There are lots of things that come to mind when I ask what is money. Some may answer its the piece of paper or coin. The greenback or the euro are examples. Money is a medium of exchange. It makes commerce easier. Money is essentially the value of what you produce or have. It eliminates the barter system which would be necessary without the advent of money as idea of people. some may answer that money is property. You own money like you own your house or your food. So maybe its property. Ohh no.
Not according to the Supreme Court. Money is speech. didnt you know that? I have heard that money talks but this is completely insane. And the best part is they don't even try to rationalize it anymore, they simply point to starie decisis when its convenient. They list precedent and thats it. This courts decision assumes you will read the THOUSANDS OF PAGES in 30 court decision from the past 230 years. And if Clarence Thomas is writing the decision its more like back to 1215. Why are company's granted rights? People make company's so it cant be about their creators. Its a perverse reading of history.
And for my last rant. The supreme court drew this insane decision from a point that wasn't even brought before it. That isn't even judicial review. They just do what they want and get away with it because of their robes. The decision said, "Our practice ‘permit[s] review of an issue not pressed [below] so long as it has been passed upon . . . .’" In this decision they do what they want and the American people have to deal with it. This activist conservative court should be stopped.
Really what should happen is that the congress and the president agree to simply disregard this decision. That's right, Jefferson and Jackson did it. I would say that's starie decisis enough. Just ignore this blatantly unconstitutional interpretation.
And Justice Alito, we will see if this court opinion will open the flood gates. You simply mouthing something at the state of the union devoid of facts of the effects of policy really makes a lot of sense.
RIP Our Rights
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The fact of the matter is, Judicial Review allows for the interpretation of the existing law sometimes without touching upon the case at hand- Marbury V. Madison was the original example- The Supreme Court's establishment of its own right to declare a concept or law unconstitutional while not actually addressing the case at hand -- Marbury's right to be seated at his judgeship--they basically ignored it.
Are you basically calling for the other two branches of government to ignore a decision by the Supreme Court out of sheer opinion, using Andrew Jackson and Jefferson (why not throw FDR's actions towards the Nisei and their families in on it too) did? On that logic, Southern governors should have simply and completely ignored Brown v. Board because of the precedent of Plessy v. Fergeson-- along with every other decision of the Warren Court. Why couldn't Oklahoma, Kansas, and other strong-pro life states then serve warrants to arrest doctors at abortion clinics. In fact, why should any state have to obey a federal court decision at all---and the logical extension of that, why couldn't it simply nullify any existing Federal law it wasn't favorably disposed to? An insane concept at this point-- Presidents/ the government sometimes have the cover of wartime to get away with certain acts (generally under the understanding that its all temporary and borne of exceptional circumstances) such as Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus (and his basically ignoring the Copperhead Chief Justice Roger Tawney until the latter's death)during an open rebellion by a large section of the country. FDR got away with ignoring elements of the supreme court during the Second World War...well because it was a balls-to-the wall total conflict. In the modern context, that's basically the only exception.
The concept of the right to spend your money as speech to me is grounded in the concept of---well how about a law preventing someone from purchasing a printing-press, newspaper, or other form of disseminating information. nothing is preventing their "speech" so to speak, but to deny access to purchasing an ability to further that speech is a violation of the first ammendment. You can't prevent a person from purchasing a printing press with their own money...Money in this context is the means to the speech. I've also read several arguments that a corporation or union is essentially an "assembly" as covered under the first amendment and to restrict its ability to purchase ad space is akin to prohibiting an assembly from producing fliers.
The fact is, the Tillman Act of 1907 (I can't believe I'm favorably commenting on something co-sponsored by Pitchfork Ben Tillman, one of the worst human beings we've elected to the Senate)is still in effect, prohibiting direct corporate donations to candidates. Really, the President lost any claim to criticize the excessive influence of money in politics when he chose to break his promise to take public financing during the 08 campaign...as he went with his financial advantage. Disclosure laws are still in effect (really, if a Chinese corporation purchased ads for a political campaign or proposition---i'm relatively certain such an act would result in a ruthless backlash)
If this decisions results in such eggregarious and appauling abuses and precedents as some fear, I frankly think the best option then is that final settlement of American politics-- a Constitutional Amendment -- One establishing the concept of "personhood" and the resultant application of rights therein.
Senator Dodd is considering proposing a constitutional ammendment to fix this eggregious constitutional sin of making companies into people. As for constitutional review by the judiciary, I think that the constitution wanted substanative policy making power to rest in the hands of congress. Ya know, why the constitution expressly gives the congress the ability to legislate under section 8 in relation to specific aspects of life in america. So why not elect the supreme court justices. This idea would have seemed equally as redictulous as directly electing senators in the mid 19th century. Maybe we should elect those that make policy decisions. I mean it is a democracy.
As for the example of buying a printing press and deceminating speech, I think a better example explaining this issue relates to freedom of religion. You have the right to believe what ever you want. But the supreme court has ruled that taking actions not consistant with other laws are not allowed. You do not have the right to burn yourself alive if you are a buddhist monk. Even though you have devoute religious beleifs your actions are deemed sepearte. You as a person have the right to say what you want (except for fire in a crowded theatre, which places restrictions on free speech anyway) but as for buying a printing press, there is no such right. The supreme court has never interpereted a constitutional right to be left alone even though privacy come close.
As for Obama reniging on his promise to take public funding, it has nothing to do with my arguments. Even though it was pretty messed up for him to say that he would do one thing and wind up doing another.
Post a Comment