The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Nice side-step. Clever how you managed not to respond at all to the substance of what LynahFan and I happened to post and picked up instead on a tangential comment.

We're actually not all here to carry water for our respective sides, but sure, you can report back to Drudge that you deserve a gold star.

I addressed Lynah's point. You don't have points, you just repeat stump speeches.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for shame and embarrassment. I mean, that should be clear given my posts...

I think we have spawned an economic elite who are beyond shame, however. They really believe they are the soul of the nation, its "productive" members, and the well-spring of its prosperity. People are, for the most part, not intentionally dickish. They need an ideology to come along and caress them into feeling that their worst impulses of greed and lack of caring are actually virtues. That's the hallmark of zealotry: that myopic view that morality applies to others, and you've somehow risen "above" it. In a word, assured self-centeredness.

Nice side-step. Clever how you managed not to respond at all to the substance of what LynahFan and I happened to post and picked up instead on a tangential comment.

[alfablue]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

So here's the People's Rights Amendment:



Very interested to hear thoughts on this.

A completely different tangent.... Freedom of press and corporations rights- if I'm not mistaken, outside a very few individual press people, most of what we call "press" are a collection of people as part of a corporation. So does the "press" corporations have a free pass on this amendment? Seems as if you would have to give the press corporations rights as the press.

(logical step post that, what stops any corporation from having a "press" part?)

I agree that there is an issue where corporations are given rights that seem as if they should be limited to the individual, but it's a fine line that needs to be worked on. That, and there are a lot of other corporate rights that seem to violate some basic property rights that should be fixed, first (say, Monsanto and their patent on genetic corn should have property rights/trespassing laws applied to them vs. them forcing their patent rights on farmers where their good trespassed onto).

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

As I said, I am sympathetic to your concerns and share them. What we really need is a more creative solution than using the legal system to "restrict / regulate / outlaw". We need more societal pressure; shame and embarrassment have to regain their power to dissuade.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for shame and embarrassment. I mean, that should be clear given my posts...

I think we have spawned an economic elite who are beyond shame, however. They really believe they are the soul of the nation, its "productive" members, and the well-spring of its prosperity. People are, for the most part, not intentionally dickish. They need an ideology to come along and caress them into feeling that their worst impulses of greed and lack of caring are actually virtues. That's the hallmark of zealotry: that myopic view that morality applies to others, and you've somehow risen "above" it. In a word, assured self-centeredness.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

To be nitpicky, none of this "makes" anything "illegal," so I'd ask instead where the Constitutional prohibitions against a hypothetical statute outlawing political parties are located. My understanding is that the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment address the right of people to association for political purposes.

Figuring out where the limits are on political parties, outside of basic Constitutional issues, is part of what the political process does. Currently we are in a period where the whole pricniple of free elections is being threatened by money, so we're going to see more political efforts to take democracy back (and more political efforts by the powers that be to protect their privileges).

So people will still have the right to free association, they just can't serve lunch when they do because food costs money????

While the jibe comes off as sarcastic, it also reveals a deeper point: how is it practical to retain free association yet to outlaw money? If you outlaw corporations / unions / foundations from contributing, but allow individuals to continue to contribute, then you give rich people an advantage over poor people. If you want to offset that advantage, then poor people have to bundle their money together somehow, but you just eliminated that option. If you restrict how much rich people can give, then you restrict their right to freedom of expression.

As I said, I am sympathetic to your concerns and share them. What we really need is a more creative solution than using the legal system to "restrict / regulate / outlaw". We need more societal pressure; shame and embarrassment have to regain their power to dissuade.

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

To be nitpicky, none of this "makes" anything "illegal," so I'd ask instead where the Constitutional prohibitions against a hypothetical statute outlawing political parties are located. My understanding is that the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment address the right of people to association for political purposes.

Did you not just answer your own question? People have the right to associate (into "collective entities") for political purposes, yet you have just proposed to make it legal to limit political action by any collective entity. So a government (state or federal) could pass a law making it illegal for collective entities to attempt to influence elections. In that case, the existence of the party itself wouldn't be "illegal," but as soon as it took an action for which it was explicitly founded, that action would be illegal.

So yes, this proposed amendment DOES effectively grant government the power to crush the effectiveness of political parties. Whether or not any government would choose to use that power or not is irrelevant - government should not have that power, period.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

If we're going to limit the right of "collective entities" to petition the government and influence elections, does that make political parties illegal?

To be nitpicky, none of this "makes" anything "illegal," so I'd ask instead where the Constitutional prohibitions against a hypothetical statute outlawing political parties are located. My understanding is that the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment address the right of people to association for political purposes.

Figuring out where the limits are on political parties, outside of basic Constitutional issues, is part of what the political process does. Currently we are in a period where the whole pricniple of free elections is being threatened by money, so we're going to see more political efforts to take democracy back (and more political efforts by the powers that be to protect their privileges).

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I generally avoid using any form of the word "corporation" on this board, as I've observed that the mere mention of it causes extreme heartburn for certain people.

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I'm not sure where you are getting your "clearly" from. I know it is taken as a sacrament in the echo chamber that anything suggested by liberals must be some sort of plot, but the way I read that language it applies equally to all non-human entities, particularly collective entities. I do not regard this as a Trojan Horse. But as I said several times, if you would like to amend the language I am open to that.

Given your posting history and the respect I have for you, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you genuinely read it this way. However, given that the words "corporations, corporate, and companies" appear in the text (4 times!) and the word "collective" does NOT appear in the text even once, I am not willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to the general population - and particularly not to the 50% of the population which is left of center.

If we're going to limit the right of "collective entities" to petition the government and influence elections, does that make political parties illegal?

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I'm not sure where you are getting your "clearly" from.

The explicit language of Section 2. It specifically says "corporation" and nothing other than "corporation."

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

respectfully suggest that there are two different "points" and neither one of us is "missing" anything; rather, each of us is discussing something different.

This is the internet. It's no place for respect!

The Peoples Amendment as written is clearly designed to apply only to corporations. You would prefer that it apply to more than corporations, as would I. It would be nice to have politics be the idealized version you long for.

I'm not sure where you are getting your "clearly" from. I know it is taken as a sacrament in the echo chamber that anything suggested by liberals must be some sort of plot, but the way I read that language it applies equally to all non-human entities, particularly collective entities. I do not regard this as a Trojan Horse. But as I said several times, if you would like to amend the language I am open to that.

At the same time, for now we have the First Amendment, which includes the right of people to peacably assemble to petition the government. The proposed People's Amendment, however, would revoke that right.

First of all, the Constitution says "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Those are two separate things. Secondly, I don't see this amendment as damaging those rights, either singularly or even in your composite of them, let alone "revoking" them. Nor is this in any way declaring corporations or unions "impermissible." It just means they won't be able to hide behind the First Amendment when they try to buy elections. I think that's obvious from the first two sections of the amendment, but even if it weren't section 3 explicitly bars your interpretation.

The entities that benefit from the current system are going to kick up a lot of dust over this -- you don't rescue a democracy from its enemies without a fight -- but if we constantly return to the text of the proposed amendment it is dissipated.

If it's any consolation, big money permeates our society and our political system so deeply that it is probably too late to curb its influence. Ironically, that's probably much more in line with the elitist views of the Founders than with even the most avaricious of contemporary plutocrats.

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

We, the corporations of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote corporate welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to corporations and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

You are still missing the point. The purpose of the amendment is to remove the confusion of the rights granted by the constitution between human and non-human entities. "Corporate" entities are collective, non-human entities, not corporations as opposed to unions. So if the language bugs you then by all means add something about unions, but please don't say "no thanks" because whatever transient political itch that needs to be scratched isn't getting the attention you think it deserves -- that's getting lost in the trivialities.

This is a case where a particular hobby-horse of one side's political rhetoric should not be an excuse to ditch the far more important principle: it is human beings, not dollar bills, who established the nation for their collective security and to preserve their rights.

respectfully suggest that there are two different "points" and neither one of us is "missing" anything; rather, each of us is discussing something different.

The Peoples Amendment as written is clearly designed to apply only to corporations. You would prefer that it apply to more than corporations, as would I. It would be nice to have politics be the idealized version you long for.

At the same time, for now we have the First Amendment, which includes the right of people to peacably assemble to petition the government. The proposed People's Amendment, however, would revoke that right. I'm not convinced that rewriting the First Amendment is a good idea, although I remain open to persuasion.

People gain power through association, and for us to try to figure out which kinds of associations are permissible and which kinds of associations are impermissible? That would be a challenge even for Solon, or Solomon. It may well be the case that the continued evolution of the internet and associated social media will render this discussion moot in ten years anyway.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I don't think I am missing the point; it seems you want to have "the point" be otherwise than it actually is.

You are still missing the point. The purpose of the amendment is to remove the confusion of the rights granted by the constitution between human and non-human entities. "Corporate" entities are collective, non-human entities, not corporations as opposed to unions. So if the language bugs you then by all means add something about unions, but please don't say "no thanks" because whatever transient political itch that needs to be scratched isn't getting the attention you think it deserves -- that's getting lost in the trivialities.

This is a case where a particular hobby-horse of one side's political rhetoric should not be an excuse to ditch the far more important principle: it is human beings, not dollar bills, who established the nation for their collective security and to preserve their rights.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

You're missing the point of the amendment.

OH?

Section 2. People, person, or persons as used in this Constitution does not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

[emphasis added]

Are you and I reading the same text?

I don't think I am missing the point; it seems you want to have "the point" be otherwise than it actually is.

Then substitute language that says "artificial persons such as collective entities" or somesuch.

Bigger picture, with your suggestion to "substitute more appropriate" language, it really does seem we agree again here.