Supreme Court Rejects Campaign Spending Limits

[Sihouette]

You can sing like canaries all day long but the 14th Amendment provides specific powers to Congress to remedy any descrepencies with the 14th Amendment. If another's free speech impinges o the 14th Amendment rendering all equal, then it falls within the Congress' jurisdiction to trump that activity..lol...checkmate. Thank God the authors of that Amendment thought about the nine vs the 300 million.

And to McCain and Co.s attempts to use the 14th to do the same thing. I wonder if someone had a masterplan in mind for some time and knew that last sentence in the 14th had the power to overthrow that plan, they would attempt to mock-challenge that last line and "fail" in order to discourage a timid democratic majority into believing it couldn't be done?

Hmmm...the guy still defends Palin who is the summation of all the fringe GOP rhetoric. I'm going to change the name "McCain" to "Trojan Horse"..lol..

 

[dogtowner]

You can sing like canaries all day long but the 14th Amendment provides specific powers to Congress to remedy any descrepencies with the 14th Amendment. If another's free speech impinges o the 14th Amendment rendering all equal, then it falls within the Congress' jurisdiction to trump that activity..lol...checkmate. Thank God the authors of that Amendment thought about the nine vs the 300 million.

And to McCain and Co.s attempts to use the 14th to do the same thing. I wonder if someone had a masterplan in mind for some time and knew that last sentence in the 14th had the power to overthrow that plan, they would attempt to mock-challenge that last line and "fail" in order to discourage a timid democratic majority into believing it couldn't be done?

Hmmm...the guy still defends Palin who is the summation of all the fringe GOP rhetoric. I'm going to change the name "McCain" to "Trojan Horse"..lol..

care to point out where in the 14th this is ?

 

[Sihouette]

yes, gladly. It's in line 5 of the 14th Amendment.

5. The C-O-N-G-R-E-S-S [not the other two branches] shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Ergo, the dems may at their liesure enact a decree that overturns the SCOTUS decision as impinging on the 14th Amendment.

Like I said, the people who wrote the 14th knew full well what leaving the destiny of equality up to 9 people over millions meant. That's why they ended the Amendment that way.

Also there may be redress in the 1st Amendment too since inequity in free speech is the same as suppression of it by restricting it in other's...particulary financially in the media. De Facto the corporations can afford to saturate air time and drive advertising prices up so high that others may not be able to speak at all in the media. Particularly during elections which makes the it so detrimental to democracy.

Really when you boil it down, the SCOTUS ruling just basically said "The Constitution is Unconstitutional".

 

[Revere]

yes, gladly. It's in line 5 of the 14th Amendment.


Ergo, the dems may at their liesure enact a decree that overturns the SCOTUS decision as impinging on the 14th Amendment.

Like I said, the people who wrote the 14th knew full well what leaving the destiny of equality up to 9 people over millions meant. That's why they ended the Amendment that way.

Nope. That's what McCain-Feingold tried to do.

The Solicitor General arguing this case threw everything at the wall to see whether it would stick. He even conceded the government could ban books.

The equal protection clause protects free speech, equally.

The Constitution does not guarantee equality.

 

[Sihouette]

McCain Feingold may have done just that as a ruse to try to throw the dems off to their actual powers.

If someone told me they knew that's just what they did I would not be shocked at all. The GOP has been using McCain to play the dems like a fiddle. It's about time they wake up and smell the trojan horse-play.


The Constitution DOES guarantee equality. When you get a minute, read the entirety of the 14th Amendment. Pay particular attention to line 5 I've posted above. All Congress has to do is interpret "the appropriate legislation" to nullify the SCOTUS ruling since SCOTUS has no power to usurp the 14th. They were very specific about pointing out whose jurisdiction the 14th is under..

 

[Revere]

Congress can't order the Supreme Court to obey portions of the Constitiution. That's called separation of powers.

The 14th Amendment deals with equal protection under the law, not equal outcomes.

 

[Revere]

Your head us up your ass when it comes to civics. Congress can't order the Supreme Court to nullify anything, unless they pass a Constitutional Amendment. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. It doesn't obey Congress.

 

[Pandora]

Your head us up your ass when it comes to civics. Congress can't order the Supreme Court to nullify anything, unless they pass a Constitutional Amendment. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. It doesn't obey Congress.

You seem like a really nice guy and I have enjoyed most everything you have posted so far except for this one. You are new and perhaps dont know the forum rules but we should not be personally attacking other members like your first line. It will only get you banned.

I hope you take a few minutes to read the rules on personal attacks. I really want you to be able to stick around, you could add a lot to the forum.

PS except for the first line I agree with all that you are saying

 

[Sihouette]

Pandora, I have a feeling if you banned him he or another clone would come back quicker than greased lightening under a new IP address and name.

Congress can't order the Supreme Court to nullify anything, unless they pass a Constitutional Amendment. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution

Except for the 14th Amendment which goes out of the way to specify that it is Congress and not SCOTUS or the Executive branch that acts as policeman, judge and jury for that Amendment. And it's likely they set it up this way on purpose knowing how easy it would be to buy 9 people instead of hundreds of representatives. Too much is at stake with the 14th to leave it in the hands of goons who apparently have risen through the ranks more on their proclivity to bend to corruption instead of the scales of true justice.

Let's revisit the last line again:

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

"appropriate legislation". Pretty vague eh? Which means that Congress may pass a decree that renders the SCOTUS decision null and void, trumping it essentially and making it illegal if it conflicts with the language of the 14th.

Clearly the SCOTUS decision favors corporations since they can outspend citizens a zillion to one in influencing elections. In essence this embodies the bestowment of 'supercitizen' status to corporations, which is in clear and direct violation of the language of the 14th. Corporations "rights' may not impinge upon the rights of others, including the rights to affect their own destinies as to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All Congress now has to do is 1. Grow a pair and 2. Pass a decree that makes the SCOTUS decision illegal. and 3. Enforce it through the FCC.

All eyes will be upon them and if they fail to put their collective fist down they will not only lose their jobs this Fall [ I will see to that] they will sell our country [democracy] on the auction block to an oligarchy of aristocracy. They must act and act quickly since every day that goes by will embolden and harden the SCOTUS hoped-for authority. Time is of the essence.

 

[Revere]

Congress does not direct the Supreme Court with respect to what parts of the Constitution to consider in hearing cases regarding its laws.

What part of separation of powers don't you understand?

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

McCain Feingold may have done just that as a ruse to try to throw the dems off to their actual powers.

If someone told me they knew that's just what they did I would not be shocked at all. The GOP has been using McCain to play the dems like a fiddle. It's about time they wake up and smell the trojan horse-play.

The Constitution DOES guarantee equality. When you get a minute, read the entirety of the 14th Amendment. Pay particular attention to line 5 I've posted above. All Congress has to do is interpret "the appropriate legislation" to nullify the SCOTUS ruling since SCOTUS has no power to usurp the 14th. They were very specific about pointing out whose jurisdiction the 14th is under..

As I was attempting to point out to another 'all anointed pompous arse'...that there are many, many layers to the McCain - Feingold Bill and some of it was thrown out by the supreme court and some of it wasn't touched {YET}...as this piece below>>>
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/21/us/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Campaign-Finance.html?_r=1&emc=na

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined Kennedy to form the majority in the main part of the case. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.
The court overturned two earlier decisions and threw out parts of a 63-year-old law that said companies and unions can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads urging the election or defeat of particular candidates by name. The decision, which applies to independent spending that is not coordinated with candidates, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.
The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.
It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions and didn't touch the McCain-Feingold ban on unlimited corporate and union donations to political parties. Nor did it disturb companies' right to solicit voluntary contributions to political action committees that can donate directly to candidates.
Corporations and unions would still have to identify the sources of money for their political activity -- a provision of current law that the court upheld in an 8-1 vote.

Frankly...I just love it when some 'lessor thinking cheerleader' steps into a discussion without any facts...but "OH - GEE LOOKY HERE I FOUND SOME MORE SOURCES"...and just doesn't bother to read any thing/nor understands the total nueances of the subject matter...LMAO

 

[Revere]

As I was attempting to point out to another 'all anointed pompous arse'...that there are many, many layers to the McCain - Feingold Bill and some of it was thrown out by the supreme court and some of it wasn't touched {YET}...as this piece below>>>
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/21/us/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Campaign-Finance.html?_r=1&emc=na

Frankly...I just love it when some 'lessor thinking cheerleader' steps into a discussion without any facts...but "OH - GEE LOOKY HERE I FOUND SOME MORE SOURCES"...and just doesn't bother to read any thing/nor understands the total nueances of the subject matter...LMAO

You seem like a really nice guy and I have enjoyed most everything you have posted so far except for this one. You are new and perhaps dont know the forum rules but we should not be personally attacking other members like your first line. It will only get you banned.

I hope you take a few minutes to read the rules on personal attacks. I really want you to be able to stick around, you could add a lot to the forum.

PS except for the first line I agree with all that you are saying

Is that enforced now matter how new someone is here?

 

[Pandora]

Is that enforced now matter how new someone is here?

Personal attacks?

well they have been trying to crack down on it. Some still get away with it but dont assume if you see others doing it that you will get away with it. For what ever reason it does not always work out that way.

I really have liked reading all of your posts so I dont want you to get banned. I wasnt trying to be mean by pointing it out, I was trying to protect you so you dont get into trouble.

I am sure if this comes to mods attention they will just give you a warning since you are new.

It must be confusing to see someone else being very rude to other members while I tell you that we cant do it, but trust me we cant.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Personal attacks?

well they have been trying to crack down on it. Some still get away with it but dont assume if you see others doing it that you will get away with it. For what ever reason it does not always work out that way.

I really have liked reading all of your posts so I dont want you to get banned. I wasnt trying to be mean by pointing it out, I was trying to protect you so you dont get into trouble.

I am sure if this comes to mods attention they will just give you a warning since you are new.

It must be confusing to see someone else being very rude to other members while I tell you that we cant do it, but trust me we cant.

More shredded POM-POM material laying around...CLEAN UP on another topic!

Yep...you might want to take her warning as a FACT...she's tried to protected some of the most heinous posters todate and they were permanently banned for their ability to not take her kind guidance...hmmm
MOTHER SMOTHER...and yet her history is the blackest for the most vile words that I've ever heard in 5 years on community boards...LMAO

 

[Revere]

More shredded POM-POM material laying around...CLEAN UP on another topic!

Yep...you might want to take her warning as a FACT...she's tried to protected some of the most heinous posters todate and they were permanently banned for their ability to not take her kind guidance...hmmm
MOTHER SMOTHER...and yet her history is the blackest for the most vile words that I've ever heard in 5 years on community boards...LMAO

Personal attacks?

well they have been trying to crack down on it. Some still get away with it but dont assume if you see others doing it that you will get away with it. For what ever reason it does not always work out that way.

I really have liked reading all of your posts so I dont want you to get banned. I wasnt trying to be mean by pointing it out, I was trying to protect you so you dont get into trouble.

I am sure if this comes to mods attention they will just give you a warning since you are new.

It must be confusing to see someone else being very rude to other members while I tell you that we cant do it, but trust me we cant.

What do they give you if you are not new?