28th amendment to regulate and limit campaign spending.

[Wells]

Stupid people create inventive for the individual in power to do whatever he desires (be it enact pro corporate laws and regulations or otherwise)

This is really fucking simple. If politicians don't need money from corporations to get elected the only people they'll listen to are the people voting. When they don't have to please donors they spend more time pleasing us.

Frankly the idea that donations don't have a corrupting influence is stupid.

[obdigore]

I am implying that words mean things and the people who wrote these documents had very specific ideologies in mind when they were written, freedom being one of the first priorities. A lot of that has been lost over the years for the sake of petty agendas.

Oh man. Words mean things? Fucking crazy.

Now, show me where 'legal entity = US citizen'. Still waiting for you to back up your original assertion in thread.

[Sky High]

Counter what I am saying or shut the fuck up.

blah blah blah blah

take your own advice.

[xanzul]

And those normal people will have all the same rights everyone else does.

The point of this thread is to discuss how changes to law could prevent that. Or do you normally have issues following a discussion?

[taliey]

Stupid people create inventive for the individual in power to do whatever he desires (be it enact pro corporate laws and regulations or otherwise) instead of what is in the public's best interest as the consequences of doing such are limited by the attention span, apathetic nature, and ill-informed nature of the voting public.


Liberty and government exercise of power are indeed mutually exclusive. That being said, the seizure of some level of the liberty of all is inarguably necessary for the maintenance of an ordered society. What is being proposed is inarguably a greater seizure of liberty than is required to maintain an ordered society as we currently live within an ordered society without this additional seizure of liberty.

If a government exercises power at a level of 10 (arbitrary number as creating an actual scale to measure exercised governmental power isn't feasible for me), then the most that corporations or other entities can enact influence over the people through the government is also 10 by manipulating how the government applies that 10. If the power the government exercises were reduced to 6, then the most that corporations or other entities could enact influence over the people through the government is also 6. A reduction in the magnitude and scope of the power exercised by government corresponds to a reduction in the magnitude and scope of power that can be influenced by corporations or other entities. As for power exerted by corporations apart from the government, that power can only influence individuals if they consent to be placed under that power. As such, I see no reason to care about that power exerted apart from influencing of government as the power exerted apart from influencing of government cannot reduce the liberty of an individual if it can only be influenced over an individual through their consent.


English should be capitalized.

But corporations and governments are not linked entities - they are wholly separate entities.

The Dole Fruit Company in Hawaii, back in the 19th century, is pretty much a case in point where corporations could exert power, in the absence of a government.

Corporations and government aren't linked - their powers aren't derived from each other.

[Wells]

The point of this thread is to discuss how changes to law could prevent that.

Let's say this amendment passes. What right have citizens lost?

[xanzul]

what I find particularly weird is how he thinks ted cruz is some kind of gangster thug

It is the same ignorant mindset that paints the GLBT community as a "mafia" for daring expect equal rights.

- - - Updated - - -

Then those "normal people" can go out and paint picket signs like everybody else.

When you have a disgusting amount of money to spend on a political campaign influence, you cease being a "normal person" and become a massive influence of controlling power way above any scale of a "normal" person.

Oh right so if it doesn't affect you, then its aok? Sounds about right coming from you.

- - - Updated - - -

do explain how this infringes on peoples liberties. enough with the song and dance.

You do understand the point of amendments right?

- - - Updated - - -

So if the states get together and work with the Legislative Branch to write an amendment to the federal constitution, you think the Judiciary (SCOTUS) could strike it down for being 'unconstitutional'?

Uh...yes. Absolutely.

Is this a serious question? It is actually what has been laying the groundwork to finally stop various states in this country from repeatedly trying to legislate various parts of the GLBT community out of existence.

[Sky High]

You do understand the point of amendments right?

I do, now explain how this will bend the american public over a barrel and shove that 9' strap on called tyranny up the hiddy hole.

[Wells]

Uh...yes. Absolutely.

Is this a serious question? It is actually what has been laying the groundwork to finally stop various states in this country from repeatedly trying to legislate various parts of the GLBT community out of existence.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

supreme court is never even mentioned. Constitutional amendments can't be struck down on Constitutional grounds.

[xanzul]

Look, this has about zero chance of actually passing. To be perfectly honestly I am very uncomfortable with this whole thing, much that I hate the influence of money in elections. There just has to be a better way than amending the Constitution in a way that could, in theory, be used by either party to try and curtail any political advertising or speech since it all has to be paid for with money or by corporations at some level. It could potentially shut down magazines, television stations, radio stations, etc. and it would all depend on how some beuracrat interpreted the law.

Personally I would be more in favor of changing the law regarding how corporations are defined and narrowing it so that it's much more clear and much more spelled out just how corporate personhood and citizen are different.

This is my issue with it as well. Amendments are something that shouldn't be taken lightly for ANY issue. I don't think any of us should ever be so blinded by a pet issue that we don't see potential ramifications for how this could affect us, this country or our families down the line.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

This is really fucking simple. If politicians don't need money from corporations to get elected the only people they'll listen to are the people voting. When they don't have to please donors they spend more time pleasing us.

Frankly the idea that donations don't have a corrupting influence is stupid.

What's worse is the argument that corporations influencing politicians like that isn't bad because they're the ones with the most money at stake.

[Kraenen]

Perhaps your grasp of the english language is lacking, which is not surprising among Conservatives.

If you have the "liberty" to do something, that means you have the legal right to do so. You have the "liberty" of mostly free speech.

If there is no law against something, that is freedom. This is different.

Society as a structure infringes on freedom, it does so because it must, without that infringement there is anarchy.

Even if there were no governments you wouldn't be free. Freedom is doing whatever you want, being uninhibited if you will. But you will always be inhibited by the basic laws of our psychology and biology.

[Fexus]

Uh...yes. Absolutely.

Is this a serious question? It is actually what has been laying the groundwork to finally stop various states in this country from repeatedly trying to legislate various parts of the GLBT community out of existence.

How can the constitution be declared unconstitutional?

[xanzul]

So are you admitting that Corporations don't have all the same rights and responsibilities as actual citizens?

I'm saying under the law corporations have rights as well and for good reason.

[dehotz]

Uh...yes. Absolutely.

Is this a serious question? It is actually what has been laying the groundwork to finally stop various states in this country from repeatedly trying to legislate various parts of the GLBT community out of existence.

Nope, wrong again. Perhaps it's you who doesn't understand how amendments work. If the constitution were amended to prohibit private money spent on political ads and the Supreme Court didn't like it they can't do jack about it, they're there to ensure that the laws passed by the Legislative branch adhere to the Constitution, not to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to follow. Perhaps you're confusing State and Federal constitutions.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

This is my issue with it as well. Amendments are something that shouldn't be taken lightly for ANY issue. I don't think any of us should ever be so blinded by a pet issue that we don't see potential ramifications for how this could affect us, this country or our families down the line.

It would be nice if you could come up with some instead of just hinting at their existence.

[Endus]

This is my issue with it as well. Amendments are something that shouldn't be taken lightly for ANY issue. I don't think any of us should ever be so blinded by a pet issue that we don't see potential ramifications for how this could affect us, this country or our families down the line.

Nobody's blinded by anything.

An amendment is being proposed because it allows for the issue to be resolved semi-permanently, rather than a simple act of legislation away from recurring.

You've been asked to provide what repercussions you think this amendment would have, that we should be concerned about, and you've consistently refused to do so.

[Wells]

I'm saying under the law corporations have rights as well and for good reason.

Hence the constitutional amendment. Please keep up.

[xanzul]

Upholding the law, means supporting it/concurring with the soundness/validity of the legal reasoning behind the law. Last I checked, upholding a law did not mean striking it down (calling it unconstitutional). That was not in the post I was responding to. There was a critical omission, as that you said the whole point of the judicial system was to concur, leaving no reference for when the judicial system may oppose an action that the Legislature may have done.

I just wanted to clear up your statement, because if courts did not have the ability to declare laws passed by the Legislature, unconstitutional, what would be the reason for their existence as a separate but equal branch in our government?

Go read a history book. Hell...go read a newspaper. SCOTUS is doing precisely what it is supposed to do and it is high time for it. It is the point of checks and balances something people only seem to care about when it is in their favor.

[Endus]

I'm saying under the law corporations have rights as well and for good reason.

Not the same rights as people.

Because they aren't people.