Is Amendment XXVIII a Radical Restriction on Freedom of Speech?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Skyhunter
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around Amendment XXVIII, proposed by Congresswoman Donna Edwards, which aims to redefine the authority of Congress and the States regarding corporate spending in political contexts. Participants explore the implications of this amendment on freedom of speech, campaign finance, and the potential for legislative overreach.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern that the amendment could lead to Congress banning corporate or union spending in favor of minority parties, questioning its implications for democracy.
  • Others argue that an amendment is necessary, although they acknowledge the complexity of getting the language right to avoid unintended consequences.
  • There are discussions about the Contract Clause of the Constitution and its potential interaction with the proposed amendment, with some suggesting that the wording may need to be more specific to avoid confusion.
  • Some participants highlight the risks of infringing on free speech, suggesting that any changes to such fundamental rights should be approached with caution.
  • A few participants note that the amendment's broad language could have implications for various political entities, including unions and corporations, and may not be well understood by the general public.
  • There is a call for careful consideration of the amendment's wording to ensure it does not inadvertently repeal existing constitutional protections.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express a mix of support for the need for an amendment and concern over its potential implications, indicating that multiple competing views remain. There is no consensus on the proposed language or its effects.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of precise language in constitutional amendments and the potential for broad interpretations that could affect various stakeholders in political finance.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals concerned with constitutional law, campaign finance reform, and the implications of political spending on democracy.

  • #181
Ivan Seeking said:
"Radical" is precisely the right word [nice pun in that one!]. That is the word used when you overturn a century of law. How is that not radical? It is both liberal and radical.
It's not radical because it fits the intent of the Constitution. It was radical when 40 years ago (or whenever that case was that was overturned...) the USSC made a decision not in fitting with the Constitution. It is not radical to fix the error.

The founding fathers may have been radical when they wrote the 1st Amendment, but it isn't radical to uphold it now.
He was stating an opinion based on his long career in journalism.
That's hilarious, Ivan. I can't believe you used that as an argument! That could take us into a big discussion about the huge problem that is an activist media! (Oh wait, we already have that discussion: Fox=activist conservative = bad, Everyone else=activist liberal = good...right). I'm confused, though - how is the USSC so broken that they didn't consult the experts in the media before making their decision? Ehh, I guess we could fix that by appointing reporters to the bench of the USSC from now on.

In all seriousness, though, why post a rant with no relevance? I've already linked the opinions of the foremost subject matter experts for you to base an argument on (the dissenting opinion of the USSC). And if you want 3rd party opinions, at least go for one that actually addresses the issue. Nowhere in that rant does he mention the Constitution or the 1st Amendment. He doesn't like the way things work now? Fine. But if he wants to change it, he has to show that the change fits with the Constitution (or argue that we amend it).

What boggles my mind is that on this issue liberals are in favor of a pretty radical restriction in freedom of speech. That seems to go against the general idea of liberalism. I'm thinking that the reason people such as Moyers make no relevant arguments is that they don't want to go down that road, so they pretend their position doesn't take us there. It's easier to convince people to give up their liberty if you argue it obliquely.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

What is the McDonald's Diet Experiment?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
News North Korean Torpedo Sinks SK Naval Vessel
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
9K
The Steepwater Band - Playing The Cubby Bear in Chicago 12/26
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
News Is the National Debt Really Driven at 174 Miles Per Hour by Obama?
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
142K
News Mexican Drug War: Examining Sinaloa's Power
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
11K
IBEX, New Map of the Heliosphere
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Discover ORBO: The Revolutionary No-Drag Motor by Steorn
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Graduate Explore Parallel Universes: The Universe
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
6K
Wolfram Alpha: Your Ultimate Online Computational Knowledge Engine
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
The Fatal Flaw in Every Techno Show on TV
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
5K