Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 19 to 27 of 38

Thread: Activist Supreme Court spits on Democracy

  1. #19
    World Champ ODH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,968

    Default Re: Activist Supreme Court spits on Democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Berean View Post
    The First Amendment requires 10 words for a sufficient stipulation: "Congress shall make NO LAW...abridging the Freedom of Speech."
    You need to give corporations the same legal rights as citizens to make this logical jump...there are alot of legalrestrictions on businesses that would not be acceptable to apply to private citizens

  2. #20

    Default Re: Activist Supreme Court spits on Democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Spider View Post
    It is my belief that the Constitution must be interpreted based upon the spirit in which it was written, not the literal meaning of the words. The founding fathers did not anticipate people entering public places with assault rifles gunning down everyone in sight, the easy access and pervasive influence of the internet, or foreign corporations using the media to influence the will of the American people. Laws must keep up with society in order to be effective. This doesn't mean ignoring the Constitution, it means allowing it to grow while preserving its basic intent: protecting the individual from oppressive government.
    Spider, our forefathers anticipated changing times. That is why they put in a LEGAL mechanism to add to or change the document.

    If you like interpreted laws that ignore the literal meaning, then we should play poker sometime and let me interpret the rules.

    The Founding Fathers also never anticipated pornography available to everyone either, nor as you say any number of issues we face today. But one thing they DID intend (and write laws against) above all else was to LIMIT the scope and power of a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (but not so state and local governments) and THAT is what is being ignored today.

  3. #21
    Ancient Arachnid Spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    5,424

    Default Re: Activist Supreme Court spits on Democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Tight-Waist View Post
    .

    If you like interpreted laws that ignore the literal meaning, then we should play poker sometime and let me interpret the rules.
    As long as the conditions of the game stay the same (52 card deck, no mirrors behind me), there is no reason to reinterpret the rules.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tight-Waist View Post
    Spider, our forefathers anticipated changing times. That is why they put in a LEGAL mechanism to add to or change the document . . . The Founding Fathers also never anticipated pornography available to everyone either, nor as you say any number of issues we face today. But one thing they DID intend (and write laws against) above all else was to LIMIT the scope and power of a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (but not so state and local governments) and THAT is what is being ignored today.
    Here, your knowledge exceeds mine so I can't argue. Still, any rule or law can be twisted beyond its original intent to create situations unanticipated by its creator. I believe that a claim of a right to posess an assault rifle is one example of this, and the right of corporations to exert excessive political influence is probably another.
    Atrophy: what you get when you win atournament.

  4. #22

    Default Re: Activist Supreme Court spits on Democracy

    Why dont you define "excessive political influence".

    And would you include unions as having too much "excessive political influence" or what about groups like the American Trial Lawyers Association or the Sierra Club or the National Rifle Association? Arent they really doing the same thing?

  5. #23
    Ancient Arachnid Spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    5,424

    Default Re: Activist Supreme Court spits on Democracy

    There are limits to financial contributions to political candidates so that the rich can not exert excessive influence by virtue of their financial means. I have no problem with organizations such as unions or professional organizations telling their members what their political position is. I worry when wealthy institutions with their own self-serving agendas have the opportunity to influence the public without any limits.

    I'm not so naive to think that elections aren't won or lost by money, but there has to be some effort to level the playing field.
    Atrophy: what you get when you win atournament.

  6. #24

    Default Re: Activist Supreme Court spits on Democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Spider View Post
    There are limits to financial contributions to political candidates so that the rich can not exert excessive influence by virtue of their financial means. I have no problem with organizations such as unions or professional organizations telling their members what their political position is. I worry when wealthy institutions with their own self-serving agendas have the opportunity to influence the public without any limits.

    I'm not so naive to think that elections aren't won or lost by money, but there has to be some effort to level the playing field.
    Oh... I see union members dont have brains of their own and need their union bosses to tell them how to think AND spend their $ too I suppose.

    And I also suppose that unions are not "wealthy institutions" nor do they have self-serving agendas thus they would NEVER have an opportunity to influence the public without limits. No... that would NEVER happen!

  7. #25
    Ancient Arachnid Spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    5,424

    Default Re: Activist Supreme Court spits on Democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Tight-Waist View Post
    Oh... I see union members dont have brains of their own and need their union bosses to tell them how to think AND spend their $ too I suppose.

    And I also suppose that unions are not "wealthy institutions" nor do they have self-serving agendas thus they would NEVER have an opportunity to influence the public without limits. No... that would NEVER happen!
    You didn't understand my post. I said that I have no objection to any organization telling its members what its political stance is. My objection is when it tries to influence THE PUBLIC by spending excessive amounts of money.

    I in no way implied that union members need to be told how to vote or that unions are any different from other large corporations. You introduced the subject of unions in a previous post.

    You would do well to spend more effort on comprehension and less on sarcasm.
    Atrophy: what you get when you win atournament.

  8. #26

    Default Re: Activist Supreme Court spits on Democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Spider View Post
    You didn't understand my post. I said that I have no objection to any organization telling its members what its political stance is. My objection is when it tries to influence THE PUBLIC by spending excessive amounts of money.

    I in no way implied that union members need to be told how to vote or that unions are any different from other large corporations. You introduced the subject of unions in a previous post.

    You would do well to spend more effort on comprehension and less on sarcasm.
    Spider you are foolish to try and communicate with Tight-a$$. He only has one gear. He cannot change his way and be thoughtful and reasonable.

  9. #27

    Default Re: Activist Supreme Court spits on Democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Spider View Post
    You didn't understand my post. I said that I have no objection to any organization telling its members what its political stance is. My objection is when it tries to influence THE PUBLIC by spending excessive amounts of money.

    I in no way implied that union members need to be told how to vote or that unions are any different from other large corporations. You introduced the subject of unions in a previous post.

    You would do well to spend more effort on comprehension and less on sarcasm.
    Now I'm just trying to understand your objection here.

    Are you saying you object to public service campaigns that try to "influence THE PUBLIC" or political lobbying and campaign spending that influences elected officials???????

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •