News The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[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?

 

[mheslep]

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.

? Maybe in some momentary time window, but otherwise you are mistaken - the D's are outspending the R's this campaign.

 

[turbo]

? Maybe in some momentary time window, but otherwise you are mistaken - the D's are outspending the R's this campaign.

I'm not mistaken. I was simply repeating what the reporter said. Edited into the post less than a minute after he said it. It might have been more qualified, though I didn't catch the qualification.

It could have been that he (she, actually, after finding the clip) said the Republicans are getting 7 times the ad-buys from outside groups than Democrats are. I was busy at the time and was half-listening to the news. Here is the clip. It's in the Andrea Mitchell spot at the end of the clip. Outside money is pumping 7 times as much money into supporting Republicans, compared to Democrats.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/ns/nightly_news/#39584144

 

[CAC1001]

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:

Yes, some joked that because of campaign finance reform laws, the Senate was turning into the House of Lords because you pretty much either had to be well-established or at least a multimillionaire to run.

 

[CAC1001]

I'm not mistaken. I was simply repeating what the reporter said. Edited into the post less than a minute after he said it. It might have been more qualified, though I didn't catch the qualification.

It could have been that he (she, actually, after finding the clip) said the Republicans are getting 7 times the ad-buys from outside groups than Democrats are. I was busy at the time and was half-listening to the news. Here is the clip. It's in the Andrea Mitchell spot at the end of the clip. Outside money is pumping 7 times as much money into supporting Republicans, compared to Democrats.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/ns/nightly_news/#39584144

Would Republicans getting more ad-buys right now than Democrats be because of the SCOTUS ruling though? Because during the 2006 elections, when Democrats were on the up-and-up, the Democrats were out-raising and out-spending the Republicans. Now it is a wave year for the Republicans.

 

[CRGreathouse]

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?

I have no idea how this ties into what we were discussing. To make your question relevant I would have to interpret it much more severely than you implicitly claim I do with the Constitution. :)

 

[Al68]

I have no idea how this ties into what we were discussing. To make your question relevant I would have to interpret it much more severely than you implicitly claim I do with the Constitution. :)

Yes, it was a tangent. My point was that yes, the Supreme Court technically must "interpret" the constitution, but so must congress, the Senate, and the President.

How else could they uphold their oath of office?

 

[Al68]

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.

Oligarchy = a republic with free political speech? How intellectual!

Do you seriously believe political ads constitute "ruling" people? Free political speech constitutes a "bought and paid for" government?

 

[turbo]

Oligarchy = a republic with free political speech? How intellectual!

Do you seriously believe political ads constitute "ruling" people? Free political speech constitutes a "bought and paid for" government?

Do you know what an oligarchy is? How does the US deviate from that? A small segment of the US population controls the vast majority of our wealth and resources and wields the most power.

Allowing corporate interests to swamp our airways with political ads is not "free speech". Many people (especially older folk) get most of their information on political races from broadcast TV and radio. In small TV markets like Maine (7 commercial broadcast TV stations in the whole state representing ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX in two markets) it is possible to make large enough ad-buys to make it difficult and expensive for your opponent to even get ad-time in prime spots. That is not "free speech". Such "freedom" allows deep-pocketed corporations to control the message to an extent never before possible.

 

[Al68]

Do you know what an oligarchy is? How does the US deviate from that? A small segment of the US population controls the vast majority of our wealth and resources and wields the most power.

An oligarchy is a government which is controlled by a few and rules many. Rich people controlling their own resources does not equal "ruling people". Political ads do not constitute "ruling people". These things are so obvious I don't even know why I'm saying them.

Allowing corporate interests to swamp our airways with political ads is not "free speech".

Yes, it is. That's what the words "free speech" mean.

Free speech doesn't mean restricting political speech because the speaker has "corporate interests", or anything else you don't like.

 

[mheslep]

I'm not mistaken. I was simply repeating what the reporter said. Edited into the post less than a minute after he said it. It might have been more qualified, though I didn't catch the qualification.

It could have been that he (she, actually, after finding the clip) said the Republicans are getting 7 times the ad-buys from outside groups than Democrats are. I was busy at the time and was half-listening to the news. Here is the clip. It's in the Andrea Mitchell spot at the end of the clip. Outside money is pumping 7 times as much money into supporting Republicans, compared to Democrats.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/ns/nightly_news/#39584144

What is 'outside' money? Foreign money?