gets how much. If it is redundant - it's not, but for the sake of argument - why would that still be a reason to oppose it? What is wrong with some extra safeguards against unscrupulous individuals? Are you really that trusting of government that you're willing to chance it? I don't understand the thinking of people who rant and rave against unchecked power in the form of corporations (which I understand) but then run up to and suck the cock of unchecked power in the form of Government. What makes you think Congress is trustworthy with that much power?

Musicmystery -> RE: is money speech? (9/10/2014 1:24:08 PM)
Nobody said they opposed it either. Simply questioned your opposition based on the absence of the language, as the Constitution already covers your objections. What makes you think corporations are trustworthy with that much power? Congress already has the power to make up the law. The President has the power to veto, the Supreme Court has the power to pretend to stick to the Constitution, and the people have the power to vote Congress out. That's how it works. If you're taking the position that "but it's not working," then anything you or anyone else says would be pointless, so why bother either way?

Marc2b -> RE: is money speech? (9/10/2014 1:40:35 PM)
quote: Nobody said they opposed it either. Simply questioned your opposition based on the absence of the language, as the Constitution already covers your objections. Yet, despite these Constitutional protections, discrimination has been and remains rampant. quote: What makes you think corporations are trustworthy with that much power? I don't! I repeat (this time with emphasis on the part you missed): I don't understand the thinking of people who rant and rave against unchecked power in the form of corporations *(which I understand)* but then run up to and suck the cock of unchecked power in the form of Government. ETA: quote: Congress already has the power to make up the law. The President has the power to veto, the Supreme Court has the power to pretend to stick to the Constitution, and the people have the power to vote Congress out. That's how it works. Except that it doesn't always work, does it? if it did, we wouldn't even need the First Amendment in the first place. quote: If you're taking the position that "but it's not working," then anything you or anyone else says would be pointless, so why bother either way? That is one of the stupidity statements you have ever made. I've come to accept your arrogance as you just being you (exasperating as it can be) but I have never known you to be stupid. Why bother? You already know why! (But I skip the part about being "chaste.")

DomKen -> RE: is money speech? (9/10/2014 2:02:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: The clear language of the amendment prevents this. You simply handwaved this away when it was pointed out to you three separate times. Nothing has been pointed out once much less three times. Where is the clear language that you talk about? It is NOT the sentence that goes: "To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes..." All that sentence does is tell us the purpose behind the amendment, in other words, what the amendment is for. In no way does it tells us how this will be accomplished. That's exactly what that sentence does. This is a constitutional amendment. Section 4 gives Congress and the states the power to pass enabling legislation just like most other modern amendments do. So any law passed by Congress or the states would have to live up to the whole amendment. Not just chunks of it.

DomKen -> RE: is money speech? (9/10/2014 2:06:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: Since your scenario violates the first Amendment (freedom of religion), Scalia can only do so by ignoring the Constitution. If your point is that someone like Scalia will do whatever he wants, then the Constitution is meaningless anyway. [8\|] You haven't been keeping up on your reading. Haven't you heard? The separation of church and state is a myth. Go ahead, look it up, there are all sorts of God fearing people who will tell you this. All that talk about keeping religion out of our schools is just a bunch of liberal atheist talk. This is a Christian Nation! As for Scalia, of course he can't do whatever he want's on his own . . . he'll need help from at least four other people. Do you really want to chance that he'll get it? Why not avoid the possibility in the first place. I really do not understand why people are opposed to a little more language that would make it clear that congress can't favor some candidates and discriminate against others. I mean, whats the big fucking deal? Were talking about adding a few more sentences to the proposed amendment: The allocation of all campaign funds and airtime on the public airwaves, shall be distributed equally among the eligible candidates. No candidate shall be deemed ineligible on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or political or religious affiliation, or lack thereof. There now! Was that so difficult? All that is needed is a few lines about the qualifications for eligibility (the aforementioned petitions). What is so scary about that to some people? I really do not understand why anyone would be opposed to this . . . well, anyone who truly believes in the democratic process as well as equality. That would be a public financing amendment. That is a very different thing. This amendment would still allow private funding of campaigns but allow limits to be imposed again.

DesideriScuri -> RE: is money speech? (9/10/2014 2:07:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Only the wealthy will have the money to run against an incumbent. This makes no sense. Without this Amendment only the wealthy have the money to run against an incumbent. If you want to open up challenges to incumbents, a better solution would be addressing gerrymandering. I'd love to see a law mandating limits on the ratio of a district's perimeter to its area. Then actual regions would be represented, and not collections of supporters. Only an independent commission could do it - incumbents are never going to do so. The problem with mandating limits on perimeter/area ratios has to do with population density. Each Congressional District is supposed to contain the same population as practical. If we keep with that as the main priority, and have a requirement for relatively regular shaped Districts, I'd support that. Obviously, a local government entity would likely need to reside within one District as much as possible, but that'd be a lower requirement than the other two I've mentioned. There is also the requirement regarding ethnic groups, too.

Musicmystery -> RE: is money speech? (9/10/2014 2:09:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: Nobody said they opposed it either. Simply questioned your opposition based on the absence of the language, as the Constitution already covers your objections. Yet, despite these Constitutional protections, discrimination has been and remains rampant. quote: What makes you think corporations are trustworthy with that much power? I don't! I repeat (this time with emphasis on the part you missed): I don't understand the thinking of people who rant and rave against unchecked power in the form of corporations *(which I understand)* but then run up to and suck the cock of unchecked power in the form of Government. ETA: quote: Congress already has the power to make up the law. The President has the power to veto, the Supreme Court has the power to pretend to stick to the Constitution, and the people have the power to vote Congress out. That's how it works. Except that it doesn't always work, does it? if it did, we wouldn't even need the First Amendment in the first place. quote: If you're taking the position that "but it's not working," then anything you or anyone else says would be pointless, so why bother either way? That is one of the stupidity statements you have ever made. I've come to accept your arrogance as you just being you (exasperating as it can be) but I have never known you to be stupid. Why bother? You already know why! (But I skip the part about being "chaste.") Since you're determined to be pissy, so be it. You're arguing that no matter what, the powers that be can't be trusted. In that light, no solution works, and thus, any solution any of us propose is literally pointless, because the powers that be will simply ignore and circumvent them. From there you get arrogance. I'm seeing reading comprehension and a lot of assumptions. Whatever. Clearly further dialogue with you isn't going to be fruitful.

Musicmystery -> RE: is money speech? (9/10/2014 2:11:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Only the wealthy will have the money to run against an incumbent. This makes no sense. Without this Amendment only the wealthy have the money to run against an incumbent. If you want to open up challenges to incumbents, a better solution would be addressing gerrymandering. I'd love to see a law mandating limits on the ratio of a district's perimeter to its area. Then actual regions would be represented, and not collections of supporters. Only an independent commission could do it - incumbents are never going to do so. The problem with mandating limits on perimeter/area ratios has to do with population density. Each Congressional District is supposed to contain the same population as practical. If we keep with that as the main priority, and have a requirement for relatively regular shaped Districts, I'd support that. Obviously, a local government entity would likely need to reside within one District as much as possible, but that'd be a lower requirement than the other two I've mentioned. There is also the requirement regarding ethnic groups, too. That's not a problem at all -- a ratio doesn't care how large or small the numbers that created it might be. In other words, it would self-adjust for population density.

joether -> RE: is money speech? (9/10/2014 2:38:48 PM)
I suggest an amendment that outlaws gerrymandering be put into existence. And that states must devise as neutral a policy on how districts are ordered into the voting process. That rather than using town, county and even state lines as guidelines, we use neutral shapes based on where one's lives in the state: [image]http://www.patternpulp.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/stripes-tartans3.jpg[/image] or [image]http://ih2.redbubble.net/image.8117859.5438/flat,550x550,075,f.u1.jpg[/image] I think we have reached a sufficient level of technology that we can pinpoint where exactly a person's residence falls under one of these examples. For the 'star's image, simply assume the 'red' is just 'blue'. That image was about the 'best' I could find on short notice that would be....patriotic....

cloudboy -> RE: is money speech? (9/10/2014 2:45:47 PM)
Here's a test case: • Part of the super-weirdness of Arizona politics appears to be the result of the state’s 1998 public financing law, which provided tons of matching funds to unwealthy-but-energetic candidates from the social right at the expense of the pragmatic upper class. • the traditional Republican elite had lost its place at the head of the political table. • “I remember having a meeting with some folks I’d call country-club Republicans, and listening to them bemoan the fact that they have no more influence because of the Clean Elections law,” said Rodolfo Espino, a professor at Arizona State University. • The old order in Arizona has been fuming because it’s been elbowed out of political control by people who are less interested in economic development than arresting illegal immigrants, exposing Barack Obama as a Kenyan and combating the scourge of same-sex marriage. This read was both hilarious and eye opening. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/opinion/collins-the-state-of-arizona.html?_r=0

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125