Supreme Court Drop-Kicks McCain/Feingold, Scores Victory for 1st Amendment;

[Patranus]

Similarly, yes, many things Congress passes are not listed in the cnstitution.

Wait, so you are saying that congress can exercise powers NOT granted to it under the constitution but the Supreme Court cannot do the same?

(There is a simple solution to the problem )

 

[spidey07]

Got to listen to the David Bossie, the leader of Citizens United. He told of some very scary stuff going on in the arguments. The point of "well, what if this was a book?" was made and if they could ban/censor that. 4 of the justices said, yes, yes we can do that!!! How this wasn't a 9-0 ruling really is simply beyond me.

How can any of you be against this ruling to uphold free speech? This has nothing to do with left/right, it's basic 1st amendment rights.

http://www.citizensunited.org/blog.aspx?entryid=8225648

“This is a victory for Citizens United, but even more so for the First Amendment rights of all Americans. The fault line on this issue does not split liberals and conservatives or Republicans and Democrats. Instead, it pits entrenched establishment politicians against the very people whom they are elected to serve.

 

[Craig234]

Wait, so you are saying that congress can exercise powers NOT granted to it under the constitution but the Supreme Court cannot do the same?

(There is a simple solution to the problem )

No, I didn't. Did you say half the 'progessive' laws pass are in violation of the constitution?

Let's see the evidence for your lie. Crickets.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

As bad as 5 to 4 are, it's worse when year after year the 5 include four radeicals who are out to ruin the United States constitution following their unamerican ideology.

lol. You've become worse than davemcowned.

 

[Craig234]

Got to listen to the David Bossie, the leader of Citizens United. He told of some very scary stuff going on in the arguments. The point of "well, what if this was a book?" was made and if they could ban/censor that. 4 of the justices said, yes, yes we can do that!!! How this wasn't a 9-0 ruling really is simply beyond me.

How can any of you be against this ruling to uphold free speech? This has nothing to do with left/right, it's basic 1st amendment rights.

http://www.citizensunited.org/blog.aspx?entryid=8225648

Spoken by an ideologue who doesn't understand that corporate money is the enemy of free speech.

 

[Craig234]

lol. You've become worse than davemcowned.

You're ignorant. I'm off to debate the best color with a blind man now.

 

[Patranus]

No, I didn't. Did you say half the 'progessive' laws pass are in violation of the constitution?

Let's see the evidence for your lie. Crickets.

Medical Marijuana.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I'm off to debate the best color with a blind man now.

Probably the only one you can convince you are right.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well Craig, I suggest you write your Congressman and suggest they come up with a targeted law with the comments of the SCOTUS in mind. The Reps had enough votes to block the health care bill, but it's not as likely to find the same support for well crafted legislation. Clearly, the SCOTUS didn't remove all restrictions, as soft money rules are still there.

They don't know jackshit about health care, but writing law about law is something they should have down.

Frankly, I'd like to see something done.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Well Craig, I suggest you write your Congressman and suggest they come up with a targeted law with the comments of the SCOTUS in mind. The Reps had enough votes to block the health care bill, but it's not as likely to find the same support for well crafted legislation. Clearly, the SCOTUS didn't remove all restrictions, as soft money rules are still there.

They don't know jackshit about health care, but writing law about law is something they should have down.

Frankly, I'd like to see something done.

Yep, no doubt something needs to be done but it needs to be very targetted towards an identified problem/loophole. It also MUST conform to the Constitution so as to not create further problems.

 

[Craig234]

Medical Marijuana.

Medical Marijuana isn't unconstitutional. Even if it were, you don't understand the word "half".

Did you know half of all Americans are named Obama? The proof is Barack Obama.

 

[Craig234]

Probably the only one you can convince you are right.

No, actually he keeps insisting Red isn't a color, it doesn't exist. He's a lot like you.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

No, actually he keeps insisting Red isn't a color, it doesn't exist. He's a lot like you.

Except for the fact that I do see and know you trying to tell me yellow is red is BS.

 

[spidey07]

Except for the fact that I do see and know you trying to tell me yellow is red is BS.

Give it up. Craig is exhibiting typical "you have freedom of speech unless I disagree with you" mentality.

It's disgusting.

 

[Patranus]

Medical Marijuana isn't unconstitutional. Even if it were, you don't understand the word "half".

Did you know half of all Americans are named Obama? The proof is Barack Obama.

You said you wanted an example and I gave you one.
The constitution grants the power to regulate interstate commerce to congress. The idea of interstate commerce was perverted by FDR (progressive) for the "New Deal" (a progressive program). The perverted meaning of the commerce clause was used to regulate drugs even if those drugs never cross state lines.

Want another one?
How about minimum wage.

How about another one?
The Department of Education

 

[Craig234]

You said you wanted an example and I gave you one.
The constitution grants the power to regulate interstate commerce to congress. The idea of interstate commerce was perverted by FDR (progressive) for the "New Deal" (a progressive program). The perverted meaning of the commerce clause was used to regulate drugs even if those drugs never cross state lines.

Want another one?
How about minimum wage.

How about another one?
The Department of Education

No, I did not say I wanted an example. You made that up and put the words in my mouth. I said I wanted evidence for your claim of half.

So, you dind't mean that laws for medical marijuana are illegal, you meant that the laws prohibiting marijuana are illegal.

Your entire claim for this and minimum wage appear to rest on the claim that the constitution doesn't let Congress do those things, despite the Supreme Court who interprests it not agreeing with you.

Well, the court doesn't always get it right, as the four radical right-wingers now on it make clear.

If I gave you those three, you're not even in sight of half.

But whats your problem with the department of education? The government can't make departments?

I see a lot of righty ideologues oppose the DoE because it has federal cooties. But not many say it's unconsitutional

 

[Craig234]

Give it up. Craig is exhibiting typical "you have freedom of speech unless I disagree with you" mentality.

It's disgusting.

You lie as usual, and that's what is disgusting.

 

[Craig234]

Except for the fact that I do see and know you trying to tell me yellow is red is BS.

No, I had it right, and you don't.

 

[Patranus]

Your entire claim for this and minimum wage appear to rest on the claim that the constitution doesn't let Congress do those things, despite the Supreme Court who interprests it not agreeing with you.

<Censored Personal Attack>
You are the one bitching about the Supreme Court granting the same legal protections to corporations (something that doesn't appear in the constitution).

I am simply pointing out that it goes both ways.

 

[spidey07]

You lie as usual, and that's what is disgusting.

Explain your reasoning behind limiting free speech? What if I'm a small S-corp roofing business and want to voice my concerns? You're telling me I can't and shouldn't. Just admit it, you don't like the bill of rights. Just where do you stand on The Bill of Rights? Thankfully the 2nd most important amendment protects us from people like you.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

[soccerballtux]

Patranus if you could update the thread title to reflect the ruling that would be great. This has been off my radar till now so I'll probably forget to check on it unless I see it here.

 

[Craig234]

<Censored Personal Attack>
You are the one bitching about the Supreme Court granting the same legal protections to corporations (something that doesn't appear in the constitution).

I am simply pointing out that it goes both ways.

Yes, and we can each argue for where we think the court is wrong (I with 4 justices on my side).

But as I said, even if you were right, you aren't near the 'half' or all progressive laws which you said.

 

[Patranus]

Patranus if you could update the thread title to reflect the ruling that would be great. This has been off my radar till now so I'll probably forget to check on it unless I see it here.

Done. Also updated OP to include link to article describing court decision.

 

[Jaskalas]

Yes, and we can each argue for where we think the court is wrong (I with 4 justices on my side).

But as I said, even if you were right, you aren't near the 'half' or all progressive laws which you said.

4 Justices who would ban books if they had just one more to side with them.

 

[spidey07]

4 Justices who would ban books if they had just one more to side with them.

That is what is most scary. This is the supreme court. Why is it not 9-0? This has nothing to do with political affiliation. When the NRA and the ACLU agree on something that means the ruling is correct.