Summations Only

That should not be needed.Congress can establish a new form of incorporation that restricts political campaigning for corporations.A change in corporate taxes could strongly encourage migration to the new form of incorporation.

I like it. Voluntary restriction of rights.Question, if you were given the choice between favorable tax treatment in exchange for giving up your rights or retaining your rights under harsher tax measures, would you do it?As a new non-rights corporation where you could lessen your tax burden on the majority of your business wouldn’t you, openly or surreptitiously, keep a much smaller full-rights corporate brother for the political workings?Now the biggie. If you were the court and the claim came to you that plaintiff was being fined for choosing to exercising his constitutional rights would you agree to this new scheme?

Another option is for SCOTUS to find that the Right of Free Speech belongs only to individuals and use the precedent that the right has been expanded in the past to include specified groups.

What section of the constitution would allow the court to legislate this restriction on it's own volition? And if it has such a right then what would keep the court from likewise finding cause to restrict your rights?

There are three Supreme Laws of the Land, the Constitution is just one. If the SCOTUS decides that corporations do not have the Right of Free Speech then corporations do not have the Right of Free Speech.There is nothing in the US that prevents the SCOTUS for restricting my rights.

As far as the states and municipalities of the nation are concerned, yes. But on a federal level remember that Marbury v. Madison did more than establish judicial review. It also made the Constitution superior to both statute and treaty. Sure there is. Article II, Section 4 Now you are getting into Judicial Temperament. The Court binds itself by oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. If the president and the senate do their job right in selection, the members of the court will abide by the intent as well as the letter of the constitution.Regardless of all this you are correct. Korematsu v. United States is the glaring example of where the rule of emotion trumped the rule of law.Edited by AZPaul3, : changed Article

Not just emotion but many other ways, for example if Congress does not do their duty but rather packs the court for political reasons.

Make it a condition for any non-profit organization or company: if you don't pay taxes then you don't mess with politics. Neither funding of campaigns nor lobbying of congress allowed.This would go a long way to solving the dark money ...Enjoy

Why limit it to non-profits?

Thus the Homeowner's Association can no longer sponsor a debate of School Board candidates then endorse a favored candidate.And again, by what constitutional provision may congress invalidate constitutional rights for any segment of society?Only an amendment will do. Without that there will be strong and justifiable challenges.SCOTUS may go along with such a scheme, in error as we have seen the court do many times. Then 30, 50, 100 years from now the court will see its error and overturn the precedent as we have also seen the court do many times.The only viable fix I can see is an amendment baring corporations of certain size (the mega-corps) from lobbying congress, contributing to political campaigns and sponsoring or funding political ads.Even here, you just know the money will find a legal way around the restrictions.

The real solution is to build an informed and educated electorate, particularly in the Classic sense of those terms.

Oh I fully agree.The problem is that in a nation where creationist universities are numerous, the illogic of religion runs rampant and the most popular television fare are vampires, zombies and faked-up "reality" shows, getting a constitutional amendment passed and ratified within the week seems considerably easier.But you are right, again, so we do have to try.

I'm glad to see the Supreme Court make errors. An infallible court would be a dangerous thing.And I'm glad to see those errors corrected.

But this world has an infallible Pope and that's not a dangerou ...OK, bad example.

Also not true.Papal infallibility is very limited.