Supreme Court Rejects Campaign Spending Limits

[GenSeneca]

You must really be against the "forced redistribution of wealth" that goes to the U.S. military. About a trillion dollars a year are spent on that money pit.

In some cases yes, in others no. The military is both constitutional and necessary for the protection of our rights. That's the proper role of government, to protect our rights. I explained in another thread that our Declaration spells out the reason for government to be created among men, for the protection of our rights. Not for any other purpose.

*Edit*

I almost forgot... Military funding is not a redistribution of wealth. Taking money from someone who is "well off" and transferring that money to someone who is not, is a redistribution of wealth.

 

[citizenzen]

In some cases yes, in others no. The military is both constitutional and necessary for the protection of our rights.

Yes, but when you're talking about spending as much as the rest of the world combined on defense I think you could agree that it's taking a "good" thing too far.

Imagine you lived in a development with 200 other houses. If you were spending as much as all your neighbors combined on lawn care, I'd say you were obsessing about your front yard a wee too much.

I know you don't like to see defense spending as a redistribution of wealth, but that trillion a year comes from us taxpayers and goes to someone else.

In my book that's a redistribution. But you can call it whatever you like.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

You insist on employing ad hominems, red herrings, appeals to ridicule and other logical fallacies to avoid answering my questions, that's a shame. I had hoped you would be able to have a civilized discussion but perhaps I was expecting too much.

*******************************
Interesting: I've had to pull my post #42 up here since you neglected to respond to it directly {yes I know it got lost in all of the waste of bandwidth of 'ALWAYS'} but you might just be over looking my reply on purpose

Originally Posted by GenSeneca
1. Unions were not limited by the restrictions on corporations. The Courts ruling has placed the Corporations on level ground with the Unions. Prior to this decision, Unions could spend all the money they wanted to sway elections and you had no problem with that - becuase Unions push Democrat candidates.

2. You seem to understand the danger of letting corporations and government get in bed together yet you embrace the "Mixed" economy that allows this corruption to take place.

3. You don't seem to understand the danger of letting Unions and government get in bed together.

WHOAAA...there mister...this ruling was just and about the limits that had been placed on CORPORATIONS...and as long as they don't give money directly to anyone candidate they will be allowed to spend as much mega bucks as they want to support or destroy a person running for office via campaign ads/commercials...this had nothing to do with the UNIONS...that maybe be looked at later but it wasn't included in this argument before the supreme court...not at this time anyway!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34822247...supreme_court/

 

[Revere]

The rules on how much corporations can give to candidates were not overturned.

The Supreme Court merely asserted that government cannot asert what can be said and who can say it.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

The rules on how much corporations can give to candidates were not overturned.

The Supreme Court merely asserted that government cannot asert what can be said and who can say it.

Hmmm...I guess I match you <STORY SOURCE> against mine:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34822247...supreme_court/ and after reading the Supreme Court website {legalize not being my forte} I'll have to say that your site maybe a slight fudging of the truth

 

[GenSeneca]

Yes, but when you're talking about spending as much as the rest of the world combined on defense I think you could agree that it's taking a "good" thing too far.

Imagine you lived in a development with 200 other houses. If you were spending as much as all your neighbors combined on lawn care, I'd say you were obsessing about your front yard a wee too much.

I know you don't like to see defense spending as a redistribution of wealth, but that trillion a year comes from us taxpayers and goes to someone else.

In my book that's a redistribution. But you can call it whatever you like.

It's not a trillion dollars a year, Defense spending is about 21% of the budget while the welfare state eats up over 70% - But I have the feeling you would never consider our welfare state "too much of a good thing".

Its not a redistribution of wealth. You confuse paying for services with redistribution. I pay taxes that go to the military, they protect my rights. Same with policemen, I pay them for a service they provide to me. When I get taxed to pay for some strangers health care, I get nothing, no service in return and that expenditure does nothing to protect my rights - in fact it violates my rights to fulfill the obligation.

We are the worlds policeman, for better or for worse. I do not support nation building or exporting democracy and if we stopped those expenses, we would spend a great deal less on defense.

We've managed to get off topic, so if you choose to reply, I will not respond here. Perhaps you can make a new thread or drag one up from the past where our discussion is on topic if you would like to further the conversation.

 

[citizenzen]

It's not a trillion dollars a year, Defense spending is about 21% of the budget while the welfare state eats up over 70% - But I have the feeling you would never consider our welfare state "too much of a good thing".

Base budget is about $650 Billion. Add supplemental funding and two wars and it is indeed a trillion dollars.

And yes, I'd much rather spend money taking care of people than killing them.

I guess we have different priorities.

Imagine if we were spending on welfare as much the rest of the world combined.

 

[citizenzen]

We are the worlds policeman, for better or for worse.

So you're really not for small government so long as it involves the military.

Then the sky's the limit.

 

[GenSeneca]

So you're really not for small government so long as it involves the military.

Then the sky's the limit.

As I said, if you would like to contine this conversation, bring it elsewhere, preferably a thread where it would be on topic. Then I would be glad to respond to your every fallacious statement.

 

[citizenzen]

As I said, if you would like to contine this conversation, bring it elsewhere, preferably a thread where it would be on topic.

Yet you're more than happy to talk about welfare.

Curious how some issues are on topic and some aren't.

 

[Sihouette]

For one thing, if the entire SCOTUS decision was hinged on corporations being equal to citizens, [since being superior is out of the question as per the 14th Amendment], then if it can be demonstrated that any corporation has committed a felony or other crimes, then their board of directors [in their entirety] can be tried and jailed or otherwise face the penalties that any other citizen must bear. If this cannot be done, if no "one" person can be fingered as accountable for the actons of the corporation, then it does not have a 'body" that is tangible in order for citizenship to apply. Because citizens are not only bodies with freedom, they are bodies with accountability. Without accountability for redress in law against the corporation for, say, committing felonies or otherwise endangering others or the environment that others have to live in and around, corporations do not pass the test of "citizenship".

There are no supercitizens. The 14th Amendment guarantees equality. Here is the language again:

*********
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
*************

The SCOTUS decision has repealed the 14th Amendment in allowing unlimited influence in elections. Since money is a de facto part of the predicted outcome of any election, and there is such a fiscal disparity between corporations and singular citizens or even nonprofit citizen groups, the five Justicies have taken away equality among citizens. In other words they have repealed the 14th Amendment because taking away the ability to influence elections is the very heart of our democracy and the Constitution itself. But more specifically to the 14th Amendment, the SCOTUS 1/21/10 decision allows "abridging" to the powers of everyday citizens to affect their own destinies.

However there is a remedy. And Congress can effectively overturn this decision because of the last line of the 14th Amendment which reads:

"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

"Appropriate legislation" is up to the interpretation of the current sitting Congress. And last time I checked that Congress has a democratic majority. It doesn't say the Congress needs a supermajority. It doesn't say anything at all specifically, only that Congress has the power to enforce the language of the 14th Amendment to which the SCOTUS decision has repealed without due process. The Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution, not to repeal it or any part of it.

The SCOTUS decision is therefore outside its powers. Congress trumps the Court in this instance. There is no language in the Constitution that gives power to the Court to usurp the very essence of the Constitution or any of its Amendments.

There's your argument. Proceed.

 

[Sihouette]

You know and since the SCOTUS decision affects the rights and priveleges of every citizen in every state, my argument applies. The 14th Amendment applies to any and all states [combined, known as "The United States" from which the Supreme Court derives its powers]

Again, the Supreme Court isn't a legislative body. They may not create conditions that nullify the Constitution. Only Congress can do that. And if I am wrong, if the Supreme Court may nullfy Amendments via its decisions, then Congress must now formally repeal the 14th Amendment.

However as I said and is written in specifically in the 14th Amendment, Congress has the unique power to enforce or uphold the provisions of the 14th Amendment. Sorry SCOTUS, not this time.. Again, literally, all that Congress has to do is pass a majority affirmation of the 14th Amendment as overruling the SCOTUS decision and that document will then become the dominant law of the land and enforceable

 

[Sihouette]

This debate is moot. The Supreme Court acted outside its powers in Thursday's decision. Congress may simply repeal the decision with a majority vote and declaration as such.

I wondered why they included that last line in the 14th Amendment about Congress trumping The Court in this way, but thinking back, they probably wisely surmised that a stacked Court with prejudice might try to take away the rights of blacks or women if they could manage it. They added that extra protection to keep nine people from affecting the destiny of 300 million. Little did they know that the new "hated minority group" would be the poor and disenfranchised...a group that is growing by the thousands by the day.

 

[GenSeneca]

Yet you're more than happy to talk about welfare.

I'm more than happy to discuss the topic of this thread in this thread. If you would like to discuss any other topic, please do so in the appropriate thread.

My apologies to ASPCA for my role in derailing this topic.

Curious how some issues are on topic and some aren't.

I'm not convinced you're here to discuss topics at all. If your only contributions to this forum are going to consist of smart asterix comments and obnoxious rhetorical quips meant to goad other users into a mud fight, then I'll gladly add you to my extensive ignore list with all the others in that category and continue to speak only to those with the capacity for rational adult conversation.

 

[Revere]

This debate is moot. The Supreme Court acted outside its powers in Thursday's decision. Congress may simply repeal the decision with a majority vote and declaration as such.

Um, no, that's what McCain-Feingold tried to do.

Congress would need to amend the Constitution, excluding certain free speech.

Good luck with that.