So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...

[DreamFIRE]

I disagree a lot with what Kyle said.  But I see he's not even an American.

[the_fixer]

I was commenting on the sentiment of Kyle's post not necessarily the technical details.

As someone that does not live in the US and can look from the outside I would opine that Kyle can look at it as a whole without as much bias as some that live here and have deeply engrained political affiliations.

With so many people that are diehard R or D it makes it hard to see past the party blinders.


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[Kyle Schuant]

As someone that does not live in the US and can look from the outside I would opine that Kyle can look at it as a whole without as much bias as some that live here and have deeply engrained political affiliations.

The fish can't see the water.

Australians reject foreign criticisms of our country, too. And that's dumb, too. "No, no, you just don't understand..." And that's how Saudi Arabia justifies publicly cutting off limbs, how South Africa justified apartheid, how Afghanistan justifies having a group of men have a group of boys as sex slaves, how Australia justifies mistreatment of Aboriginals (no clean drinking water, trachoma, kidney disease, all children held in detention in the Northern Territory being Aboriginal, etc) and so on.

Every country, mine included, justifies its misdeeds by saying you couldn't possibly understand the subtleties of all its issues and problems. And that's bullshit. Self-serving bullshit.

[DavidAnnArbor]

I think Obama was a great leader and does not corroborate with Kyle's theory that we've had terrible leadership for decades both Democrats and Republicans.
Obama along with Democrats in the Congress helped pass the Dodd-Frank law, which was not perfect, but went a long way toward regulating bank behavior.
That the banks fought the legislation tooth and nail gives you an idea that there was some teeth in that law.

On another note, an analyst predicts that if NAFTA blows up and there are tariffs on cars/parts, we're going to lose 200,000 jobs in the auto sector.

Now if you multiply those job losses with the losses in other sectors affected by tariffs, such as soybean and corn exports, etc. I could see a loss of 2 million jobs.

Some companies will add employees because of tariffs, but the overall picture is a shrinking economic pie.  Sounds like a recession to me.

[MasterStache]

I think Obama was a great leader and does not corroborate with Kyle's theory that we've had terrible leadership for decades both Democrats and Republicans.
Obama along with Democrats in the Congress helped pass the Dodd-Frank law, which was not perfect, but went a long way toward regulating bank behavior.
That the banks fought the legislation tooth and nail gives you an idea that there was some teeth in that law.

On another note, an analyst predicts that if NAFTA blows up and there are tariffs on cars/parts, we're going to lose 200,000 jobs in the auto sector.

Now if you multiply those job losses with the losses in other sectors affected by tariffs, such as soybean and corn exports, etc. I could see a loss of 2 million jobs.

Some companies will add employees because of tariffs, but the overall picture is a shrinking economic pie.  Sounds like a recession to me.

Was just telling a family member today that stocks will be much cheaper pretty soon

[scottish]

Trump certainly has big cojones to start a trade war 6 months before the mid-term elections.

If he's wrong - and trade wars are not good - then there's just about the right amount of time for large scale job loss to take place before the election.

So what do you guys think about the polarization of the US population?   Trump and his associates seem to fit into the authoritarian, wealthy first, pro-business, trickle down economics role.   I'm also reading about new candidates with a 'social democratic' background winning primary elections for the Democratic party.

Which one of these will become dominant in the long term?   Will the US become more of a socialized liberal democracy with focus on education and health care?   Or will Trump and his kind prevail, reducing taxes on business and the wealthy?

[DavidAnnArbor]

It's going to be a fight between these two poles, but I have to say that if we get another right wing conservative on the Supreme Court, these 5 will certainly put their thumb on the scale toward a plutocracy.

[sol]

Will the US become more of a socialized liberal democracy with focus on education and health care?   Or will Trump and his kind prevail, reducing taxes on business and the wealthy?

Have you seen Elysium?  It's a sci-fi flick with Matt Damon and Jodie Foster.  The wealthy minority live on a fabulous orbital platform where they have access to miraculous health treatments and basically live forever.  Everyone else lives in shantytowns on the surface, suffering in the mines and fighting for scraps.  I am continuously reminded of this movie as I read through this thread.

[LaineyAZ]

Likewise, see the cover article from Time magazine issue May 28 2018, "How My Generation Broke America" by Steven Brill.  Basically describes the 50 year downward slide in America orchestrated and financed by those of the privileged class.  He divides the US population into 2 groups:  the "protected" and the "unprotected." 

IMO, the corporations as people law has choked our democracy more than anything.  From the article:  "There are more than 20 registered lobbyists for every member of Congress.  Most are deployed to block anything that would tax, regulate or otherwise threaten a deep-pocketed client." 
What is an average citizen supposed to do against that type of power?  Striving together for the common good is no longer the goal.  American democracy, RIP. 

[craimund]

It's going to be a fight between these two poles, but I have to say that if we get another right wing conservative on the Supreme Court, these 5 will certainly put their thumb on the scale toward a plutocracy.

Jurists who understand the proper role of the judiciary (which is to interpret the law and not to make new law) are not a threat to our Constitutional Republic.  It was the leftists on the Court that decided the Kelo decision which allowed a municipal government to confiscate the property of a homeowner and hand it over to a real estate developer so that the municipality could generate more tax revenue.  It is the liberals on the court who favor forcing Government employees to fund a private organization (i.e., a public sector union) as a condition of employment.  Sure looking out for the little guy there.

[DavidAnnArbor]

The union provides some power so that each individual employee doesn't get screwed over. If all the employees benefit together by banding together to form a union and negotiate a better contract, it certainly makes sense to expect employees not to be freeloaders. The union was voted for in the first place by the employees.

[partgypsy]

It's going to be a fight between these two poles, but I have to say that if we get another right wing conservative on the Supreme Court, these 5 will certainly put their thumb on the scale toward a plutocracy.

Jurists who understand the proper role of the judiciary (which is to interpret the law and not to make new law) are not a threat to our Constitutional Republic.  It was the leftists on the Court that decided the Kelo decision which allowed a municipal government to confiscate the property of a homeowner and hand it over to a real estate developer so that the municipality could generate more tax revenue.  It is the liberals on the court who favor forcing Government employees to fund a private organization (i.e., a public sector union) as a condition of employment.  Sure looking out for the little guy there.

Actually the Supreme court is NOT supposed to be political. It is supposed to be insulated from the politicalization of congress and the presidental branches, to provide checks and balances. That is why they are lifetime appointments. it has been the Republican party who has done more to politicize and slant the Supreme court. The most recent egregious example was refusing to vote on Obama's supreme court nominee. In doing so, they circumvented and disregarded the Constitution (Article 2, Constitution). So much for the Republican party being constitutionalists.

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjtHypi2-RQ

[craimund]

It's going to be a fight between these two poles, but I have to say that if we get another right wing conservative on the Supreme Court, these 5 will certainly put their thumb on the scale toward a plutocracy.

Jurists who understand the proper role of the judiciary (which is to interpret the law and not to make new law) are not a threat to our Constitutional Republic.  It was the leftists on the Court that decided the Kelo decision which allowed a municipal government to confiscate the property of a homeowner and hand it over to a real estate developer so that the municipality could generate more tax revenue.  It is the liberals on the court who favor forcing Government employees to fund a private organization (i.e., a public sector union) as a condition of employment.  Sure looking out for the little guy there.

Actually the Supreme court is NOT supposed to be political. It is supposed to be insulated from the politicalization of congress and the presidental branches, to provide checks and balances. That is why they are lifetime appointments. it has been the Republican party who has done more to politicize and slant the Supreme court. The most recent egregious example was refusing to vote on Obama's supreme court nominee. In doing so, they circumvented and disregarded the Constitution (Article 2, Constitution). So much for the Republican party being constitutionalists.

 

Refusing to vote on Obama's nominee is simply the adoption of the Biden rule articulated by Sen. Joe Biden in 1992.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

Refusing to vote on an nominee no more politicizes the court than the antics carried out by Dems in 1987 during the Bork hearings and in 1991 for the Clarence Thomas hearings.  Who doesn't remember Long Dong Silve, pubic hairs on Coke cansr and Ted Kennedy trying to track down Thomas' video rental history.  High Tech lynching indeed.

[scottish]

We have reasonable limits on election campaigns from individuals.    Corporations aren't allowed to donate at all.    There is also public funding for parties.  Public funding follows a set of rules that I find a bit hard to understand, though.   This doesn't help much with bribing politicians directly or indirectly, but at least it's a start.

I thought the US also had limits on the political contributions that could be made by corporations.

[DavidAnnArbor]

It's going to be a fight between these two poles, but I have to say that if we get another right wing conservative on the Supreme Court, these 5 will certainly put their thumb on the scale toward a plutocracy.

Jurists who understand the proper role of the judiciary (which is to interpret the law and not to make new law) are not a threat to our Constitutional Republic.  It was the leftists on the Court that decided the Kelo decision which allowed a municipal government to confiscate the property of a homeowner and hand it over to a real estate developer so that the municipality could generate more tax revenue.  It is the liberals on the court who favor forcing Government employees to fund a private organization (i.e., a public sector union) as a condition of employment.  Sure looking out for the little guy there.

Actually the Supreme court is NOT supposed to be political. It is supposed to be insulated from the politicalization of congress and the presidental branches, to provide checks and balances. That is why they are lifetime appointments. it has been the Republican party who has done more to politicize and slant the Supreme court. The most recent egregious example was refusing to vote on Obama's supreme court nominee. In doing so, they circumvented and disregarded the Constitution (Article 2, Constitution). So much for the Republican party being constitutionalists.

 

Refusing to vote on Obama's nominee is simply the adoption of the Biden rule articulated by Sen. Joe Biden in 1992.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

Refusing to vote on an nominee no more politicizes the court than the antics carried out by Dems in 1987 during the Bork hearings and in 1991 for the Clarence Thomas hearings.  Who doesn't remember Long Dong Silve, pubic hairs on Coke cansr and Ted Kennedy trying to track down Thomas' video rental history.  High Tech lynching indeed.

Yes there were hearings to determine the fitness of the candidate to the bench. And Anita Hill had every right to tell the story of being sexually harassed by Clarence Thomas.

[craimund]

We have reasonable limits on election campaigns from individuals.    Corporations aren't allowed to donate at all.    There is also public funding for parties.  Public funding follows a set of rules that I find a bit hard to understand, though.   This doesn't help much with bribing politicians directly or indirectly, but at least it's a start.

I thought the US also had limits on the political contributions that could be made by corporations.

Corporations cannot donate directly to candidates in US.

Obama turned down public funding in 2008 since he could spend more money without the restrictions.  McCain the Republican subjected himself to public funding.

[craimund]

It's going to be a fight between these two poles, but I have to say that if we get another right wing conservative on the Supreme Court, these 5 will certainly put their thumb on the scale toward a plutocracy.

Jurists who understand the proper role of the judiciary (which is to interpret the law and not to make new law) are not a threat to our Constitutional Republic.  It was the leftists on the Court that decided the Kelo decision which allowed a municipal government to confiscate the property of a homeowner and hand it over to a real estate developer so that the municipality could generate more tax revenue.  It is the liberals on the court who favor forcing Government employees to fund a private organization (i.e., a public sector union) as a condition of employment.  Sure looking out for the little guy there.

Actually the Supreme court is NOT supposed to be political. It is supposed to be insulated from the politicalization of congress and the presidental branches, to provide checks and balances. That is why they are lifetime appointments. it has been the Republican party who has done more to politicize and slant the Supreme court. The most recent egregious example was refusing to vote on Obama's supreme court nominee. In doing so, they circumvented and disregarded the Constitution (Article 2, Constitution). So much for the Republican party being constitutionalists.

 

Refusing to vote on Obama's nominee is simply the adoption of the Biden rule articulated by Sen. Joe Biden in 1992.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

Refusing to vote on an nominee no more politicizes the court than the antics carried out by Dems in 1987 during the Bork hearings and in 1991 for the Clarence Thomas hearings.  Who doesn't remember Long Dong Silve, pubic hairs on Coke cansr and Ted Kennedy trying to track down Thomas' video rental history.  High Tech lynching indeed.

Yes there were hearings to determine the fitness of the candidate to the bench. And Anita Hill had every right to tell the story of being sexually harassed by Clarence Thomas.

The standard for "fitness" appears to be if you are willing to subvert the Constitution to achieve the desired outcome rather than to actually interpret and apply the language of the statute/Constitution.

And Anita Hill said she wasn't sexually harassed by Clarence Thomas.

[DavidAnnArbor]

It's not subverting the Constitution to expand rights to people, the Constitution is meant to be reinterpreted over time as to the needs of the times.

By acting like the Constitution didn't specifically give women the right to control their bodies, abortion, contraception, you act like you're living in a cave stuck back in the early 1800's.

[partgypsy]

It's going to be a fight between these two poles, but I have to say that if we get another right wing conservative on the Supreme Court, these 5 will certainly put their thumb on the scale toward a plutocracy.

Jurists who understand the proper role of the judiciary (which is to interpret the law and not to make new law) are not a threat to our Constitutional Republic.  It was the leftists on the Court that decided the Kelo decision which allowed a municipal government to confiscate the property of a homeowner and hand it over to a real estate developer so that the municipality could generate more tax revenue.  It is the liberals on the court who favor forcing Government employees to fund a private organization (i.e., a public sector union) as a condition of employment.  Sure looking out for the little guy there.

Actually the Supreme court is NOT supposed to be political. It is supposed to be insulated from the politicalization of congress and the presidental branches, to provide checks and balances. That is why they are lifetime appointments. it has been the Republican party who has done more to politicize and slant the Supreme court. The most recent egregious example was refusing to vote on Obama's supreme court nominee. In doing so, they circumvented and disregarded the Constitution (Article 2, Constitution). So much for the Republican party being constitutionalists.

 

Refusing to vote on Obama's nominee is simply the adoption of the Biden rule articulated by Sen. Joe Biden in 1992.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

Refusing to vote on an nominee no more politicizes the court than the antics carried out by Dems in 1987 during the Bork hearings and in 1991 for the Clarence Thomas hearings.  Who doesn't remember Long Dong Silve, pubic hairs on Coke cansr and Ted Kennedy trying to track down Thomas' video rental history.  High Tech lynching indeed.

Yes there were hearings to determine the fitness of the candidate to the bench. And Anita Hill had every right to tell the story of being sexually harassed by Clarence Thomas.

The standard for "fitness" appears to be if you are willing to subvert the Constitution to achieve the desired outcome rather than to actually interpret and apply the language of the statute/Constitution.

And Anita Hill said she wasn't sexually harassed by Clarence Thomas.

Frankly your views are not supported by law experts or constitutional scholars. Many of the decisions decided by the supreme court are complex. To boil down the union decision as taking away individual rights is frankly ridiculous, especially when the opposite argument is given in support for making corporations "individuals". An in fact, to have judges who routinely overthrow precedent and lower court rulings is NOT conservative. It is radical.
http://prospect.org/article/constitutional-litmus-test

[craimund]

American prospect is a left wing rag.  This is their opinion.

The justices appointed by Clinton and Obama have IMO been particularly weak.  No one confuse the "wise Latina" Sotomayor or Kagan (who was never even a judge) for legal scholars.

[craimund]

It's not subverting the Constitution to expand rights to people, the Constitution is meant to be reinterpreted over time as to the needs of the times.

By acting like the Constitution didn't specifically give women the right to control their bodies, abortion, contraception, you act like you're living in a cave stuck back in the early 1800's.

The Constitution didn't specifically give women (or men) the right to control their bodies, abortion, contraception.  Prostitution, suicide, illegal drug use, drinking age restrictions, etc. etc. implicate the control of one's body and state's freely regulate these.

This doesn't mean that the states should regulate in these areas.  It only means that they can if they so choose.  The people can elect their state legislators and if the legislators act in a way inconsistent with the will of the people, then the people can vote them out.  That's Democracy. If you want to create a new Constitutional right, amend the document. Otherwise the judiciary are a bunch of unelected dictators imposing their views on the people.
 Don't make up rights that don't exist. 

[partgypsy]

It's not subverting the Constitution to expand rights to people, the Constitution is meant to be reinterpreted over time as to the needs of the times.

By acting like the Constitution didn't specifically give women the right to control their bodies, abortion, contraception, you act like you're living in a cave stuck back in the early 1800's.

The Constitution didn't specifically give women (or men) the right to control their bodies, abortion, contraception.  Prostitution, suicide, illegal drug use, drinking age restrictions, etc. etc. implicate the control of one's body and state's freely regulate these.

This doesn't mean that the states should regulate in these areas.  It only means that they can if they so choose.  The people can elect their state legislators and if the legislators act in a way inconsistent with the will of the people, then the people can vote them out.  That's Democracy. If you want to create a new Constitutional right, amend the document. Otherwise the judiciary are a bunch of unelected dictators imposing their views on the people.
 Don't make up rights that don't exist.

I don't know how I can say this in a polite way, but you don't know what you are talking about. Yes, there is the constitution. And there is a whole body of law called legal precedent. A competent, qualified judge uses both to make determinations on the intent and limits of the law. When you say that states can essentially overrule US law if they don't feel like it, otherwise "the judiciary are a bunch of unelected dictators imposing their views on the people", you honestly sound very ignorant, and possibly dangerous.  Prostitution is not a protected right. However under the ruling and precedent of Roe vs. Wade, a women's right to choose IS protected.

[craimund]

It's not subverting the Constitution to expand rights to people, the Constitution is meant to be reinterpreted over time as to the needs of the times.

By acting like the Constitution didn't specifically give women the right to control their bodies, abortion, contraception, you act like you're living in a cave stuck back in the early 1800's.

The Constitution didn't specifically give women (or men) the right to control their bodies, abortion, contraception.  Prostitution, suicide, illegal drug use, drinking age restrictions, etc. etc. implicate the control of one's body and state's freely regulate these.

This doesn't mean that the states should regulate in these areas.  It only means that they can if they so choose.  The people can elect their state legislators and if the legislators act in a way inconsistent with the will of the people, then the people can vote them out.  That's Democracy. If you want to create a new Constitutional right, amend the document. Otherwise the judiciary are a bunch of unelected dictators imposing their views on the people.
 Don't make up rights that don't exist.

I don't know how I can say this in a polite way, but you don't know what you are talking about. Yes, there is the constitution. And there is a whole body of law called legal precedent. A competent, qualified judge uses both to make determinations on the intent and limits of the law. When you say that states can essentially overrule US law if they don't feel like it, otherwise "the judiciary are a bunch of unelected dictators imposing their views on the people", you honestly sound very ignorant, and possibly dangerous.

I never said states can overrule federal law.  I said judges shouldn't create Constitutional "rights" that have no textual basis in the language of the Constitution.  This is judicial activism.  It has been practiced in the more distant past by Conservatives (Lochner v. New York decision which invalidated minimum wage and maximum hour laws) and more recently by liberals (Roe, Obergefell).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_v._New_York

I am not "ignorant".  I have a law degree and I understand something about this.  Of course, people disagree about how the Constitution should be interpreted.  I think the originalists/textualists such as Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and hopefully the new appointee have a better argument than the living breathing document types.

[partgypsy]

It's not subverting the Constitution to expand rights to people, the Constitution is meant to be reinterpreted over time as to the needs of the times.

By acting like the Constitution didn't specifically give women the right to control their bodies, abortion, contraception, you act like you're living in a cave stuck back in the early 1800's.

The Constitution didn't specifically give women (or men) the right to control their bodies, abortion, contraception.  Prostitution, suicide, illegal drug use, drinking age restrictions, etc. etc. implicate the control of one's body and state's freely regulate these.

This doesn't mean that the states should regulate in these areas.  It only means that they can if they so choose.  The people can elect their state legislators and if the legislators act in a way inconsistent with the will of the people, then the people can vote them out.  That's Democracy. If you want to create a new Constitutional right, amend the document. Otherwise the judiciary are a bunch of unelected dictators imposing their views on the people.
 Don't make up rights that don't exist.

I don't know how I can say this in a polite way, but you don't know what you are talking about. Yes, there is the constitution. And there is a whole body of law called legal precedent. A competent, qualified judge uses both to make determinations on the intent and limits of the law. When you say that states can essentially overrule US law if they don't feel like it, otherwise "the judiciary are a bunch of unelected dictators imposing their views on the people", you honestly sound very ignorant, and possibly dangerous.

I never said states can overrule federal law.  I said judges shouldn't create Constitutional "rights" that have no textual basis in the language of the Constitution.  This is judicial activism.  It has been practiced in the more distant past by Conservatives (Lochner v. New York decision which invalidated minimum wage and maximum hour laws) and more recently by liberals (Roe, Obergefell).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_v._New_York

I am not "ignorant".  I have a law degree and I understand something about this.  Of course, people disagree about how the Constitution should be interpreted.  I think the originalists/textualists such as Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and hopefully the new appointee have a better argument than the living breathing document types.

Just out of curiosity, since you describe yourself as an originalist, what do you think of the citizen's united ruling? Not only do corporations have rights in order to enforce contracts, etc, it expands corporations the right to "free speech". To me this does not seem originalist, in fact it is quite radical. The constitution doesn't refer to corporations as individuals or give them rights as individuals. 

[craimund]

It's not subverting the Constitution to expand rights to people, the Constitution is meant to be reinterpreted over time as to the needs of the times.

By acting like the Constitution didn't specifically give women the right to control their bodies, abortion, contraception, you act like you're living in a cave stuck back in the early 1800's.

The Constitution didn't specifically give women (or men) the right to control their bodies, abortion, contraception.  Prostitution, suicide, illegal drug use, drinking age restrictions, etc. etc. implicate the control of one's body and state's freely regulate these.

This doesn't mean that the states should regulate in these areas.  It only means that they can if they so choose.  The people can elect their state legislators and if the legislators act in a way inconsistent with the will of the people, then the people can vote them out.  That's Democracy. If you want to create a new Constitutional right, amend the document. Otherwise the judiciary are a bunch of unelected dictators imposing their views on the people.
 Don't make up rights that don't exist.

I don't know how I can say this in a polite way, but you don't know what you are talking about. Yes, there is the constitution. And there is a whole body of law called legal precedent. A competent, qualified judge uses both to make determinations on the intent and limits of the law. When you say that states can essentially overrule US law if they don't feel like it, otherwise "the judiciary are a bunch of unelected dictators imposing their views on the people", you honestly sound very ignorant, and possibly dangerous.

I never said states can overrule federal law.  I said judges shouldn't create Constitutional "rights" that have no textual basis in the language of the Constitution.  This is judicial activism.  It has been practiced in the more distant past by Conservatives (Lochner v. New York decision which invalidated minimum wage and maximum hour laws) and more recently by liberals (Roe, Obergefell).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_v._New_York

I am not "ignorant".  I have a law degree and I understand something about this.  Of course, people disagree about how the Constitution should be interpreted.  I think the originalists/textualists such as Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and hopefully the new appointee have a better argument than the living breathing document types.

Just out of curiosity, since you describe yourself as an originalist, what do you think of the citizen's united ruling? Not only do corporations have rights in order to enforce contracts, etc, it expands corporations the right to "free speech". To me this does not seem originalist, in fact it is quite radical. The constitution doesn't refer to corporations as individuals or give them rights as individuals.

Not sure of the legal reasoning adopted by the majority (Corporations are people for 1st Amend purposes).  To allow the government to restrict spending by third parties, however, would be problematic.  Not sure how you would do this and not run afoul of the First Amendment.  Could the Government, for example, prohibit Michael Moore from airing or advertising an anti-Bush (or Trump) movie before an election?  This was in fact an issue underlying the decision.  Excerpt from Wikipedia below.

Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (known as BCRA or McCain–Feingold Act) modified the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. § 441b to prohibit corporations and unions from using their general treasury to fund "electioneering communications" (broadcast advertisements mentioning a candidate in any context) within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. During the 2004 presidential campaign, a conservative nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization, Citizens United, filed a complaint before the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that advertisements for Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, a docudrama critical of the Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, produced and marketed by a variety of corporate entities, constituted political advertising and thus could not be aired within the 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election. The FEC dismissed the complaint after finding no evidence that broadcast advertisements featuring a candidate within the proscribed time limits had actually been made.[11] The FEC later dismissed a second complaint which argued that the movie itself constituted illegal corporate spending advocating the election or defeat of a candidate, which was illegal under the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 and the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974. In dismissing that complaint, the FEC found that:

The complainant alleged that the release and distribution of FAHRENHEIT 9/11 constituted an independent expenditure because the film expressly advocated the defeat of President Bush and that by being fully or partially responsible for the film's release, Michael Moore and other entities associated with the film made excessive and/or prohibited contributions to unidentified candidates. The Commission found no reason to believe the respondents violated the Act because the film, associated trailers and website represented bona fide commercial activity, not "contributions" or "expenditures" as defined by the Federal Election Campaign Act.[12]

In response, Citizens United produced the documentary Celsius 41.11, which is highly critical of both Fahrenheit 9/11 and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. The FEC, however, held that showing the movie and advertisements for it would violate the Federal Election Campaign Act, because Citizens United was not a bona fide commercial film maker.[13]

In the wake of these decisions, Citizens United sought to establish itself as a bona fide commercial film maker before the 2008 elections, producing several documentary films between 2005 and 2007. By early 2008, it sought to run television commercials to promote its political documentary Hillary: The Movie and to air the movie on DirecTV.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

[TempusFugit]

It's not subverting the Constitution to expand rights to people, the Constitution is meant to be reinterpreted over time as to the needs of the times.

By acting like the Constitution didn't specifically give women the right to control their bodies, abortion, contraception, you act like you're living in a cave stuck back in the early 1800's.

The Constitution didn't specifically give women (or men) the right to control their bodies, abortion, contraception.  Prostitution, suicide, illegal drug use, drinking age restrictions, etc. etc. implicate the control of one's body and state's freely regulate these.

This doesn't mean that the states should regulate in these areas.  It only means that they can if they so choose.  The people can elect their state legislators and if the legislators act in a way inconsistent with the will of the people, then the people can vote them out.  That's Democracy. If you want to create a new Constitutional right, amend the document. Otherwise the judiciary are a bunch of unelected dictators imposing their views on the people.
 Don't make up rights that don't exist.

Concur.  Roe is bad law, not because of it's implications vis a vis women's rights but because it wasn't grounded in the constitution.  It short circuited the process that was already well underway of coming to a national consensus about the issue.  By injecting itself and prematurely ending that debate, the court sowed the seeds of political discord that we are still dealing with today. 

People all have biases.  It's inescapable.  But when we decouple the supreme court from any kind of static framework (the written constitution) that while unclear and debatable in some aspects is still largely pretty clear in it's meaning, we are setting up a system of anarchy.  This is where the two large philosophies diverge.  One side wants 'justice' and starts with a conclusion that seems 'just' and then works backward to rationalize it while the other side wants Rule of Law and consistency.  "Rule of Law" sounds cold and uncaring, but I believe it is the only way for us to have true liberty.  The constitution, after all, is primarily meant to constrain the power of government over the people. 

If we allow the courts to rule based on personal views on what is 'just' rather than on what is consistent with our constitution, then we set ourselves up for a society in which no one knows what the law is or means because it's a 'living' standard that changes based on the sentiments of the day.  We would be subject to a capricious ruling class. 

If we come to a new national consensus about certain issues, such as how gay people are treated or how we deal with immigration, then we work it out through the legislative process, and if ultimately the solution that we the people like best is found to be inconsistent with our constitution, then we have a process for changing that constitution as we have before.

[craimund]

It's not subverting the Constitution to expand rights to people, the Constitution is meant to be reinterpreted over time as to the needs of the times.

By acting like the Constitution didn't specifically give women the right to control their bodies, abortion, contraception, you act like you're living in a cave stuck back in the early 1800's.

The Constitution didn't specifically give women (or men) the right to control their bodies, abortion, contraception.  Prostitution, suicide, illegal drug use, drinking age restrictions, etc. etc. implicate the control of one's body and state's freely regulate these.

This doesn't mean that the states should regulate in these areas.  It only means that they can if they so choose.  The people can elect their state legislators and if the legislators act in a way inconsistent with the will of the people, then the people can vote them out.  That's Democracy. If you want to create a new Constitutional right, amend the document. Otherwise the judiciary are a bunch of unelected dictators imposing their views on the people.
 Don't make up rights that don't exist.

Concur.  Roe is bad law, not because of it's implications vis a vis women's rights but because it wasn't grounded in the constitution.  It short circuited the process that was already well underway of coming to a national consensus about the issue.  By injecting itself and prematurely ending that debate, the court sowed the seeds of political discord that we are still dealing with today. 

People all have biases.  It's inescapable.  But when we decouple the supreme court from any kind of static framework (the written constitution) that while unclear and debatable in some aspects is still largely pretty clear in it's meaning, we are setting up a system of anarchy.  This is where the two large philosophies diverge.  One side wants 'justice' and starts with a conclusion that seems 'just' and then works backward to rationalize it while the other side wants Rule of Law and consistency.  "Rule of Law" sounds cold and uncaring, but I believe it is the only way for us to have true liberty.  The constitution, after all, is primarily meant to constrain the power of government over the people. 

If we allow the courts to rule based on personal views on what is 'just' rather than on what is consistent with our constitution, then we set ourselves up for a society in which no one knows what the law is or means because it's a 'living' standard that changes based on the sentiments of the day.  We would be subject to a capricious ruling class. 

If we come to a new national consensus about certain issues, such as how gay people are treated or how we deal with immigration, then we work it out through the legislative process, and if ultimately the solution that we the people like best is found to be inconsistent with our constitution, then we have a process for changing that constitution as we have before.

Well said.

Regarding Roe, my Constitutional Law professor back in the 1990s (who was very politically liberal) admitted that Roe and Griswold (the earlier "right to privacy" decision regarding contraception upon which Roe is based) are poorly reasoned decisions.  The "emanations from penumbras" language in Griswold which is the basis for the alleged "right to privacy" is laughable.

[bacchi]

Just out of curiosity, since you describe yourself as an originalist, what do you think of the citizen's united ruling? Not only do corporations have rights in order to enforce contracts, etc, it expands corporations the right to "free speech". To me this does not seem originalist, in fact it is quite radical. The constitution doesn't refer to corporations as individuals or give them rights as individuals.

Not sure of the legal reasoning adopted by the majority (Corporations are people for 1st Amend purposes).  To allow the government to restrict spending by third parties, however, would be problematic.  Not sure how you would do this and not run afoul of the First Amendment.  Could the Government, for example, prohibit Michael Moore from airing or advertising an anti-Bush (or Trump) movie before an election?  This was in fact an issue underlying the decision.  Excerpt from Wikipedia below.

The media is the only type of company specifically given explicit rights in the Constitution. They didn't mention oil and gas corporations, or real estate companies, but they did give newspapers protected rights.

If the Framers wanted tea importers, or carpenters, or teamsters to have explicit rights, they would've granted them. They didn't. The Framers also recognized that companies can be regulated for the welfare of society. One of them, Thomas Jefferson, was even concerned about the "aristocracy of our moneyed corporations." Corporate charters also had an expiration date.

And this is why originalism is bullshit. It's wrapped in "guidelines" and the "Rule of Law and consistency" but it's more of the same. It's newspeak for pro-corporate, pro-Conservative, opinions meant to stem the tide of a changing and scary world. It has as many personal biases as the straw-man argument of "those activist judges!" but the originalist advocates refuse to see it.

The power of all corporations ought to be limited

[craimund]

Just out of curiosity, since you describe yourself as an originalist, what do you think of the citizen's united ruling? Not only do corporations have rights in order to enforce contracts, etc, it expands corporations the right to "free speech". To me this does not seem originalist, in fact it is quite radical. The constitution doesn't refer to corporations as individuals or give them rights as individuals.

Not sure of the legal reasoning adopted by the majority (Corporations are people for 1st Amend purposes).  To allow the government to restrict spending by third parties, however, would be problematic.  Not sure how you would do this and not run afoul of the First Amendment.  Could the Government, for example, prohibit Michael Moore from airing or advertising an anti-Bush (or Trump) movie before an election?  This was in fact an issue underlying the decision.  Excerpt from Wikipedia below.

The media is the only type of company specifically given explicit rights in the Constitution. They didn't mention oil and gas corporations, or real estate companies, but they did give newspapers protected rights.

If the Framers wanted tea importers, or carpenters, or teamsters to have explicit rights, they would've granted them. They didn't. The Framers also recognized that companies can be regulated for the welfare of society. One of them, Thomas Jefferson, was even concerned about the "aristocracy of our moneyed corporations." Corporate charters also had an expiration date.

And this is why originalism is bullshit. It's wrapped in "guidelines" and the "Rule of Law and consistency" but it's more of the same. It's newspeak for pro-corporate, pro-Conservative, opinions meant to stem the tide of a changing and scary world. It has as many personal biases as the straw-man argument of "those activist judges!" but the originalist advocates refuse to see it.

The power of all corporations ought to be limited

So you would be OK with the government prohibiting Michael Moore from airing an anti-Trump movie in advance of the 2020 election?

[bacchi]

Just out of curiosity, since you describe yourself as an originalist, what do you think of the citizen's united ruling? Not only do corporations have rights in order to enforce contracts, etc, it expands corporations the right to "free speech". To me this does not seem originalist, in fact it is quite radical. The constitution doesn't refer to corporations as individuals or give them rights as individuals.

Not sure of the legal reasoning adopted by the majority (Corporations are people for 1st Amend purposes).  To allow the government to restrict spending by third parties, however, would be problematic.  Not sure how you would do this and not run afoul of the First Amendment.  Could the Government, for example, prohibit Michael Moore from airing or advertising an anti-Bush (or Trump) movie before an election?  This was in fact an issue underlying the decision.  Excerpt from Wikipedia below.

The media is the only type of company specifically given explicit rights in the Constitution. They didn't mention oil and gas corporations, or real estate companies, but they did give newspapers protected rights.

If the Framers wanted tea importers, or carpenters, or teamsters to have explicit rights, they would've granted them. They didn't. The Framers also recognized that companies can be regulated for the welfare of society. One of them, Thomas Jefferson, was even concerned about the "aristocracy of our moneyed corporations." Corporate charters also had an expiration date.

And this is why originalism is bullshit. It's wrapped in "guidelines" and the "Rule of Law and consistency" but it's more of the same. It's newspeak for pro-corporate, pro-Conservative, opinions meant to stem the tide of a changing and scary world. It has as many personal biases as the straw-man argument of "those activist judges!" but the originalist advocates refuse to see it.

The power of all corporations ought to be limited

So you would be OK with the government prohibiting Michael Moore from airing an anti-Trump movie in advance of the 2020 election?

Bolded above.

[craimund]

Just out of curiosity, since you describe yourself as an originalist, what do you think of the citizen's united ruling? Not only do corporations have rights in order to enforce contracts, etc, it expands corporations the right to "free speech". To me this does not seem originalist, in fact it is quite radical. The constitution doesn't refer to corporations as individuals or give them rights as individuals.

Not sure of the legal reasoning adopted by the majority (Corporations are people for 1st Amend purposes).  To allow the government to restrict spending by third parties, however, would be problematic.  Not sure how you would do this and not run afoul of the First Amendment.  Could the Government, for example, prohibit Michael Moore from airing or advertising an anti-Bush (or Trump) movie before an election?  This was in fact an issue underlying the decision.  Excerpt from Wikipedia below.

The media is the only type of company specifically given explicit rights in the Constitution. They didn't mention oil and gas corporations, or real estate companies, but they did give newspapers protected rights.

If the Framers wanted tea importers, or carpenters, or teamsters to have explicit rights, they would've granted them. They didn't. The Framers also recognized that companies can be regulated for the welfare of society. One of them, Thomas Jefferson, was even concerned about the "aristocracy of our moneyed corporations." Corporate charters also had an expiration date.

And this is why originalism is bullshit. It's wrapped in "guidelines" and the "Rule of Law and consistency" but it's more of the same. It's newspeak for pro-corporate, pro-Conservative, opinions meant to stem the tide of a changing and scary world. It has as many personal biases as the straw-man argument of "those activist judges!" but the originalist advocates refuse to see it.

The power of all corporations ought to be limited

So you would be OK with the government prohibiting Michael Moore from airing an anti-Trump movie in advance of the 2020 election?

And GE (a Corporation) used to own NBC.  Jeff Bezos own Amazon and the Washington Post.  Corporations own movie studios which largely make left wing movies.  I don't want the government to regulate expression, even expression I disagree with.

[bacchi]

Just out of curiosity, since you describe yourself as an originalist, what do you think of the citizen's united ruling? Not only do corporations have rights in order to enforce contracts, etc, it expands corporations the right to "free speech". To me this does not seem originalist, in fact it is quite radical. The constitution doesn't refer to corporations as individuals or give them rights as individuals.

Not sure of the legal reasoning adopted by the majority (Corporations are people for 1st Amend purposes).  To allow the government to restrict spending by third parties, however, would be problematic.  Not sure how you would do this and not run afoul of the First Amendment.  Could the Government, for example, prohibit Michael Moore from airing or advertising an anti-Bush (or Trump) movie before an election?  This was in fact an issue underlying the decision.  Excerpt from Wikipedia below.

The media is the only type of company specifically given explicit rights in the Constitution. They didn't mention oil and gas corporations, or real estate companies, but they did give newspapers protected rights.

If the Framers wanted tea importers, or carpenters, or teamsters to have explicit rights, they would've granted them. They didn't. The Framers also recognized that companies can be regulated for the welfare of society. One of them, Thomas Jefferson, was even concerned about the "aristocracy of our moneyed corporations." Corporate charters also had an expiration date.

And this is why originalism is bullshit. It's wrapped in "guidelines" and the "Rule of Law and consistency" but it's more of the same. It's newspeak for pro-corporate, pro-Conservative, opinions meant to stem the tide of a changing and scary world. It has as many personal biases as the straw-man argument of "those activist judges!" but the originalist advocates refuse to see it.

The power of all corporations ought to be limited

So you would be OK with the government prohibiting Michael Moore from airing an anti-Trump movie in advance of the 2020 election?

And GE (a Corporation) used to own NBC.  Jeff Bezos own Amazon and the Washington Post.  Corporations own movie studios which largely make left wing movies.  I don't want the government to regulate expression, even expression I disagree with.

Corporate charters not only had an expiration but they also were limited to one activity. GE, a manufacturer, could've never owned a media company in the 1780s. A teamster company could've never imported tea.

This leads us to a problem that the Framers didn't anticipate. Their understanding of corporations were different from ours, in that corporate charters have greatly expanded. If we used a purely originalist approach, however, there's no way the Founding Fathers would've allowed a non-media corporation to control media and to have such rights. They were wary of corporations and it was illegal for a corporation to contribute to a political campaign.

Now, if we wanted to go all non-originalist, that's fine. But then that's admitting that the Constitution is a Living Document (gasp!) and originalists would lose their neutral "Rule of Law" shroud.

[TempusFugit]

Just out of curiosity, since you describe yourself as an originalist, what do you think of the citizen's united ruling? Not only do corporations have rights in order to enforce contracts, etc, it expands corporations the right to "free speech". To me this does not seem originalist, in fact it is quite radical. The constitution doesn't refer to corporations as individuals or give them rights as individuals.

Not sure of the legal reasoning adopted by the majority (Corporations are people for 1st Amend purposes).  To allow the government to restrict spending by third parties, however, would be problematic.  Not sure how you would do this and not run afoul of the First Amendment.  Could the Government, for example, prohibit Michael Moore from airing or advertising an anti-Bush (or Trump) movie before an election?  This was in fact an issue underlying the decision.  Excerpt from Wikipedia below.

The media is the only type of company specifically given explicit rights in the Constitution. They didn't mention oil and gas corporations, or real estate companies, but they did give newspapers protected rights.

If the Framers wanted tea importers, or carpenters, or teamsters to have explicit rights, they would've granted them. They didn't. The Framers also recognized that companies can be regulated for the welfare of society. One of them, Thomas Jefferson, was even concerned about the "aristocracy of our moneyed corporations." Corporate charters also had an expiration date.

And this is why originalism is bullshit. It's wrapped in "guidelines" and the "Rule of Law and consistency" but it's more of the same. It's newspeak for pro-corporate, pro-Conservative, opinions meant to stem the tide of a changing and scary world. It has as many personal biases as the straw-man argument of "those activist judges!" but the originalist advocates refuse to see it.

The power of all corporations ought to be limited

So you would be OK with the government prohibiting Michael Moore from airing an anti-Trump movie in advance of the 2020 election?

And GE (a Corporation) used to own NBC.  Jeff Bezos own Amazon and the Washington Post.  Corporations own movie studios which largely make left wing movies.  I don't want the government to regulate expression, even expression I disagree with.

And how are unions really different from corporations in regard to the $ they spend on political issues?  Isn't it the same thing in effect? 

While I don't necessarily like all of the implications of the Citizens ruling, I do think that with free speech we should err on the side of more, not less.  There is no perfect solution, just like there is no 'good' government, only government that is tolerable and more-good-than-bad.   Because there are no good people, not really. No one who is pure-hearted and free of bias and empathetic with people who disagree on important things. We are all creatures of emotion and instinct and psychological reflex with just a smidgen of rationality. 

Give any group power over another and it always goes the same way.  That's why we have to have laws and checks and balances and that's why it shouldn't be quick and easy to make big changes in our society and it certainly shouldn't be left to the whims of a small un-elected group of (even well-intentioned) people.   

[bacchi]

Additional news about the upcoming global-recession-caused-by-trump-and-tariffs:

http://money.cnn.com/2018/07/01/news/canada-us-tariffs-steel-aluminum/index.html

US tariffs have creeping effects. Canada and the EU are looking into tariffs on Chinese steel because China can't sell it to the US. Tariffs beget tariffs.

Chinese imports into the US are about $500B/year. Hitting $200B of those imports with tariffs would crater many US companies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/18/us/politics/trump-says-us-may-impose-tariffs-on-another-200-billion-worth-of-chinese-goods.html

Including a US nail company.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/26/news/companies/steel-tariffs-job-losses/index.html

It would also slow down oil rigs.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trumps-steel-tariffs-could-hit-the-epicenter-of-the-us-oil-industry-2018-5

At a time when oil is near $73/barrel.


Can Kudlow be run out of town this time?


Eta: Two pieces from the Mainstream Media: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/03/05/trumps-tariffs-will-hurt-trade-and-trade-is-good-thing-really.html; http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/27/trumps-proposed-auto-tariffs-threat-to-alabamas-economy-governor-says.html

[nereo]

Tariffs beget tariffs.

Yup.  And Tariffs are taxes. We lowered the corporate tax rate only to throw up barriers on trade almost immediately.  Gas pedal and brake at the same time.
Prices will get more expensive for everyone on most things.

whether its a drag or a wall on economic expansion we can only know in hindsight.  Whether the effects will be readily apparent by this fall is another open question.

[wenchsenior]

Regardless of how this affects Trump's presidency and popularity, I would far prefer the inevitable recession to hit ASAP, b/c the timing would be terrific for us to pile money into the market in the last 5 years prior to considering retiring.

[bacchi]

Regardless of how this affects Trump's presidency and popularity, I would far prefer the inevitable recession to hit ASAP, b/c the timing would be terrific for us to pile money into the market in the last 5 years prior to considering retiring.

Trump is very reluctant to change his mind once committed. He might double and triple-down before blaming the Democrats and eliminating the tariffs.

Or the GOP Congresslings could grow a spine once their districts start losing jobs.

[partgypsy]

I'm not a law scholar but unions are different from corporations. Unions are closer to the idea the original framers had, of individuals having the right to assemble, form groups and collectively bargain. A corporation on the other hand, was considered a legal entity and the only right it had originally, and for hundreds of years, was that corporate contracts could be enforced. A corporation could theoretically be owned by a single person. Judjicial laws for a very long time were very conservative in the rights granted to a corporation, because of a fear of our country becoming an oligarchy.

So while superficially they may seem the same, in reality they are very different.

I would not consider myself an originalist or a "evolving document" person. I consider myself a pragmatist. For one I would not make interpretations of existing legislation, that had unintended consequences of reducing or infringing upon stated and intended constitutional rights of individuals.  I would certainly not err on the side of "more" freedoms of speech, when it means creating legal fictions of personhood, with the end result being that a small number of people through money had an undue influence on elections and politicians. I'm sure the legal founders, if they could have imagined a small number of moneyed people influencing government, would err on the side of limiting the "rights" of those people, either individually, or through a corporation to undo checks and balances. 
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Jefferson

Democracy is a fragile thing. We should be careful not to weaken checks and balances, that have served our country for a long time.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/america-democracy-rated-donald-trump-not-fully-democratic-us-president-report-the-economist-a8195121.html

[scottish]

Regardless of how this affects Trump's presidency and popularity, I would far prefer the inevitable recession to hit ASAP, b/c the timing would be terrific for us to pile money into the market in the last 5 years prior to considering retiring.

Trump is very reluctant to change his mind once committed. He might double and triple-down before blaming the Democrats and eliminating the tariffs.

Or the GOP Congresslings could grow a spine once their districts start losing jobs.

Not so sure.   Remember 'little rocket man'?   A thread to the free world, until Trump went to meet with him.   They had their little bromance, and then the nuclear threat was over and we could all sleep better at night.

Even though absolutely nothing actually changed.

[Kyle Schuant]

While I don't necessarily like all of the implications of the Citizens ruling, I do think that with free speech we should err on the side of more, not less.

Money is not speech. Conduct is not speech. Speech is speech.

This is a subtlety lost on some people.

[nereo]

While I don't necessarily like all of the implications of the Citizens ruling, I do think that with free speech we should err on the side of more, not less.

Conduct is not speech.

As it pertains to legal issues the above is simply false. The courts have ruled repeatedly that actions, when used to convey a particular message, constitute speech and as such are protected under the first amendment. To that end, a greeting card was considered speech (Hilton V Hallmark Cards), as is honking your horn at protestors, and burning the flag (US v. Eichman)

"To determine whether conduct is speech, one must look at the conduct that actually occurred and the context in which it occurred.

"Conduct is expressive when the actor intends to communicate a particular message by his actions and that message will be understood by those who observe it because of the surrounding circumstances." - Justice Grosse, State v Immelt

[Kyle Schuant]

The courts have ruled repeatedly that -

Courts can be wrong.

I am indifferent to the law, particularly when it comes to laws of countries other than my own. I am more concerned about what is right. And in this, your courts are wrong. When the law is wrong, bad things happen eventually.

Just ask Dredd Scott. And ask the 600,000 dead just a few years after his case.

[scottish]

Hey check this out.   North Korea maybe isn't disarming after all.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-us-has-plan-to-dismantle-north-koreas-nuclear-program-within-a-year/

U.S. intelligence is not certain how many nuclear warheads North Korea has. The Defence Intelligence Agency is at the high end with an estimate of about 50, but all the agencies believe Pyongyang is concealing an unknown number, especially smaller tactical ones, in caves and other underground facilities around the country.

North Korea agreed at the summit to “work toward denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,” but the joint statement signed by North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and U.S. President Donald Trump on June 12 gave no details on how or when Pyongyang might surrender its nuclear weapons.

U.S. intelligence agencies believe North Korea has increased production of fuel for nuclear weapons at multiple secret sites in recent months and may try to hide these while seeking concessions in nuclear talks with the United States, NBC News quoted U.S. officials as saying on Friday.

The Washington Post reported on Saturday that U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that North Korea does not intend to fully give up its nuclear arsenal and is considering ways to hide the number of weapons it has. It also reported Pyongyang has secret production facilities, according to the latest evidence they have.

[Gondolin]

I am more concerned about what is right.

I'm sure we're all relieved to hear about your infallible moral judgement. Thank you for ruling on this issue. Quick tell the U.S. legal system, conduct can never be speech! Prosecute all those flag burners immediately! /s

Do you really expect to be taken seriously with this kind of absolutist proclamation?

[Jrr85]

Just out of curiosity, since you describe yourself as an originalist, what do you think of the citizen's united ruling? Not only do corporations have rights in order to enforce contracts, etc, it expands corporations the right to "free speech". To me this does not seem originalist, in fact it is quite radical. The constitution doesn't refer to corporations as individuals or give them rights as individuals.

Not sure of the legal reasoning adopted by the majority (Corporations are people for 1st Amend purposes).  To allow the government to restrict spending by third parties, however, would be problematic.  Not sure how you would do this and not run afoul of the First Amendment.  Could the Government, for example, prohibit Michael Moore from airing or advertising an anti-Bush (or Trump) movie before an election?  This was in fact an issue underlying the decision.  Excerpt from Wikipedia below.

The media is the only type of company specifically given explicit rights in the Constitution. They didn't mention oil and gas corporations, or real estate companies, but they did give newspapers protected rights.

If the Framers wanted tea importers, or carpenters, or teamsters to have explicit rights, they would've granted them. They didn't. The Framers also recognized that companies can be regulated for the welfare of society. One of them, Thomas Jefferson, was even concerned about the "aristocracy of our moneyed corporations." Corporate charters also had an expiration date.

And this is why originalism is bullshit. It's wrapped in "guidelines" and the "Rule of Law and consistency" but it's more of the same. It's newspeak for pro-corporate, pro-Conservative, opinions meant to stem the tide of a changing and scary world. It has as many personal biases as the straw-man argument of "those activist judges!" but the originalist advocates refuse to see it.

The power of all corporations ought to be limited

So you would be OK with the government prohibiting Michael Moore from airing an anti-Trump movie in advance of the 2020 election?

Bolded above.

If you give government the power to determine which corporations are properly considered the press and which ones aren't, you are effectively ending freedom of the press. 

[Jrr85]

The courts have ruled repeatedly that -

Courts can be wrong.

I am indifferent to the law, particularly when it comes to laws of countries other than my own. I am more concerned about what is right. And in this, your courts are wrong. When the law is wrong, bad things happen eventually.

Just ask Dredd Scott. And ask the 600,000 dead just a few years after his case.

You can't say you have freedom of speech, but then say, "but you can't join up with anybody else to pay to distribute your speech". 

It's a hollow right at that point.  And again, that's ignoring the issue with granting government the authority to determine which corporations are "press" and/or which publications by the "press" are issue or candidate advocacy that can be subject to spending limitations. 

[bacchi]

Just out of curiosity, since you describe yourself as an originalist, what do you think of the citizen's united ruling? Not only do corporations have rights in order to enforce contracts, etc, it expands corporations the right to "free speech". To me this does not seem originalist, in fact it is quite radical. The constitution doesn't refer to corporations as individuals or give them rights as individuals.

Not sure of the legal reasoning adopted by the majority (Corporations are people for 1st Amend purposes).  To allow the government to restrict spending by third parties, however, would be problematic.  Not sure how you would do this and not run afoul of the First Amendment.  Could the Government, for example, prohibit Michael Moore from airing or advertising an anti-Bush (or Trump) movie before an election?  This was in fact an issue underlying the decision.  Excerpt from Wikipedia below.

The media is the only type of company specifically given explicit rights in the Constitution. They didn't mention oil and gas corporations, or real estate companies, but they did give newspapers protected rights.

If the Framers wanted tea importers, or carpenters, or teamsters to have explicit rights, they would've granted them. They didn't. The Framers also recognized that companies can be regulated for the welfare of society. One of them, Thomas Jefferson, was even concerned about the "aristocracy of our moneyed corporations." Corporate charters also had an expiration date.

And this is why originalism is bullshit. It's wrapped in "guidelines" and the "Rule of Law and consistency" but it's more of the same. It's newspeak for pro-corporate, pro-Conservative, opinions meant to stem the tide of a changing and scary world. It has as many personal biases as the straw-man argument of "those activist judges!" but the originalist advocates refuse to see it.

The power of all corporations ought to be limited

So you would be OK with the government prohibiting Michael Moore from airing an anti-Trump movie in advance of the 2020 election?

Bolded above.

If you give government the power to determine which corporations are properly considered the press and which ones aren't, you are effectively ending freedom of the press.

No, you're not. There was press back in the 1770s and somehow the Framers managed it. Are you an originalist or not?

[shenlong55]

The courts have ruled repeatedly that -

Courts can be wrong.

I am indifferent to the law, particularly when it comes to laws of countries other than my own. I am more concerned about what is right. And in this, your courts are wrong. When the law is wrong, bad things happen eventually.

Just ask Dredd Scott. And ask the 600,000 dead just a few years after his case.

You can't say you have freedom of speech, but then say, "but you can't join up with anybody else to pay to distribute your speech".

It's a hollow right at that point.  And again, that's ignoring the issue with granting government the authority to determine which corporations are "press" and/or which publications by the "press" are issue or candidate advocacy that can be subject to spending limitations.

Do you think that "freedom of speech" includes the right to say something as loudly as you want?  I'm just curious because I've always thought that money does not buy speech per se, it buys volume.  Also, who do you think should determine what corporations fall under the "press" designation?  It seems like if you let the corporations self-label then they would all just categorize themselves as the "press".

[bacchi]

The courts have ruled repeatedly that -

Courts can be wrong.

I am indifferent to the law, particularly when it comes to laws of countries other than my own. I am more concerned about what is right. And in this, your courts are wrong. When the law is wrong, bad things happen eventually.

Just ask Dredd Scott. And ask the 600,000 dead just a few years after his case.

You can't say you have freedom of speech, but then say, "but you can't join up with anybody else to pay to distribute your speech".

It's a hollow right at that point.  And again, that's ignoring the issue with granting government the authority to determine which corporations are "press" and/or which publications by the "press" are issue or candidate advocacy that can be subject to spending limitations.

Do you think that "freedom of speech" includes the right to say something as loudly as you want?  I'm just curious because I've always thought that money does not buy speech per se, it buys volume.  Also, who do you think should determine what corporations fall under the "press" designation?  It seems like if you let the corporations self-label then they would all just categorize themselves as the "press".

Correct. The press was the only "industry" (field, company, whathaveyou) given explicit rights in the Constitution. The Framers didn't allow just any chartered company to be a "press." This was intentional. If the Framers wanted the British East India company to have the rights of the press, they would've done so.

[Glenstache]

Just out of curiosity, since you describe yourself as an originalist, what do you think of the citizen's united ruling? Not only do corporations have rights in order to enforce contracts, etc, it expands corporations the right to "free speech". To me this does not seem originalist, in fact it is quite radical. The constitution doesn't refer to corporations as individuals or give them rights as individuals.

Not sure of the legal reasoning adopted by the majority (Corporations are people for 1st Amend purposes).  To allow the government to restrict spending by third parties, however, would be problematic.  Not sure how you would do this and not run afoul of the First Amendment.  Could the Government, for example, prohibit Michael Moore from airing or advertising an anti-Bush (or Trump) movie before an election?  This was in fact an issue underlying the decision.  Excerpt from Wikipedia below.

The media is the only type of company specifically given explicit rights in the Constitution. They didn't mention oil and gas corporations, or real estate companies, but they did give newspapers protected rights.

If the Framers wanted tea importers, or carpenters, or teamsters to have explicit rights, they would've granted them. They didn't. The Framers also recognized that companies can be regulated for the welfare of society. One of them, Thomas Jefferson, was even concerned about the "aristocracy of our moneyed corporations." Corporate charters also had an expiration date.

And this is why originalism is bullshit. It's wrapped in "guidelines" and the "Rule of Law and consistency" but it's more of the same. It's newspeak for pro-corporate, pro-Conservative, opinions meant to stem the tide of a changing and scary world. It has as many personal biases as the straw-man argument of "those activist judges!" but the originalist advocates refuse to see it.

The power of all corporations ought to be limited

So you would be OK with the government prohibiting Michael Moore from airing an anti-Trump movie in advance of the 2020 election?

Bolded above.

If you give government the power to determine which corporations are properly considered the press and which ones aren't, you are effectively ending freedom of the press.

No, you're not. There was press back in the 1770s and somehow the Framers managed it. Are you an originalist or not?

I think that this article does a nice job of differentiating between the press and $$ as speech issues.
https://www.yalelawjournal.org/essay/reconsidering-citizens-united-as-a-press-clause-case