News The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[WhoWee]

No, it doesn't work that way. Soldiers and politicians alike are sworn to defend the Constitution from all enemies. The don't swear to protect the corner of First and Main, or Baseball, the nearest school, or the flag. This is why we go to war. So if you call someone an enemy of the Constitution, you had better mean it.

When Bush and Cheney authorized torture [assuming that Bush knew what he was signing], they met my criteria for "enemy of the State". I really do believe this was treason. But I would never say this about someone who merely disagrees about health care.

At that time, when we seemingly chose to be a country that taps the phones of innocent people, tortures people, ignores due process, and launches unjustified invasions of countries, my wife and I decided to leave the country. The only other option in my mind was civil war. And I will tell you that I thought about that more than once. That's where I thought we may be going. But, since I oppose war, we began looking at options. Were it not for the dramatic turnaround seen with the election of Obama, we would still be planning to leave. Obama's election restored a bit of my faith in the American people.

If you call someone an enemy of the Constitution, you had better mean it.

You considered civil war to be an option because you didn't approve of Bush - and you think the Tea Party people are radical?

 

[Al68]

You considered civil war to be an option because you didn't approve of Bush - and you think the Tea Party people are radical?

You have to use the Democratic Party Dictionary here:

radical n. non-Marxist. synonym extremist.

 

[Char. Limit]

You have to use the Democratic Party Dictionary here:

radical n. non-Marxist. synonym extremist.

Source?

 

[turbo]

You have to use the Democratic Party Dictionary here:

radical n. non-Marxist. synonym extremist.

Al, you screwed up. As Boehner and McConnell have been trying to teach you, even when you are not actively vilifying Democrats, you always refer to them as the "Democrat" Party. Always. Every time. Never add the "ic". That extra syllable is very important to the GOP. Get with the program.

And you sell the Democrats short with your "definition". They are perfectly willing to carry water for big business and protect the status quo. The main difference between the two parties is that the Republicans are a bit more blatant and unified about it.

 

[CRGreathouse]

If I can assume he agrees with most Dems, I could name them endlessly, from Minimum wage laws to forcefully regulating private enterprises to gun control laws.

Would you explain what you mean by the second, and why these are unconstitutional?

I think I understand what argument you might make on the third one (the 2nd amendment or the 2nd amendment via the 14th, or possibly 10th amendment instead). But the first two are unclear to me.

If you don't think it's unconstitutional to outlaw private insurance policies and force people to buy government "approved" policies, then it's doubtful you would think the rest of their agenda is unconstitutional.

I think that most people on this thread wouldn't be convinced that this is unconstitutional. If I had to guess, about half would support it and say that it is constitutional; another 40% would oppose it and say that it's unconstitutional; the balance would oppose it and say it's unconstitutional.

Personally, I'm more interested in the question of whether it's right than whether it's constitutional.

far more broadly than palatable. Dems basically consider the federal government's power to serve their agenda to be unlimited.

Do you feel that the Republicans interpret that clause correctly? It seems that they interpret it approximately as broadly as the Democrats do (even if slightly less).

Really? Which part of the constitution? (warning, this is a trick question).

Article III, section 2.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Al, you screwed up. As Boehner and McConnell have been trying to teach you, even when you are not actively vilifying Democrats, you always refer to them as the "Democrat" Party. Always. Every time. Never add the "ic". That extra syllable is very important to the GOP. Get with the program.

I searched John Boehner's site. There were 8 instances of "Democrat Party" and 74 instances of "Democratic Party". 9.8% is hardly "Always. Every time.".

You're free to check McConnell's website, speeches, etc. if you'd like to rebut; I haven't looked.

 

[CAC1001]

I think that most people on this thread wouldn't be convinced that this is unconstitutional. If I had to guess, about half would support it and say that it is constitutional; another 40% would oppose it and say that it's unconstitutional; the balance would oppose it and say it's unconstitutional.

If the SCOTUS see it as the the federal government mandating people purchase a product or face a fine, that would probably be seen as beyond the scope of the federal government (how can the commerce clause justify the government forcing people to buy something!?), but if they see it as a tax, then they will probably say it is okay.

 

[turbo]

I searched John Boehner's site. There were 8 instances of "Democrat Party" and 74 instances of "Democratic Party". 9.8% is hardly "Always. Every time.".

You're free to check McConnell's website, speeches, etc. if you'd like to rebut; I haven't looked.

I watch the national news and PBS pretty religiously, and Boehner is quite consistent in dropping the "ic" when speaking of the Democratic party. It's a sophomoric jab, but he takes it every time there's a microphone in front of him.

Google on the phrase "Democrat Party" and you'll see how it it used as a childish insult, and has been for a very long time. During the W administration, the phrase got legs.

 

[CAC1001]

I searched John Boehner's site. There were 8 instances of "Democrat Party" and 74 instances of "Democratic Party". 9.8% is hardly "Always. Every time.".

You're free to check McConnell's website, speeches, etc. if you'd like to rebut; I haven't looked.

Just curious, when you say you searched his website, what do you mean? Do you mean you typed "Democrat party" into the search engine and then counted the search results? (I am guessing you didn't do that manually).

 

[Char. Limit]

I wish I had my Political Dictionary, which says something to the effect of that "Democrat Party" has long been used as an insult. However, while George W. Bush has used it, he also spoke at some Democratic event, where he said "I'm sure you realize that sometimes I don't have a real way with words. But I thank you for inviting the head of the Republic Party".

Or something. It was a bit of a self-referential jab.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Just curious, when you say you searched his website, what do you mean? Do you mean you typed "Democrat party" into the search engine and then counted the search results? (I am guessing you didn't do that manually).

Sure.

If you'd like to use a more refined method (say, build a corpus of all of his speeches over the last month or year, search for "democrat" or "party", then manually code each use of "Democrat[ic] Party"), be my guest. That would allow for better duplicate counting, as well as change over time if you're careful enough.

But the initial results were enough for me. Rather than getting 99% or 100% "Democrat Party", I got less than 10%.

 

[CAC1001]

I watch the national news and PBS pretty religiously, and Boehner is quite consistent in dropping the "ic" when speaking of the Democratic party. It's a sophomoric jab, but he takes it every time there's a microphone in front of him.

I have always referred to the Democrats as the Democrat Party, never saw that as a jab though, I just thought that's the name. Upon a quick search though, the actual name is Democratic Party it seems.

 

[CAC1001]

Sure.

If you'd like to use a more refined method (say, build a corpus of all of his speeches over the last month or year, search for "democrat" or "party", then manually code each use of "Democrat[ic] Party"), be my guest. That would allow for better duplicate counting, as well as change over time if you're careful enough.

But the initial results were enough for me. Rather than getting 99% or 100% "Democrat Party", I got less than 10%.

When you say "manually code" each use of "Democrat[ic] Party," I'm not sure what you mean? So I'd type in "democrat" or "party," get the search results, how do I code them?

 

[turbo]

How about you search for Youtube speeches for Boehner and McConnel and try to find even one in which either uses the term "Democratic Party". It's not a fair request, I fear, since you would search in vain. You'll be wasting your time. Those guys are pros, and never pass up a chance to use even the most off-hand sophomoric insult against the Democrats.

 

[CRGreathouse]

When you say "manually code" each use of "Democrat[ic] Party," I'm not sure what you mean? So I'd type in "democrat" or "party," get the search results, how do I code them?

Could be just a checkmark in one column or the other if it's "Democrat[ic] Party" and nothing otherwise. It could be a record giving the date of the speech/etc., a judgment favorable/neutral/unfavorable on the mention, a media type speech/fundraiser/blog entry, and any of a number of other things.

I imagine PoliSci graduate students do a lot of this sort of work...

 

[CRGreathouse]

How about you search for Youtube speeches for Boehner and McConnel and try to find even one in which either uses the term "Democratic Party". It's not a fair request, I fear, since you would search in vain. You'll be wasting your time. Those guys are pros, and never pass up a chance to use even the most off-hand sophomoric insult against the Democrats.

I'm sure if I cared enough I could do that. Showing that 90% of the mentions in Boehner's website use "Democratic Party" rather than "Democrat Party" took me less than a minute; watching an hour of boring speeches to get probably 0-3 mentions of either sounds like a waste of my time.

I'll admit that I've never understood the umbrage on that particular issue, though.

Edit: For what it's worth, I didn't even spend the minute to check on McConnel. It's entirely possible that all of his speeches and all mentions on his website are to the "Democrat Party". I think at this point the burden of proof is on turbo-1, not me.

 

[turbo]

Edit: For what it's worth, I didn't even spend the minute to check on McConnel. It's entirely possible that all of his speeches and all mentions on his website are to the "Democrat Party". I think at this point the burden of proof is on turbo-1, not me.

I'll tell you what we should do. I watch NBC news and PBS news every night. Every time McConnell and Boehner utter the phrase "Democrat Party" for the next month, I'll try to provide a link to the coverage and you'll owe me a dollar. Every time either of them says "Democratic Party", you provide a link and I'll owe you a dollar. I know who'll be getting a check. I'm pretty sure you know, too.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I'll tell you what we should do. I watch NBC news and PBS news every night. Every time McConnell and Boehner utter the phrase "Democrat Party" for the next month, I'll try to provide a link to the coverage and you'll owe me a dollar. Every time either of them says "Democratic Party", you provide a link and I'll owe you a dollar. I know who'll be getting a check. I'm pretty sure you know, too.

This strikes me as moving the goalposts. Your original claim was that neither ever used the term "Democratic Party". Now your implicit claim is that they use the term "Democrat Party" more often than "Democratic Party", which is far weaker.

But even if I felt the claim was true (I have no idea -- why would I care about McConnell or Boehner?), I would have to be a fool to take that bet. First, I have no reason to think you'd actually provide a faithful count, as you would not be a disinterested party. Second, if the term "Democrat Party" bothers you and "Democratic Party" is natural to you, it would be easier for you to notice the former than the latter; even if you didn't intentionally miscount, you might be wrong for that reason. (I would be subject to this bias as well: "Democratic Party" sounds normal to me and "Democrat Party" sounds odd.) Third, I don't know that the coverage of those two on NBC and PBS gives a representative sample of the times that they use the terms. The mere fact that you offer this wager should suggest to me, by bid shading, that this is the case.

Edit: Though regardless of those possible biases, if you do track the number of uses, I'd be interested in hearing about the results. Ideally you'd separate the two politicians.

 

[turbo]

OK, send me a link to either of these guys saying "Democratic Party" on network TV from now until election day, and I'll send you a check for $10. No risk on your part. All the "goal posts" are in your court. You know you're not going to get the $10 because neither of them will utter that phrase willingly.

Edit: I try to stay out of the Rep vs Dem "dichotomy" because it is a false dichotomy. There is about as much difference between those two bands of bandits as there is between Coke and Pepsi or Time and Newsweek. Our government is bought and paid for.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I try to stay out of the Rep vs Dem "dichotomy" because it is a false dichotomy. There is about as much difference between those two bands of bandits as there is between Coke and Pepsi or Time and Newsweek. Our government is bought and paid for.

Amen, brother.

OK, send me a link to either of these guys saying "Democratic Party" on network TV from now until election day, and I'll send you a check for $10. No risk on your part. All the "goal posts" are in your court. You know you're not going to get the $10 because neither of them will utter that phrase willingly.

Amusingly, I don't own a TV. I do appreciate the offer, though -- this suggests that you really believe this pretty strongly. (As I said, I haven't followed those two. The last time I caught the "Democrat Party" thing was the speech where Bush apologized for saying it and said that he was clumsy with words, or something to that effect.)

 

[turbo]

Amen, brother.

Amusingly, I don't own a TV. I do appreciate the offer, though -- this suggests that you really believe this pretty strongly. (As I said, I haven't followed those two. The last time I caught the "Democrat Party" thing was the speech where Bush apologized for saying it and said that he was clumsy with words, or something to that effect.)

I caught that speech, and he pretended to be self-deprecating, and called the Republicans the "Republic Party". He probably got some mileage out of the joke.

 

[CRGreathouse]

called the Republicans the "Republic Party"

Probably.

In Bush's case, I imagine it really was inadvertent. A person who cared could track usage before and after that speech; a statistically-significant drop in "Democrat Party" percentage would seem to suggest that it was.

I'm sure in McConnell and Boehner's cases it's intentional.

 

[Jasongreat]

Doesnt democratic party imply subversive(treasonous) ideology, since the constitution in section 4 article 4 states: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.

I'm not saying we should only be able to vote for Republicans(some have just as subversive ideals, stemming from popularism), but whoever gets voted in should be for a republican form of government, not a democratic form. That is unles we ammend the constitution, properly, as laid out in that document.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Doesnt democratic party imply subversive(treasonous) ideology, since the constitution in section 4 article 4 states: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.

I'm not saying we should only be able to vote for Republicans(some have just as subversive ideals, stemming from popularism), but whoever gets voted in should be for a republican form of government, not a democratic form. That is unles we ammend the constitution, properly, as laid out in that document.

I can't tell if you're joking.

In case you're serious: the terms are just labels, both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party support a representative democracy.

 

[Jasongreat]

In case you're serious: the terms are just labels, both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party support a representative democracy.

So both parties follow subversive policies? No wonder there is so much clamour for the tea party.

I just checked the US Constitution, just to confirm my belief, and nowhere did I find democracy or represenative democracy mentioned, although republican did get mentioned, as I pointed out in the post you replied to. IMO we are supposed to be a constitutional republic, of voluntary independent states, not a nation of dependent states ruled by a mob (even if we're all part of that mob through our represenatives). If I remember right a lot of the founders including, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams both felt a democratic government was no different than mob rule, from what I've seen I would have to agree. The people have the right to change the constitution through the ammendment process, they don't have the right to ignore it just because some poll says they can get away with it.

 

[Al68]

Would you explain what you mean by the second, and why these are unconstitutional?

I think I understand what argument you might make on the third one (the 2nd amendment or the 2nd amendment via the 14th, or possibly 10th amendment instead). But the first two are unclear to me.

In general, the ninth and tenth amendments. They basically prohibit anything not specifically delegated to the federal government by the constitution.

Yes, the second amendment applies, too, as do other parts of the constitution to various Dem agenda items, but the tenth amendment serves as a catch-all designed to prevent politicians from doing exactly what they've been doing.

I think that most people on this thread wouldn't be convinced that this is unconstitutional. If I had to guess, about half would support it and say that it is constitutional; another 40% would oppose it and say that it's unconstitutional; the balance would oppose it and say it's unconstitutional.

I have to agree with that assessment, at least in the same ballpark.

Do you feel that the Republicans interpret that clause correctly? It seems that they interpret it approximately as broadly as the Democrats do (even if slightly less).

Again, I agree with that assessment. Republicans are only "slightly less" apt to exercise power that the federal government doesn't legitimately have.

Article III, section 2.

Nope, not there.

 

[Al68]

Al, you screwed up. As Boehner and McConnell have been trying to teach you, even when you are not actively vilifying Democrats, you always refer to them as the "Democrat" Party. Always. Every time. Never add the "ic". That extra syllable is very important to the GOP. Get with the program.

I like to take it a step further by just typing "Dem". That's because I'm not with the "party of no". I'm with the party of "hell no".

 

[Al68]

I just checked the US Constitution, just to confirm my belief, and nowhere did I find democracy or represenative democracy mentioned, although republican did get mentioned, as I pointed out in the post you replied to...If I remember right a lot of the founders including, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams both felt a democratic government was no different than mob rule, from what I've seen I would have to agree.

Yes, they were opposed to "democracy", but they used the term very differently. The word "democracy" is generally used more broadly today, to include republics.

 

[nismaratwork]

This thread has gone completely off the rails.

 

[turbo]

Back on topic. The Tea Party (GOP) candidate for governor of Maine is a disaster waiting to happen - to us. He wants creationism taught in public schools, wants to open coastal Maine waters to drill rigs despite the fact that our multi-billion dollar fishing and tourism businesses rely on clean coastal waters, and wants to gut environmental protections. He also lies a lot. He and his wife have a house in Maine and one in Florida, and his wife claimed primary residency in both states and claimed homestead property tax exemptions in both states, violating the tax laws of both states. LePage said he didn't know anything about this, despite the fact that the FL exemption and in-state tuition rates for their children were worth thousands of dollars. Right. He also said that his name was never on the deed of the Maine house until it was proven that it was. Why lie about a matter of public record that can be uncovered with a few minutes at the Registry of Deeds? He also claimed the the Maine Department of Environmental Protection had required that he perform a three-month "buffalo census" that cost $54,000 before starting a new business in the state, as well as a "black fly census". You just can't make this stuff up. He's not only a habitual liar, but delusional. And the Tea Party loves him. He said recently that he never sought the support of the Tea Party, which was flatly contradicted by videos of him speaking about his candidacy at 4 separate Tea Party rallies.

The real fly in the ointment is that Elliot Cutler is running as an Independent for Governor, and he might be able to split off enough moderate votes to give LePage a majority in the general election. Libby Mitchell (Dem) would win the governorship handily if Cutler got out, but he seems to be too proud to back out now, though he hasn't a chance. That would be a shame.

 

[CRGreathouse]

LOL @ Jasongreat.

Nope, not there.

How ironic, then, that we disagree on the interpretation of a section relating (potentially) to the interpretation. In my understanding the SCOTUS can decide which reading is right; in yours, who does?

 

[mheslep]

[...] wants to open coastal Maine waters to drill rigs despite the fact that our multi-billion dollar fishing and tourism businesses rely on clean coastal waters,

Yes, well that multi-billion fishing/tourism buis is leaving a lot of people out of work in counties like Somerset, Washington, Piscatiquis where unemployment at 11-12% http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...N230290:CN230250:CN230210:CN230170&tdim=true" the national average. Meanwhile, there are oil and gas offshore rigs all over Nova Scotia waters 80-100 miles from the Mn coast, have been for decades, some of the largest rigs in the world, all the while creating very good jobs and income for Canadians.
http://www.gov.ns.ca/energy/resources/RA/maps/Onshore-Offshore-Rights.pdf
http://www.gov.ns.ca/energy/images/oil-gas/offshore-current-activity.jpg

 

[turbo]

Yes, well that multi-billion fishing/tourism buis is leaving a lot of people out of work in counties like Somerset, Washington, Piscatiquis where unemployment at 11-12% http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...N230290:CN230250:CN230210:CN230170&tdim=true" the national average. Meanwhile, there are oil and gas offshore rigs all over Nova Scotia waters 80-100 miles from the Mn coast, have been for decades, some of the largest rigs in the world, all the while creating very good jobs and income for Canadians.

I am well aware of the unemployment problems we are suffering. Due to the collapse of the housing industry, the wood-products industry (the biggest employer in this area) has thrown thousands of loggers, equipment operators, sawmill staffs, truckers, etc, out of work.

Opening the coast to gas and oil exploration is not a panacea for the problems of inland counties. We would be better served by manufacturing and siting green-energy equipment to exploit our winds and tides. LePage, however, claims that we cannot afford to go green. Maine is already a net exporter of electricity, thanks to hydro-dams on our rivers. We could be in even better shape by installing wind farms and tidal projects, and selling that electricity, while taking load-swings with the dams. The wind-turbine generators that are currently being installed in Maine are produced in Europe. We should be building them here. We have a very talented manufacturing and design resource here (skilled machinists, welders, etc, AND the U of M Engineering department with some talented R&D folks who have some good ideas regarding renewable energy).

 

[WhoWee]

He also said that his name was never on the deed of the Maine house until it was proven that it was. Why lie about a matter of public record that can be uncovered with a few minutes at the Registry of Deeds? QUOTE]

Could that same logic be applied to birth certificates? (...just having fun - no need for another lengthy de-railing of the thread)

 

[Al68]

How ironic, then, that we disagree on the interpretation of a section relating (potentially) to the interpretation. In my understanding the SCOTUS can decide which reading is right; in yours, who does?

Anyone who went to any English-speaking grammar school. The constitution make no provision for its "interpretation" simply because there was no foreseeable reason or purpose for such a provision. It was purposefully written in such a literal and straightforward way that any literate American of the 18th century could easily understand. It was not written in a way that requires specially appointed "interpreters" to tell ignorant Americans what it "really" means.

Of course that doesn't mean that they succeeded 100% and the constitution is perfect in that regard. But it's certainly true in general.

To hear power-hungry politicians talk, you'd think it was a collection of cryptic parables and metaphors with meanings that can only be deciphered by specially appointed seers.

 

[BobG]

What's up with the effort to repeal the 17th Amendment?

This has come up with a few Tea Party candidates (Ken Buck - CO, Joe Miller - AK, Vaughn Ward - ID, and so on).

This is a strange idea (and a low priority idea, as well, even for Tea Partiers). No one reads the history of how the 17th Amendment came about?

Clause 1. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

Clause 2. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

Clause 3. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/us/politics/02bai.html
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...dment-causing-problems-for-gop-candidates.php

 

[mheslep]

What's up with the effort to repeal the 17th Amendment?

This has come up with a few Tea Party candidates (Ken Buck - CO, Joe Miller - AK, Vaughn Ward - ID, and so on).

This is a strange idea (and a low priority idea, as well, even for Tea Partiers). No one reads the history of how the 17th Amendment came about?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/us/politics/02bai.html
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...dment-causing-problems-for-gop-candidates.php

I imagine the reasoning must have something to do with reinvigorating federalism.
Federalist #62 (Madison)
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa62.htm

II. [...] It [ the appointment of senators by the State legislatures] is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.

The NYT article is subs only, otherwise I can't find any candidates giving the idea more than a nod, e.g. :

I asked Miller why he's taking on the 17th Amendment in the middle of a tough campaign. He simply said that he answered the questioned posed to him honestly but added that repealing the amendment would be exceedingly difficult and is not one of his priorities.

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/10/07/tough-week-for-alaskas-joe-miller/

 

[CRGreathouse]

Anyone who went to any English-speaking grammar school. The constitution make no provision for its "interpretation" simply because there was no foreseeable reason or purpose for such a provision. It was purposefully written in such a literal and straightforward way that any literate American of the 18th century could easily understand. It was not written in a way that requires specially appointed "interpreters" to tell ignorant Americans what it "really" means.

But we disagree, right now, on its interpretation. That seems to suggest that it isn't that easy to interpret, at least by intelligent 21st-century citizens (if I may make certain assumptions about us).

 

[turbo]

But we disagree, right now, on its interpretation. That seems to suggest that it isn't that easy to interpret, at least by intelligent 21st-century citizens (if I may make certain assumptions about us).

"Interpretation" may equate to "spin" to favor one's sponsors. The right-wing faction of SCOTUS has ruled that corporations have the same rights to free speech as individuals, and thus may contribute freely to political campaigns without limitation. Somehow, I can't see Jefferson, Hamilton, et al agreeing with that "interpretation". Back in their day, "corporations" (organizations or groups with royal charters) were not well-regarded by the founders, who sought to secure the rights of individual citizens. Citizens United vs FEC is a decision that should have our founding fathers spinning in their graves.

 

[CAC1001]

"Interpretation" may equate to "spin" to favor one's sponsors. The right-wing faction of SCOTUS has ruled that corporations have the same rights to free speech as individuals, and thus may contribute freely to political campaigns without limitation.

No they didn't. Corporations may not contribute freely to political campaigns without limitation. That was outlawed in the early 20th century because corporations could "buy" politicians ("We fund your campaign, you do our bidding").

On corporations and free speech, I forget all the details, but I know there was more to it and that it dealt with campaign finance laws as well, which some joke was turning the Senate into the House of Lords.

Somehow, I can't see Jefferson, Hamilton, et al agreeing with that "interpretation". Back in their day, "corporations" (organizations or groups with royal charters) were not well-regarded by the founders, who sought to secure the rights of individual citizens. Citizens United vs FEC is a decision that should have our founding fathers spinning in their graves.

I don't think corporations are "well-regarded" today either.

 

[turbo]

No they didn't. Corporations may not contribute freely to political campaigns without limitation.

Direct funding? No. Unlimited in-kind contributions for ads and media for or against you? Yes.

Ad-buys are a huge drain on campaign finances. Got a corporate sponsor that will make massive ad-buys on your behalf? Then you sit back fat and happy, and use your war-chest for other purposes, including polling, phone-banking, grassroots get-out-the-vote efforts and other efforts. Do you see the problem?

Edit: According to NBC news moments ago, thanks to corporate spending on behalf of candidates, the GOP candidates are getting 7 times the ad-buys as the Democrats. Welcome to the Oligarchy of the US. Our government bought and paid for.

 

[CAC1001]

Direct funding? No. Unlimited in-kind contributions for ads and media for or against you? Yes.

Ad-buys are a huge drain on campaign finances. Got a corporate sponsor that will make massive ad-buys on your behalf? Then you sit back fat and happy, and use your war-chest for other purposes, including polling, phone-banking, grassroots get-out-the-vote efforts and other efforts. Do you see the problem?

Is that permitted? From my understanding, corporations and unions are permitted to spend freely on media in campaigns, but they cannot collude with a candidate. Like the CEO of Shell Oil can't call up a candidate and say, "Listen, you focus your campaign money on polling, phone-banking, etc...leave the media ads to us."

 

[turbo]

Is that permitted? From my understanding, corporations and unions are permitted to spend freely on media in campaigns, but they cannot collude with a candidate. Like the CEO of Shell Oil can't call up a candidate and say, "Listen, you focus your campaign money on polling, phone-banking, etc...leave the media ads to us."

Corporate donors can hire exactly the same ad agencies and consultants that the candidates use. So is direct collusion even necessary? If I am a candidate, and my campaign manager tells me that my ad-agency has been hired by a third party to produce ads supporting me and attacking my opponent, and is planning major ad buys in TV markets in my district or state, do I need to know any more? Do I need to meet with the CEO of the corporation in order for a level of collusion to exist? I know then and there that I can free up my campaign cash for less expensive media buys, field offices, phone banks, etc. This isn't rocket science.

 

[Al68]

But we disagree, right now, on its interpretation. That seems to suggest that it isn't that easy to interpret, at least by intelligent 21st-century citizens (if I may make certain assumptions about us).

It's not much of a disagreement. We might disagree on whether or not the constitution requires a bounty on the head of every female in the U.S. That would not be evidence that it isn't easy to interpret.

 

[Al68]

Somehow, I can't see Jefferson, Hamilton, et al agreeing with that "interpretation".

Nonsense. They would have obviously been against government restricting any political speech. By anyone or any group.

Back in their day, "corporations" (organizations or groups with royal charters) were not well-regarded by the founders, who sought to secure the rights of individual citizens.

Nonsense again. First of all, we are not referring to government-chartered entities in that sense. We are referring to private entities composed of private individuals whose only association with government at all is against their will. Our founders would never have even recognized any legitimate authority of government to treat them as if they were anything more (or less) than a group of people.

Citizens United vs FEC is a decision that should have our founding fathers spinning in their graves.

Still nonsense. Our founding fathers were not anti-free political speech or anti-freedom of association. They were not against groups of people pooling their resources for political ads.

 

[turbo]

Nonsense. They would have obviously been against government restricting any political speech. By anyone or any group.Nonsense again. First of all, we are not referring to government-chartered entities in that sense. We are referring to private entities composed of private individuals whose only association with government at all is against their will. Our founders would never have even recognized any legitimate authority of government to treat them as if they were anything more (or less) than a group of people.Still nonsense. Our founding fathers were not anti-free political speech or anti-freedom of association. They were not against groups of people pooling their resources for political ads.

Serial nay-saying. What an effective tactic. Goodbye.

 

[CAC1001]

This subject honestly confuses the heck out of me, because I think people like turbo-1 and Al68 both make good points. We don't want government restricting political speech, on the other hand, I can see the concern of big corporations which can be global in scope funding ads for politicians.

 

[Galteeth]

This subject honestly confuses the heck out of me, because I think people like turbo-1 and Al68 both make good points. We don't want government restricting political speech, on the other hand, I can see the concern of big corporations which can be global in scope funding ads for politicians.

Another issue to consider is the actual effect campaign finance reform has. Unfortunately, like many "well intended" forms of government intervention, the rules can actually benefit the established candidates.

When working for some Libertarian candidates, we wouldn't bother with a lot of the reporting requirements. Why? Because their idiotic. If you did, as a small, grassroots campaign, you would spend all your resources and time on filing finance reports. Furthermore, the rules are very complex. They can actually be a barrier to entry for all but establishment candidates, who have the legal resources to follow the regulations. See this video for a dramatic illustration:

 

[CRGreathouse]

It's not much of a disagreement. We might disagree on whether or not the constitution requires a bounty on the head of every female in the U.S. That would not be evidence that it isn't easy to interpret.

If I and many others had a good-faith belief that it did, [I posit that] it would be.

In this case I imagine a majority of those with an opinion would side with "the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the right to interpret the Constitution". Were that to be the case, it would make a strong argument for either (1) the truth of the statement, or (2) the difficulty of interpreting the Constitution.

 

[Al68]

If I and many others had a good-faith belief that it did, [I posit that] it would be.

In this case I imagine a majority of those with an opinion would side with "the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the right to interpret the Constitution". Were that to be the case, it would make a strong argument for either (1) the truth of the statement, or (2) the difficulty of interpreting the Constitution.

Or (3) reliance on media sources for their "opinions". There are many misconceptions held by a majority of Americans that are verifiably false. That again is not evidence that the (verifiable) facts are difficult to understand.

But your statement taken literally isn't so much false as it is misleading. It's not true that the constitution explicitly says that, but it's true that Supreme Court justices, like every congressman, senator, and President, must take an oath of office that (implicitly) requires them to be proficient enough in English to understand what it says.

An inability to understand what the constitution says (and means) would disqualify anyone from any elected federal office, since their oath of office requires them to understand it.

Would you say that the reason congressmen must take an oath of office is so they can just pass any law they want, constitutional or not, and let the Supreme Court sort them out later?