|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Awesome Republican Primary Thread | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
The remedy, unfortunately, is the long hard slog of Constitutional Amendment.
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.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
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.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
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.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
There are three Supreme Laws of the Land, the Constitution is just one. 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.
There is nothing in the US that prevents the SCOTUS for restricting my rights. Sure there is. Article II, Section 4
If the SCOTUS decides that corporations do not have the Right of Free Speech then corporations do not have the Right of Free Speech. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Not just emotion but many other ways, for example if Congress does not do their duty but rather packs the court for political reasons.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. 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 ... Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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. Why limit it to non-profits?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
The real solution is to build an informed and educated electorate, particularly in the Classic sense of those terms.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
I'm glad to see the Supreme Court make errors. An infallible court would be a dangerous thing. 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. And I'm glad to see those errors corrected.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
An infallible court would be a dangerous thing. But this world has an infallible Pope and that's not a dangerou ... OK, bad example.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Also not true.
Papal infallibility is very limited.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024