Justice Thomas and others seem to believe the Second Amendment reads "The people have no right to regulate a militia of one person".
Do they also believe that that one person has a right to fire into a crowded theater? The Supreme Court long ago limited free speech by stating that a person cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater.
If someone were to claim that Justice Thomas was getting paid one million dollars a year from the arms industry, wouldn't Justice Thomas be justified in suing to limit that persons right to free speech?
On the other hand, Justice Thomas should get an honorarium from the Federalist Society to cover travel expenses.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/03/opinion/guns-second-amendment-supreme-court.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage#commentsContainer, Linda Greenhouse
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Friday, January 04, 2019
Sunday, December 10, 2017
Counter to “Republicans” and facts
Comment to Paul Krugman’s “Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias”, New York Times, 201-12-08
I think a counter-attack to these distorters of facts should be repeating over and over again their misinterpretation and misrepresentation of so many ideas.
To them, a free market means corporations are free to do what they please. But a true free market is:
Many buyers and sellers.
Both buyers and sellers are free to enter or leave the market.
Both buyers and sellers have all the information they need.
There are no externalities (all costs are paid for in the transactions
They cherry-pick “sacred” texts to suit themselves.
Adam Smith in “On the Wealth of Nations” observed the England had laws the prevent the workers from organizing to raise wages but none to prevent the masters from organizing to keep wages down.
Adam Smith warned that those who live by profit are not to be trusted.
“Originalist” judges have changed the Constitution to mean that corporations are people.
I think a counter-attack to these distorters of facts should be repeating over and over again their misinterpretation and misrepresentation of so many ideas.
To them, a free market means corporations are free to do what they please. But a true free market is:
Many buyers and sellers.
Both buyers and sellers are free to enter or leave the market.
Both buyers and sellers have all the information they need.
There are no externalities (all costs are paid for in the transactions
They cherry-pick “sacred” texts to suit themselves.
Adam Smith in “On the Wealth of Nations” observed the England had laws the prevent the workers from organizing to raise wages but none to prevent the masters from organizing to keep wages down.
Adam Smith warned that those who live by profit are not to be trusted.
“Originalist” judges have changed the Constitution to mean that corporations are people.
Wednesday, September 06, 2017
Partisanship: quote of the day
“It’s not a partisan issue. We are working for our republic, and not for Republicans."
- Charles Fried, solicitor general under Ronald Reagan
See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/us/politics/prominent-republicans-urge-supreme-court-to-end-gerrymandering.html
- Charles Fried, solicitor general under Ronald Reagan
See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/us/politics/prominent-republicans-urge-supreme-court-to-end-gerrymandering.html
Political sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander
The Republicans are up in arms because Sen. Al Franken, MN-Dem has put a hold on the nomination of Judge David Stras to the Eighth Circuit Court because he considers him "too conservative". See Star Tribune, 2017-09-06 for more details.
I don't know what the beef the Republicans have with Franken. After all, they held up Obama's nominee for months in the hope of a Republican president appointing a Justice of the Supreme Court more to their liking. They held up Judge Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court from March until Donald Trump was inaugurated.
I don't know what the beef the Republicans have with Franken. After all, they held up Obama's nominee for months in the hope of a Republican president appointing a Justice of the Supreme Court more to their liking. They held up Judge Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court from March until Donald Trump was inaugurated.
Saturday, March 04, 2017
Quote of the dayl: Donald Trump and Constitution
"What Trump knows about history (or for that matter the Constitution) would not fill a Post-it note."
Roger Cohen, New York Times, 2017-02-28.
One could say the same about many members of Congress and the Supreme Court.
What I don't understand is that some of these judges are "originalists" and then put a different meaning into the text. Or all those in Congress who call themselves "conservatives" but are quite liberal with their reading of the Constitution.
Roger Cohen, New York Times, 2017-02-28.
One could say the same about many members of Congress and the Supreme Court.
What I don't understand is that some of these judges are "originalists" and then put a different meaning into the text. Or all those in Congress who call themselves "conservatives" but are quite liberal with their reading of the Constitution.
Thursday, February 23, 2017
It can happen here!
Many of us think that the Constitution protects us from a dictatorship. Unfortunately we are seeing signs of the possibility with Congress almost being in lockstep with the President and the Supreme Court becoming more subservient to the same ideology as the President and Congress.
Kurt Gödel, a mathematician and refugee from Hitler, studied the Constitution thoroughly in preparation for his citizenship. He saw a flaw that his friends cautioned him not to mention it in his hearing.
The examiner sympathetically mentioned that what was happening under Hitler couldn’t happen here. Gödel mentioned that he knew how it could. His friends managed to quiet him down and he became a citizen. See My Brain is Open by Paul Erdös.
How could it happen here? The Constitution can be amended. Could it be amended to give the President a life term, extend to the terms of Congress, abolish free speech,…?
Think of how much of the Constitution has already been corrupted by Supreme Court decisions: Corporations as people, people becoming persons,…
Think of how Republicans are working hard to suppress voting or dilute the effect of any opposition.
All that is needed is for a hard-nosed party to take absolute control of Congress and three-quarters of the states. Boom! There goes our Constitution.
Only you can prevent it. Vote thoughtfully in each and every election, from city council to state house to Congress to President. You are our only bulwark against our loss of freedom.
Kurt Gödel, a mathematician and refugee from Hitler, studied the Constitution thoroughly in preparation for his citizenship. He saw a flaw that his friends cautioned him not to mention it in his hearing.
The examiner sympathetically mentioned that what was happening under Hitler couldn’t happen here. Gödel mentioned that he knew how it could. His friends managed to quiet him down and he became a citizen. See My Brain is Open by Paul Erdös.
How could it happen here? The Constitution can be amended. Could it be amended to give the President a life term, extend to the terms of Congress, abolish free speech,…?
Think of how much of the Constitution has already been corrupted by Supreme Court decisions: Corporations as people, people becoming persons,…
Think of how Republicans are working hard to suppress voting or dilute the effect of any opposition.
All that is needed is for a hard-nosed party to take absolute control of Congress and three-quarters of the states. Boom! There goes our Constitution.
Only you can prevent it. Vote thoughtfully in each and every election, from city council to state house to Congress to President. You are our only bulwark against our loss of freedom.
Saturday, February 11, 2017
Did George Washington warn us about Donald Trump?
When I posted “Does U.S. Senate follow advice it honors?” I didn’t explicitly connect Washington’s warning about one department (branch) of the government encroaching on another: "The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.”
Trump seems to already have a lock-step Congress and will soon have a lock-step Supreme Court. If we are lucky, Neil Gorsuch will be another Earl Warren!
Trump seems to already have a lock-step Congress and will soon have a lock-step Supreme Court. If we are lucky, Neil Gorsuch will be another Earl Warren!
Thursday, January 19, 2017
Activist right-wing judges
Thanks for "activist right-wing judges". First "people" became "persons" (Second Amendment) and then "corporations became "persons" (Preamble). Will "four-year term" become lifetime next?
Comment to scottluack’s comment on “The Supreme Court’s Next Gun Battle”, Linda Greenhouse, New York Times, 2017-01-19, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/opinion/the-supreme-courts-next-gun-battle.html?comments#permid=21145325:21147064.
Comment to scottluack’s comment on “The Supreme Court’s Next Gun Battle”, Linda Greenhouse, New York Times, 2017-01-19, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/opinion/the-supreme-courts-next-gun-battle.html?comments#permid=21145325:21147064.
Monday, October 10, 2016
If you don’t vote, you have only yourself to blame
Originally published in
Reader Weekly
October 28, 2004
The U.S. is still considered a democracy. The word comes from the Greek demos for people and kratein for rule. It means the people rule. If you don’t vote, how can you rule?
Democracy has been interpreted as majority rule. But no president has ever been elected by a majority of the adult population. Before the 1860’s few blacks could vote. Before 1920 few women could vote (Wyoming territory being the exception in 1869). Since 1932 the voter turnouts have never been greater than sixty-three percent (1).
That high was in 1960 when John F. Kennedy won with 34,227,096 votes to Richard M. Nixon’s 34,108,546, a difference of 118,550. However, over 40 million people did not vote! More people stayed away than voted for either candidate. (2)
Ronald Reagan supposedly had a landslide victory in 1980 over Jimmy Carter. The voter turnout was less than 53 percent. If you consider that less than 28 percent of the eligible voters voted for Ronald Reagan, he did not have a mandate. Almost twice as many people stayed away as voted for Jimmy Carter.
Bill Clinton had five million votes more than Bob Dole in 1992 but the turnout was 55 percent. Fewer voters might have shown up if Ross Perot hadn’t run and won almost 20 million votes, more than half of those that went to Bob Dole. Even then 84 million people stayed away, giving Bill Clinton a plurality of 27 percent, a lower plurality than Ronald Reagan who also had a three-way race.
Even if you don’t like any of the presidential candidates, vote. You don’t have to mark a vote for every office. A lot of people skip voting for judges or conservation district commissioners, why not skip voting for president? Leaving a blank presidential ballot shows you care enough to show up, and you get counted in the vote totals.
Many people blame Ralph Nader for Bush winning in Florida in 2000. Nader got 97,588 votes and the difference between Bush’s and Gore’s totals was 537 votes (3). However, over three million of Florida’s eligible voters did not even show up at the polls (4). That is, more people stayed away than voted for either Bush or Gore.
In no midterm election since 1974 have more than forty percent of the adult population voted (2). Midterm congresses aren’t the best money can buy; they are the result of extreme voter apathy.
You can vote strategically, you can vote tactically, but vote. You can vote because of an overall result you want; say you want one party to dominate in Congress. Therefore you wouldn’t vote for a third party candidate you respect. Or, you can vote because you want a specific person in Congress. Therefore you would vote for a third party candidate or a “major” party candidate in a party different than the party you want to dominate in Congress. Either way, vote
You think Bush should be punished for the mess he made and that Kerry shouldn’t get the blame when he tries to fix it. So vote for Bush, but vote.
You think that Bush has done a marvelous job, then especially in Minnesota you should vote.
You think Bush should not be rewarded for the mess he made and that Kerry can clean it up. So vote for Kerry, but vote.
You think Hilary Rodham Clinton should be president in 2008. If so, Kerry should not be president. But don’t stay away, vote.
You think Hilary Rodham Clinton should not be president in 2008. So vote for Kerry, but vote.
Do you think the make up of the Supreme Court is important?
Do you consider yourself patriotic?
Do you think the country is on the right track?
Do you think the country is on the wrong track?
For any of these reasons, vote.
You can’t get time off from work to vote? Wrong, by law (in Minnesota) your employer must allow you paid time off to vote. It’s your future, vote.
You can’t get a ride to the polls to vote? Call for a ride. (Sorry, I have no current phone numbers for these, but you can probably find some party info on facebook. Look for your party of choice at the municipal or Congressional district level.)
OK Northlanders! Let’s show we care about our country. Let’s have over 90% turnout of the voting age population on November 2, 2004 (as of this re-posting, November 8, 2016).
VOTE!
(1) World Almanac 1998
(2) "National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960-1996", Federal Election Commission (http://www.fec.gov/pages/htmlto5.htm)
(3) “Nader Has Impact on Presidency”, Associated Press, posted at http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/123100/nad_nader.shtml (The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading.)
(4) “Who took votes from whom?” http://magree.blogspot.com/2010/12/who-took-votes-from-whom.html
©2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2016 Melvyn D. Magree
Reader Weekly
October 28, 2004
The U.S. is still considered a democracy. The word comes from the Greek demos for people and kratein for rule. It means the people rule. If you don’t vote, how can you rule?
Democracy has been interpreted as majority rule. But no president has ever been elected by a majority of the adult population. Before the 1860’s few blacks could vote. Before 1920 few women could vote (Wyoming territory being the exception in 1869). Since 1932 the voter turnouts have never been greater than sixty-three percent (1).
That high was in 1960 when John F. Kennedy won with 34,227,096 votes to Richard M. Nixon’s 34,108,546, a difference of 118,550. However, over 40 million people did not vote! More people stayed away than voted for either candidate. (2)
Ronald Reagan supposedly had a landslide victory in 1980 over Jimmy Carter. The voter turnout was less than 53 percent. If you consider that less than 28 percent of the eligible voters voted for Ronald Reagan, he did not have a mandate. Almost twice as many people stayed away as voted for Jimmy Carter.
Bill Clinton had five million votes more than Bob Dole in 1992 but the turnout was 55 percent. Fewer voters might have shown up if Ross Perot hadn’t run and won almost 20 million votes, more than half of those that went to Bob Dole. Even then 84 million people stayed away, giving Bill Clinton a plurality of 27 percent, a lower plurality than Ronald Reagan who also had a three-way race.
Even if you don’t like any of the presidential candidates, vote. You don’t have to mark a vote for every office. A lot of people skip voting for judges or conservation district commissioners, why not skip voting for president? Leaving a blank presidential ballot shows you care enough to show up, and you get counted in the vote totals.
Many people blame Ralph Nader for Bush winning in Florida in 2000. Nader got 97,588 votes and the difference between Bush’s and Gore’s totals was 537 votes (3). However, over three million of Florida’s eligible voters did not even show up at the polls (4). That is, more people stayed away than voted for either Bush or Gore.
In no midterm election since 1974 have more than forty percent of the adult population voted (2). Midterm congresses aren’t the best money can buy; they are the result of extreme voter apathy.
You can vote strategically, you can vote tactically, but vote. You can vote because of an overall result you want; say you want one party to dominate in Congress. Therefore you wouldn’t vote for a third party candidate you respect. Or, you can vote because you want a specific person in Congress. Therefore you would vote for a third party candidate or a “major” party candidate in a party different than the party you want to dominate in Congress. Either way, vote
You think Bush should be punished for the mess he made and that Kerry shouldn’t get the blame when he tries to fix it. So vote for Bush, but vote.
You think that Bush has done a marvelous job, then especially in Minnesota you should vote.
You think Bush should not be rewarded for the mess he made and that Kerry can clean it up. So vote for Kerry, but vote.
You think Hilary Rodham Clinton should be president in 2008. If so, Kerry should not be president. But don’t stay away, vote.
You think Hilary Rodham Clinton should not be president in 2008. So vote for Kerry, but vote.
Do you think the make up of the Supreme Court is important?
Do you consider yourself patriotic?
Do you think the country is on the right track?
Do you think the country is on the wrong track?
For any of these reasons, vote.
You can’t get time off from work to vote? Wrong, by law (in Minnesota) your employer must allow you paid time off to vote. It’s your future, vote.
You can’t get a ride to the polls to vote? Call for a ride. (Sorry, I have no current phone numbers for these, but you can probably find some party info on facebook. Look for your party of choice at the municipal or Congressional district level.)
OK Northlanders! Let’s show we care about our country. Let’s have over 90% turnout of the voting age population on November 2, 2004 (as of this re-posting, November 8, 2016).
VOTE!
(1) World Almanac 1998
(2) "National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960-1996", Federal Election Commission (http://www.fec.gov/pages/htmlto5.htm)
(3) “Nader Has Impact on Presidency”, Associated Press, posted at http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/123100/nad_nader.shtml (The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading.)
(4) “Who took votes from whom?” http://magree.blogspot.com/2010/12/who-took-votes-from-whom.html
©2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2016 Melvyn D. Magree
Thursday, July 30, 2015
The Misunderstood Constitution
A letter writer to the Star Tribune stated that media should "return to their Constitutional responsibility of unbiased rhetoric.” (2015-07-21) That doesn’t look like anything I ever saw in the Constitution. I wrote a counter letter that “freedom of the press” imposes no such responsibility on the media, and it was published on 2015-07-23.
I don’t understand how people can put words into the Constitution that are not even there. And much of the Constitution is a guideline rather than absolute law. For example, “freedom of the press” means that I could state that you embezzled your employer of $50,000. However, if you can prove that you did not embezzle your employer, you can sue me for defamation of character. On the other hand, if you are brought to court on a charge of embezzlement, you have no case if I state you were brought to court.
The classic case many use is shouting fire in a crowded theatre, but even here you have to be careful. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. used it as a remark in a case of “sedition”; it is not law. See “It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote, Trevor Timm, The Atlantic, 2012-11-02.
Besides putting words into the Constitution that aren’t there, many of us put meaning into words that the writers of the Constitution probably didn’t intend. The current hot phrase is “Freedom of Religion” to avoid obeying laws we don’t like. For example, paying for employee health insurance that covers contraception. “Freedom of Religion” has been allowed erratically to conscientious objectors.
But would “Freedom of Religion” apply to not paying taxes we don’t like? I doubt it. Tax “choice” would be a bureaucratic nightmare far worse than educational tax exemptions for certain political organizations.
“Freedom of Religion” is also being used as justification for not serving people one does not approve of, for example, gays. I think the sit-ins of the sixties established that if you have a public establishment you should be open to all of the public. The only exceptions should be excluding certain behavior: “No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service.”
On the other hand, if you are asked to cater certain parties, you should be able to decline. If you disapprove of mixed bathing or same-sex kissing, should you be required to provide your services?
My take is that “Freedom of Religion” is the freedom to believe whatever you want: child or adult baptism, hierarchical or elected church organization, and on and on. However, you are not always free to act on these beliefs, say virgin sacrifice.
Interestingly, some of the same people who want their Freedom of Religion want to deny Freedom of Religion to others. For example, mandatory public school prayer. What form should a public prayer take to satisfy all faiths? Ironically, those who want public prayer ignore the admonition in their holy book to not be like the hypocrites who pray in public to be seen by men.
We often treat the Constitution as almost God-given, but it was the long work of a hot summer with many, many compromises, like slaves being counted as three-fifths of a person for census purposes. Benjamin Franklin voted for the Constitution even though he didn’t approve of several parts but thought it might be the best that could be written. Note also, that 74 delegates were named to the Constitutional Convention, 55 attended, and only 39 signed the final document.
The Constitution does give the Supreme Court the judicial power of the United States. This power is extended to a long list of cases which just about covers all possible cases. However, it did not gain a solid reputation until the tenure of John Marshall (1801-1835). Many of the cases brought before his court have become landmarks that are cited again and again.
However, the Court is composed of many with a variety of political beliefs. Some decisions are unanimous, many decisions are divided. And divided decisions may have more than two or more reasonings. What a Court in the Nineteenth Century decided may be overturned by a Court in the Twentieth Century.
Appointees to the Supreme Court have often surprised the Presidents who nominate or approve them. A case of point is Justice Earl Warren who put together many liberal decisions that upset the conservatives of the day; for example, Brown vs. Board of Education, making school segregation illegal.
Interestingly, the cries of “activist court” became very shrill during Warren’s tenure and beyond. Not surprisingly, those voices were stilled during the time that the Court put corporations before people. And “corporation” does not even appear in Constitution.
Finally, be really wary that the Constitution will protect our rights.
When the mathematician John von Neuman, a refugee from Hitler’s Germany, went for his citizenship interview, he was asked if he was glad he was in the U.S. where that couldn’t happen. He had read the Constitution thoroughly and replied that it could. Fortunately for von Neuman, the interviewer didn’t follow up on his answer.
It took me awhile to understand his reasoning. Take a minute to try to answer this.
The Constitution can be amended! What if the political will is there to make the current President the President for life?
Can’t happen? Think again. The Eighteenth Amendment forbade the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors. It was very popular. And then intoxicating liquors became even more popular. It took fourteen years for the Amendment’s repeal. If there was an amendment to make someone President for Life, wouldn’t an amendment to prevent further amendments follow?
Also published in the Reader Weekly, 2015-07-30 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/07/29/5702_the_misunderstood_constitution.
This version includes a few grammatical or spelling corrections.
I don’t understand how people can put words into the Constitution that are not even there. And much of the Constitution is a guideline rather than absolute law. For example, “freedom of the press” means that I could state that you embezzled your employer of $50,000. However, if you can prove that you did not embezzle your employer, you can sue me for defamation of character. On the other hand, if you are brought to court on a charge of embezzlement, you have no case if I state you were brought to court.
The classic case many use is shouting fire in a crowded theatre, but even here you have to be careful. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. used it as a remark in a case of “sedition”; it is not law. See “It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote, Trevor Timm, The Atlantic, 2012-11-02.
Besides putting words into the Constitution that aren’t there, many of us put meaning into words that the writers of the Constitution probably didn’t intend. The current hot phrase is “Freedom of Religion” to avoid obeying laws we don’t like. For example, paying for employee health insurance that covers contraception. “Freedom of Religion” has been allowed erratically to conscientious objectors.
But would “Freedom of Religion” apply to not paying taxes we don’t like? I doubt it. Tax “choice” would be a bureaucratic nightmare far worse than educational tax exemptions for certain political organizations.
“Freedom of Religion” is also being used as justification for not serving people one does not approve of, for example, gays. I think the sit-ins of the sixties established that if you have a public establishment you should be open to all of the public. The only exceptions should be excluding certain behavior: “No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service.”
On the other hand, if you are asked to cater certain parties, you should be able to decline. If you disapprove of mixed bathing or same-sex kissing, should you be required to provide your services?
My take is that “Freedom of Religion” is the freedom to believe whatever you want: child or adult baptism, hierarchical or elected church organization, and on and on. However, you are not always free to act on these beliefs, say virgin sacrifice.
Interestingly, some of the same people who want their Freedom of Religion want to deny Freedom of Religion to others. For example, mandatory public school prayer. What form should a public prayer take to satisfy all faiths? Ironically, those who want public prayer ignore the admonition in their holy book to not be like the hypocrites who pray in public to be seen by men.
We often treat the Constitution as almost God-given, but it was the long work of a hot summer with many, many compromises, like slaves being counted as three-fifths of a person for census purposes. Benjamin Franklin voted for the Constitution even though he didn’t approve of several parts but thought it might be the best that could be written. Note also, that 74 delegates were named to the Constitutional Convention, 55 attended, and only 39 signed the final document.
The Constitution does give the Supreme Court the judicial power of the United States. This power is extended to a long list of cases which just about covers all possible cases. However, it did not gain a solid reputation until the tenure of John Marshall (1801-1835). Many of the cases brought before his court have become landmarks that are cited again and again.
However, the Court is composed of many with a variety of political beliefs. Some decisions are unanimous, many decisions are divided. And divided decisions may have more than two or more reasonings. What a Court in the Nineteenth Century decided may be overturned by a Court in the Twentieth Century.
Appointees to the Supreme Court have often surprised the Presidents who nominate or approve them. A case of point is Justice Earl Warren who put together many liberal decisions that upset the conservatives of the day; for example, Brown vs. Board of Education, making school segregation illegal.
Interestingly, the cries of “activist court” became very shrill during Warren’s tenure and beyond. Not surprisingly, those voices were stilled during the time that the Court put corporations before people. And “corporation” does not even appear in Constitution.
Finally, be really wary that the Constitution will protect our rights.
When the mathematician John von Neuman, a refugee from Hitler’s Germany, went for his citizenship interview, he was asked if he was glad he was in the U.S. where that couldn’t happen. He had read the Constitution thoroughly and replied that it could. Fortunately for von Neuman, the interviewer didn’t follow up on his answer.
It took me awhile to understand his reasoning. Take a minute to try to answer this.
The Constitution can be amended! What if the political will is there to make the current President the President for life?
Can’t happen? Think again. The Eighteenth Amendment forbade the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors. It was very popular. And then intoxicating liquors became even more popular. It took fourteen years for the Amendment’s repeal. If there was an amendment to make someone President for Life, wouldn’t an amendment to prevent further amendments follow?
Also published in the Reader Weekly, 2015-07-30 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/07/29/5702_the_misunderstood_constitution.
This version includes a few grammatical or spelling corrections.
Saturday, October 04, 2014
Constitution á la carte
“Á la carte” is French for “from the menu”. It means that one chooses various items from the menu rather than being offered a complete meal chosen by the chef. It seems to me that the writers of the U.S. Constitution provided us a complete meal for governance, but we all seem to pick and choose what we want from the Constitution and ignore much of the rest, even going so far as to go against the intent of the writers.
Let’s start at the beginning: “We the people…” Just who are “the people”? The word “people” is used just twice in the original constitution: in the opening and in Article I, Section 2. In the latter “the People of the several States” choose the Representatives. The “electors”, presumably of the people, are defined by state law. Interesting, the Constitution doesn’t prohibit women from voting. But considering that states had laws allowing only men to vote, then the Constitution indirectly prohibits women from voting.
Another prominent noun is “person”, again without gender stipulation. All of the uses assume a single human individual, free or otherwise. For census purposes the qualification “free” is added. So, although the States didn’t allow women the vote, did they allow free Blacks and Indians taxed to vote? The Constitution is mute on this.
The sticking point nowadays is the use of “people” and “persons” in the Bill of Rights. The “people” can peaceably assemble, bear arms, “be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects”, retain rights not enumerated, and have powers not in the Constitution or “prohibited by the States.”
We seem to have a real “á la carte” on these amendments.
Some think peaceably assemble means they can have marches or demonstrations that block entire streets. Others think that a small group of people, especially Blacks, is not a peaceable assembly. The Twin Cities has a case that assumes one person sitting on a publicly-accessible chair is not peaceable assembly.
Bearing arms has been a contentious issue for ages, but most Supreme Court cases until at least 1939 interpreted it as militia-related and not personal. After all, it is a right of the people, not of persons. Now there are persons who insist that they have a right to have a gun wherever they feel like. Interesting, that there were lots of sheriffs and marshals who made gun toters check in their guns while in town.
Many Southern States conveniently overlooked and resisted the Federal authority to override state laws regarding “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Election for … Representatives.” See Article I, Section 4.
Many complain about federal regulation, but Article I, Section 8, leaves two questions wide open. “The Congress have have the power to lay and collect Taxes…and provide for the … general Welfare of the United States.” Are a highway system, an air traffic control system, and clean air and water “general Welfare”? There seem to be many who think clean air and water are over-regulation. Some of these same people want to have an extensive highway network to move themselves or goods, but they don’t want Congress to “lay and collect Taxes” for them.
One of the current ironies is that the Postmaster General is trying to overturn Congress’ responsibility “to Establish Post Offices”. Is getting a Netflix DVD the next day a Constitutional right? It is ironic that the Postmaster General’s actions are an attempt to promote corporate interests over public interest but that one large competitor to the Postal Service depends on USPS for the “last mile”. UPS sends many small packages for the “last mile” via USPS. Can you imagine UPS stopping every two blocks or so to distribute a package that fits in the mail box?
Some corporate interests are working overtime to redefine “limited time” for “exclusive Right to “Writings and Discoveries” They hope to retain film and book rights forever long, long after the creators have died. I can see a family retaining the rights but not for generation after generation. I remember that some decades ago the Verdi family lost the rights to royalties for Verdi’s operas and other works.
Has Congress abandoned the spirit of no appropriation for Armies should be for longer than two years? This was written because the writers of the Constitution disliked standing armies. Not only do we have a standing army but a globe-straddling army. I am glad that all the signers of the Constitution are not buried in the same place; the spinning in graves would be deafening.
Their backup plan was the state Militias which “may be employed in the Service of the United States.” Many may complain about the multiple deployments of the National Guards, but they are Constitutional.
On the other hand, Congress was “To provide and maintain a Navy”. It apparently doesn’t have the appropriation limitations that the Armies have. After all, the Navy has to support Congress’ power to “punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas”. Does this also apply above the high seas?
All of the above is mostly my opinion and interpretation of the Constitution. I tried to frame most of it as questions rather than fixed-in-stone assertions. Unfortunately, there are those who believe they can deduce the Founder’s intent by reading the Constitution. Sorry, but consider all the words written in the Federalist Papers to “sell” the Constitution. Also consider how few Supreme Court cases are decided by unanimous opinions. These are judges who have spent life-times studying the Constitution.
Mel has long been fascinated by rules and regulations, and like many others, tries to interpret them to his advantage.
Also posted to the Reader Weekly, 2014-10-02.
See also
"Foreign policy foreign to founders"
"Constitution, Rights, and secretive Congress"
"Quote of the day: Stealing the Constitution"
"The right to bear Canons"
Let’s start at the beginning: “We the people…” Just who are “the people”? The word “people” is used just twice in the original constitution: in the opening and in Article I, Section 2. In the latter “the People of the several States” choose the Representatives. The “electors”, presumably of the people, are defined by state law. Interesting, the Constitution doesn’t prohibit women from voting. But considering that states had laws allowing only men to vote, then the Constitution indirectly prohibits women from voting.
Another prominent noun is “person”, again without gender stipulation. All of the uses assume a single human individual, free or otherwise. For census purposes the qualification “free” is added. So, although the States didn’t allow women the vote, did they allow free Blacks and Indians taxed to vote? The Constitution is mute on this.
The sticking point nowadays is the use of “people” and “persons” in the Bill of Rights. The “people” can peaceably assemble, bear arms, “be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects”, retain rights not enumerated, and have powers not in the Constitution or “prohibited by the States.”
We seem to have a real “á la carte” on these amendments.
Some think peaceably assemble means they can have marches or demonstrations that block entire streets. Others think that a small group of people, especially Blacks, is not a peaceable assembly. The Twin Cities has a case that assumes one person sitting on a publicly-accessible chair is not peaceable assembly.
Bearing arms has been a contentious issue for ages, but most Supreme Court cases until at least 1939 interpreted it as militia-related and not personal. After all, it is a right of the people, not of persons. Now there are persons who insist that they have a right to have a gun wherever they feel like. Interesting, that there were lots of sheriffs and marshals who made gun toters check in their guns while in town.
Many Southern States conveniently overlooked and resisted the Federal authority to override state laws regarding “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Election for … Representatives.” See Article I, Section 4.
Many complain about federal regulation, but Article I, Section 8, leaves two questions wide open. “The Congress have have the power to lay and collect Taxes…and provide for the … general Welfare of the United States.” Are a highway system, an air traffic control system, and clean air and water “general Welfare”? There seem to be many who think clean air and water are over-regulation. Some of these same people want to have an extensive highway network to move themselves or goods, but they don’t want Congress to “lay and collect Taxes” for them.
One of the current ironies is that the Postmaster General is trying to overturn Congress’ responsibility “to Establish Post Offices”. Is getting a Netflix DVD the next day a Constitutional right? It is ironic that the Postmaster General’s actions are an attempt to promote corporate interests over public interest but that one large competitor to the Postal Service depends on USPS for the “last mile”. UPS sends many small packages for the “last mile” via USPS. Can you imagine UPS stopping every two blocks or so to distribute a package that fits in the mail box?
Some corporate interests are working overtime to redefine “limited time” for “exclusive Right to “Writings and Discoveries” They hope to retain film and book rights forever long, long after the creators have died. I can see a family retaining the rights but not for generation after generation. I remember that some decades ago the Verdi family lost the rights to royalties for Verdi’s operas and other works.
Has Congress abandoned the spirit of no appropriation for Armies should be for longer than two years? This was written because the writers of the Constitution disliked standing armies. Not only do we have a standing army but a globe-straddling army. I am glad that all the signers of the Constitution are not buried in the same place; the spinning in graves would be deafening.
Their backup plan was the state Militias which “may be employed in the Service of the United States.” Many may complain about the multiple deployments of the National Guards, but they are Constitutional.
On the other hand, Congress was “To provide and maintain a Navy”. It apparently doesn’t have the appropriation limitations that the Armies have. After all, the Navy has to support Congress’ power to “punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas”. Does this also apply above the high seas?
All of the above is mostly my opinion and interpretation of the Constitution. I tried to frame most of it as questions rather than fixed-in-stone assertions. Unfortunately, there are those who believe they can deduce the Founder’s intent by reading the Constitution. Sorry, but consider all the words written in the Federalist Papers to “sell” the Constitution. Also consider how few Supreme Court cases are decided by unanimous opinions. These are judges who have spent life-times studying the Constitution.
Mel has long been fascinated by rules and regulations, and like many others, tries to interpret them to his advantage.
Also posted to the Reader Weekly, 2014-10-02.
See also
"Foreign policy foreign to founders"
"Constitution, Rights, and secretive Congress"
"Quote of the day: Stealing the Constitution"
"The right to bear Canons"
Thursday, May 01, 2014
Second Amendment v. Article I, Section 8
"Everybody" seems to know exactly what the following means:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
This was ratified by the States and Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of State authenticated it.
However, what Congress passed was:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Just what does the missing comma mean? I'll defer to grammarians on this, but if there is any difference in meaning, it makes it harder to determine the intent of Congress.
Whatever, Cliven Bundy and his supporters are using "the right to bear arms" as a justification of his armed refusal to obey a court order that the Bureau of Land Management should confiscate his cattle for his non-payment of fees for use of Federal Land.
He seems to be ignoring Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that includes:
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
Thus my general tendency to regard as wholly untenable any approach to the Constitution that describes itself as obviously correct and condemns its opposition as simply wrong holds for the Second Amendment as well. The Constitution contains too many phrases that are open to interpretation.
A Tea Party member stated on a To the Best of Our Knowledge broadcast that she could determine the writers' intent by reading the Constitution. She must be more knowledgable than the Justices of the Supreme Court. They rarely have unanimous decisions. Even if they do, the decision can be overturned by a later court. Consider that the "separate by equal" case justifying school segregation was overturned later by "Brown vs, Board of Education".
Even decisions on the Second Amendment have changed over time.
One of the early cases was US v. Cruikshank (1876) where the defendants were accused of threatening citizens of African descent who were exercising their own rights to peaceably assemble.
If the Second Amendment was intended as an individual right, then shouldn’t the slaves have had the right to bear arms for self-defense against oppressive slave owners and overreaching state governments that condoned slavery?
In Presser v. Illinois (1886), Presser claimed that the armed parade he was leading was protected by the Second Amendment. Illinois law forbade anybody to form a military company without a license from the state. The Supreme Court ruled against Presser. Among the arguments was, “The exercise of this power [to regulate the militia] by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine.”
Justice James Clark McReynolds wrote the opinion in US vs. Miller (1939) that The National Firearms Act was not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States and not violative of the Second Amendment of the Constitution. McReynolds was a very conservative judge who opposed much of Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation.
.
Then everything changed with District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. One of the pronouncements is “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
This reads as if written by an “activist judge” who interprets the Constitution to suit ideological beliefs rather than what the Constitution actually says. This is surprising to come from a judge appointed by a president of a party who long railed against “activist judges”.
I wonder if the current Supreme Court would rule in Cliven Bundy’s favor because the Congress does not have the authority to call out the militia “to suppress insurrections”. I wonder that if many in Congress voted to call out the militia would the Republicans then do everything they could to stop this action.
As so many of us are, the Republicans seem to be selective in which laws they support and which they oppose. Are not laws prohibiting abortion an imposition on individual liberty? Are not laws favoring certain religious views in schools an imposition on those who do not have those views?
And Republicans seem the most eager to have a large standing army to go anywhere the President wants for whatever reason. Boy! Talk about not following the intent of the Founders.
What is an independent to do? “Conservatives” want to go back to a past that never was, and “Liberals” want a future that will never be.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
This was ratified by the States and Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of State authenticated it.
However, what Congress passed was:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Just what does the missing comma mean? I'll defer to grammarians on this, but if there is any difference in meaning, it makes it harder to determine the intent of Congress.
Whatever, Cliven Bundy and his supporters are using "the right to bear arms" as a justification of his armed refusal to obey a court order that the Bureau of Land Management should confiscate his cattle for his non-payment of fees for use of Federal Land.
He seems to be ignoring Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that includes:
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
Thus my general tendency to regard as wholly untenable any approach to the Constitution that describes itself as obviously correct and condemns its opposition as simply wrong holds for the Second Amendment as well. The Constitution contains too many phrases that are open to interpretation.
A Tea Party member stated on a To the Best of Our Knowledge broadcast that she could determine the writers' intent by reading the Constitution. She must be more knowledgable than the Justices of the Supreme Court. They rarely have unanimous decisions. Even if they do, the decision can be overturned by a later court. Consider that the "separate by equal" case justifying school segregation was overturned later by "Brown vs, Board of Education".
Even decisions on the Second Amendment have changed over time.
One of the early cases was US v. Cruikshank (1876) where the defendants were accused of threatening citizens of African descent who were exercising their own rights to peaceably assemble.
If the Second Amendment was intended as an individual right, then shouldn’t the slaves have had the right to bear arms for self-defense against oppressive slave owners and overreaching state governments that condoned slavery?
In Presser v. Illinois (1886), Presser claimed that the armed parade he was leading was protected by the Second Amendment. Illinois law forbade anybody to form a military company without a license from the state. The Supreme Court ruled against Presser. Among the arguments was, “The exercise of this power [to regulate the militia] by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine.”
Justice James Clark McReynolds wrote the opinion in US vs. Miller (1939) that The National Firearms Act was not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States and not violative of the Second Amendment of the Constitution. McReynolds was a very conservative judge who opposed much of Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation.
.
Then everything changed with District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. One of the pronouncements is “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
This reads as if written by an “activist judge” who interprets the Constitution to suit ideological beliefs rather than what the Constitution actually says. This is surprising to come from a judge appointed by a president of a party who long railed against “activist judges”.
I wonder if the current Supreme Court would rule in Cliven Bundy’s favor because the Congress does not have the authority to call out the militia “to suppress insurrections”. I wonder that if many in Congress voted to call out the militia would the Republicans then do everything they could to stop this action.
As so many of us are, the Republicans seem to be selective in which laws they support and which they oppose. Are not laws prohibiting abortion an imposition on individual liberty? Are not laws favoring certain religious views in schools an imposition on those who do not have those views?
And Republicans seem the most eager to have a large standing army to go anywhere the President wants for whatever reason. Boy! Talk about not following the intent of the Founders.
What is an independent to do? “Conservatives” want to go back to a past that never was, and “Liberals” want a future that will never be.
Monday, April 07, 2014
Too much money or too few voters?
The best antidote to too much money in politics is larger turnouts. If you don't show up, you are increasing the power of too much money. If you don't show up and vote then you are increasing the likelihood you will be next on the list to be disenfranchised.
Remember that the aim of most political attack ads is not to get the viewer to vote for a given candidate but to get the viewer to not show up.
If you want to make a difference, don’t watch TV, always vote, and always vote what you believe.
Also, remember that the turnout in Afghanistan was over 50%. Many of those people showed up at the risk they might come under a terrorist attack. Can’t we do much better in the U.S. where our only risk of going to the polls is an auto crash?
Remember that the aim of most political attack ads is not to get the viewer to vote for a given candidate but to get the viewer to not show up.
If you want to make a difference, don’t watch TV, always vote, and always vote what you believe.
Also, remember that the turnout in Afghanistan was over 50%. Many of those people showed up at the risk they might come under a terrorist attack. Can’t we do much better in the U.S. where our only risk of going to the polls is an auto crash?
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Score one for Clarence Thomas
Supreme Court Clarence Thomas wrote the unanimous opinion against Myriad Genetics claim that it had a patent on the naturally occurring BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes that are used for its breast cancer tests.
See "Justices, 9-0, Bar Patenting Human Genes".
It is very heartening to see another case where dire predictions of strict ideology don't come true. The big corporation was overruled in its attempt to patent nature. Scientists in academia and other corporations should be allowed to access and use these genes.
If you're interested in all the details, you can find the ruling at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_8njq.pdf.
See "Justices, 9-0, Bar Patenting Human Genes".
It is very heartening to see another case where dire predictions of strict ideology don't come true. The big corporation was overruled in its attempt to patent nature. Scientists in academia and other corporations should be allowed to access and use these genes.
If you're interested in all the details, you can find the ruling at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_8njq.pdf.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Dred Scott and the Second Amendment
What does Dred Scott have to do with the Second Amendment? The non-permanent status of Supreme Court decisions.
Dred Scott was a slave brought to Northern States by his owner and went to a Missouri Court to gain his freedom. The case was taken all the way to the Supreme Court where the case was decided 7-2 against Scott; he was regarded as property and not a citizen. See "Dred Scott v. Sanford".
The case was essentially overturned by the Fourteenth Amendment, which included "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Furthermore, there was a 8-1 Supreme Court decision supporting segregation: Plessy v. Ferguson. The lone dissenter, Justice John Marshall Harlan "wrote that the majority's opinion would 'prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott case.'"
"Plessy v. Ferguson" was overturned by the Supreme Court in "Brown v. Board of Education" in 1954 unanimously 9-0!
The Second Amendment was interpreted to apply specifically to individuals in "District of Columbia v. Heller". The case was decided 5-4 with the expected votes each way.
This is a case of "activist judges" interpreting the Constitution to match their political beliefs. From the "District of Columbia v. Heller" Wikipedia page we have:
Richard Posner, judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, compares Heller to Roe v. Wade, stating that it created a federal constitutional right that did not previously exist, and he asserts that the originalist method – to which Justice Antonin Scalia claims to adhere – would have yielded the opposite result of the majority opinion.
The text of the amendment, whether viewed alone or in light of the concerns that actuated its adoption, creates no right to the private possession of guns for hunting or other sport, or for the defense of person or property. It is doubtful that the amendment could even be thought to require that members of state militias be allowed to keep weapons in their homes, since that would reduce the militias' effectiveness. Suppose part of a state's militia was engaged in combat and needed additional weaponry. Would the militia's commander have to collect the weapons from the homes of militiamen who had not been mobilized, as opposed to obtaining them from a storage facility? Since the purpose of the Second Amendment, judging from its language and background, was to assure the effectiveness of state militias, an interpretation that undermined their effectiveness by preventing states from making efficient arrangements for the storage and distribution of military weapons would not make sense.[64]
End of extract.
Wikipedia has a good entry on the Second Amendment at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution.
So, how do these cases tie together? The decisions of the Supreme Court are no more permanent than the terms of office of politicians or the "to and fro" of public opinion. Some years for now, "District of Columbia v. Heller" may be overturned by a different court or another Constitutional Amendment.
Dred Scott was a slave brought to Northern States by his owner and went to a Missouri Court to gain his freedom. The case was taken all the way to the Supreme Court where the case was decided 7-2 against Scott; he was regarded as property and not a citizen. See "Dred Scott v. Sanford".
The case was essentially overturned by the Fourteenth Amendment, which included "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Furthermore, there was a 8-1 Supreme Court decision supporting segregation: Plessy v. Ferguson. The lone dissenter, Justice John Marshall Harlan "wrote that the majority's opinion would 'prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott case.'"
"Plessy v. Ferguson" was overturned by the Supreme Court in "Brown v. Board of Education" in 1954 unanimously 9-0!
The Second Amendment was interpreted to apply specifically to individuals in "District of Columbia v. Heller". The case was decided 5-4 with the expected votes each way.
This is a case of "activist judges" interpreting the Constitution to match their political beliefs. From the "District of Columbia v. Heller" Wikipedia page we have:
Richard Posner, judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, compares Heller to Roe v. Wade, stating that it created a federal constitutional right that did not previously exist, and he asserts that the originalist method – to which Justice Antonin Scalia claims to adhere – would have yielded the opposite result of the majority opinion.
The text of the amendment, whether viewed alone or in light of the concerns that actuated its adoption, creates no right to the private possession of guns for hunting or other sport, or for the defense of person or property. It is doubtful that the amendment could even be thought to require that members of state militias be allowed to keep weapons in their homes, since that would reduce the militias' effectiveness. Suppose part of a state's militia was engaged in combat and needed additional weaponry. Would the militia's commander have to collect the weapons from the homes of militiamen who had not been mobilized, as opposed to obtaining them from a storage facility? Since the purpose of the Second Amendment, judging from its language and background, was to assure the effectiveness of state militias, an interpretation that undermined their effectiveness by preventing states from making efficient arrangements for the storage and distribution of military weapons would not make sense.[64]
End of extract.
Wikipedia has a good entry on the Second Amendment at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution.
So, how do these cases tie together? The decisions of the Supreme Court are no more permanent than the terms of office of politicians or the "to and fro" of public opinion. Some years for now, "District of Columbia v. Heller" may be overturned by a different court or another Constitutional Amendment.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Illegal political contributions from multi-national corporations?
This little note was inspired by "Corporations can't pledge allegiance", Frances Moore Lappe, Huffington Post, 2012-08-16.
The Supreme Court "issued an order upholding prohibitions against foreigners making contributions to influence American elections", "Supreme Court Retains Ban on Foreign Campaign Donations", John H. Cushman Jr., New York Times, 2012-01-09.
This decision was against two individuals who were working temporarily in the United States. Foreign nationals may not make contributions to candidates or parties and may not make independent expenditures in elections.
If corporations are people, then shouldn't this same ruling apply to many large corporations. Corporations also have foreign nationals on their boards. For example, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, Chairman of the Board of Nestlé, a Swiss corporation, sits on the board of Exxon.
In 2011 Exxon gave $226,700 to candidates and caucuses and its employee/retiree PAC gave more than $747,000. See http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/about_issues_political.aspx. Before "liberals" get too smug, Exxon donated $117,946 to Obama's 2008 campaign and a lesser amount to McCain. I guess they believed in equal bribery, er, covering all the bases. See "Exxon, Chevron, BP Greased Obama's Campaign", Paul Bedard and Danielle Kurtzleben, US News, 2011-03-14.
So, if the Chairman of Nestlé, an Austrian citizen, is on the board of Exxon, wouldn't he have some say in how Exxon makes its political contributions? If so, isn't that a foreigner "making contributions to influence American elections"?
The Supreme Court "issued an order upholding prohibitions against foreigners making contributions to influence American elections", "Supreme Court Retains Ban on Foreign Campaign Donations", John H. Cushman Jr., New York Times, 2012-01-09.
This decision was against two individuals who were working temporarily in the United States. Foreign nationals may not make contributions to candidates or parties and may not make independent expenditures in elections.
If corporations are people, then shouldn't this same ruling apply to many large corporations. Corporations also have foreign nationals on their boards. For example, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, Chairman of the Board of Nestlé, a Swiss corporation, sits on the board of Exxon.
In 2011 Exxon gave $226,700 to candidates and caucuses and its employee/retiree PAC gave more than $747,000. See http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/about_issues_political.aspx. Before "liberals" get too smug, Exxon donated $117,946 to Obama's 2008 campaign and a lesser amount to McCain. I guess they believed in equal bribery, er, covering all the bases. See "Exxon, Chevron, BP Greased Obama's Campaign", Paul Bedard and Danielle Kurtzleben, US News, 2011-03-14.
So, if the Chairman of Nestlé, an Austrian citizen, is on the board of Exxon, wouldn't he have some say in how Exxon makes its political contributions? If so, isn't that a foreigner "making contributions to influence American elections"?
Monday, May 28, 2012
Freedom of anonymous speech?
I was inspired to write the following by "How I Became Stephen Colbert's Lawyer -- And Joined the Fight to Rescue Our Democracy from Citizens United", Trevor Potter, 2012-05-23, speech at the Annual Meeting of th American Law Institute.
I wonder what the writers of Bill of Rights would think of the Supreme Court interpreting the first amendment as "freedom of anonymous speech". Speech is meant to be heard. If it is heard, those hearing it know who said it.
Second, if someone started a whisper campaign that disparaged you or your business and you found out who and were able to afford the right lawyer, wouldn't you probably win a defamation case?
If you started a campaign making false (or even damagingly true) accusations against a large corporation, wouldn't its lawyers be doing their best to get you into court?
So, why do large corporations or wealthy donors get to make scurrilous, misleading statements without identifying themselves or being held accountable for libel?
Oh, I forgot. Although corporations are people, they are super-people who are above the law.
I wonder what the writers of Bill of Rights would think of the Supreme Court interpreting the first amendment as "freedom of anonymous speech". Speech is meant to be heard. If it is heard, those hearing it know who said it.
Second, if someone started a whisper campaign that disparaged you or your business and you found out who and were able to afford the right lawyer, wouldn't you probably win a defamation case?
If you started a campaign making false (or even damagingly true) accusations against a large corporation, wouldn't its lawyers be doing their best to get you into court?
So, why do large corporations or wealthy donors get to make scurrilous, misleading statements without identifying themselves or being held accountable for libel?
Oh, I forgot. Although corporations are people, they are super-people who are above the law.
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
Too much free speech?
I've long had in my mind a quote that the answer to too much freedom of speech (the press) is more freedom of speech (the press). I've thought is Winston Churchill but could find no reference. I've thought it was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., but could find to reference.
From looking at some articles related to the Citizens United case, I think I found the context.
It was in Whitney v. People of State of California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927). For her activities in the Communist Labor Party, Miss Whitney was convicted to prison based on the Criminal Syndicalism Act of California. The U.S. Supreme Court let the judgement of the state court of appeals stand. Justice Sanford wrote the opinion.
Justice Brandeis concurred but with much more nuance; Justice Holmes joined in this opinion.
Brandeis wrote that the mere statement of an action in the far future does not constitute a threat. He did concur that the lower court had established that the threat was more imminent.
"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. Such, in my opinion, is the command of the Constitution. It is therefore always open to Americans to challenge a law abridging free speech and assembly by showing that there was no emergency justifying it."
I think it is worthwhile struggling through all the reasoning. The quote I used is the only place "more speech" is used, and so your browser should find it in the text.
From looking at some articles related to the Citizens United case, I think I found the context.
It was in Whitney v. People of State of California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927). For her activities in the Communist Labor Party, Miss Whitney was convicted to prison based on the Criminal Syndicalism Act of California. The U.S. Supreme Court let the judgement of the state court of appeals stand. Justice Sanford wrote the opinion.
Justice Brandeis concurred but with much more nuance; Justice Holmes joined in this opinion.
Brandeis wrote that the mere statement of an action in the far future does not constitute a threat. He did concur that the lower court had established that the threat was more imminent.
"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. Such, in my opinion, is the command of the Constitution. It is therefore always open to Americans to challenge a law abridging free speech and assembly by showing that there was no emergency justifying it."
I think it is worthwhile struggling through all the reasoning. The quote I used is the only place "more speech" is used, and so your browser should find it in the text.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Supreme Court reverses itself on property as person
In 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott was property and therefore not a person.
In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that property is a person!
My! How times change!
In 1857 a mostly conservative (slave owners) Supreme Court declared that the slave Dred Scott was property and was not a person. A Republican President was disgusted by the decision.
In 2010 a mostly conservative (business ties) Supreme Court declared that corporations (property) are persons. Have any Republicans been disgusted by this ruling? Poor spinning Abe!
What hasn't changed is that "conservatives" are more concerned with property than with people. Of course, the more property you have, the more rights you have over those with less property. I'm sure you've heard of eminent domain and its use to take houses and land from small property owners and give it to large property owners.
In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that property is a person!
My! How times change!
In 1857 a mostly conservative (slave owners) Supreme Court declared that the slave Dred Scott was property and was not a person. A Republican President was disgusted by the decision.
In 2010 a mostly conservative (business ties) Supreme Court declared that corporations (property) are persons. Have any Republicans been disgusted by this ruling? Poor spinning Abe!
What hasn't changed is that "conservatives" are more concerned with property than with people. Of course, the more property you have, the more rights you have over those with less property. I'm sure you've heard of eminent domain and its use to take houses and land from small property owners and give it to large property owners.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Fighting back on the overturning of corporate campaign spending
The Supreme Court overturned precedent about granting "political speech" to corporations, unions, and other organizations, "Justices Overturn Key Campaign Limits", New York Times, 2010-01-21.
I find it very interesting that the "conservatives" who were appointed by presidents from a party that proclaims it is for individual liberty gives greater liberty to corporate interests.
We can't do much about various groups promoting or panning candidates, especially candidates for whom few of the members of the group can vote. But we can refuse to vote for candidates who accept contributions from groups or from people who have no right to vote for that candidate. And we can let them know why we won't vote for them.
Too often we as a people make voting an either/or proposition; we must vote for one of the major party candidates or we will be "throwing our vote away". It is way past time to stand up and be counted in a different way.
If any candidate for whom you might vote accepts contributions from those who can't vote for him or her, write and tell that candidate that you will vote for somebody else or leave that spot on the ballot blank. Maybe you will make no difference for an election cycle or two, but we have to start someplace. If you tell your friends and relatives what you did, if you write letters to the editor about what you did, maybe, just maybe the idea will catch on.
If you vote for the same old, same old, is it really democracy? Real democracy starts with individuals making their voices heard, not with sheep following the herd.
I find it very interesting that the "conservatives" who were appointed by presidents from a party that proclaims it is for individual liberty gives greater liberty to corporate interests.
We can't do much about various groups promoting or panning candidates, especially candidates for whom few of the members of the group can vote. But we can refuse to vote for candidates who accept contributions from groups or from people who have no right to vote for that candidate. And we can let them know why we won't vote for them.
Too often we as a people make voting an either/or proposition; we must vote for one of the major party candidates or we will be "throwing our vote away". It is way past time to stand up and be counted in a different way.
If any candidate for whom you might vote accepts contributions from those who can't vote for him or her, write and tell that candidate that you will vote for somebody else or leave that spot on the ballot blank. Maybe you will make no difference for an election cycle or two, but we have to start someplace. If you tell your friends and relatives what you did, if you write letters to the editor about what you did, maybe, just maybe the idea will catch on.
If you vote for the same old, same old, is it really democracy? Real democracy starts with individuals making their voices heard, not with sheep following the herd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)