Executive vs. Juducial
 

Should the country expect more from the Constitutional Law Professor in Chief?

We've already heard the "political financing sky is falling hysteria" from the unwashed masses of liberal constitutional scholars on this forum, but is it fair to expect more from the first Black Editor of the Harvard Law Review?

President Wrong on Citizens United Case

[Bradley A. Smith]

Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections . Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

The president's statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication... ."

This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demogoguery of the worst kind.
— Bradley A. Smith is Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTVkODZiM2M0ODEzOGQ3MTMwYzgzYjNmODBiMzQzZjk=

So the Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional. What ammanement was cited in this case?

Billy bob is trying to get us all to think that a flood of foreign money is good for our political system. Foreign corporations are completely free to buy majority stock positions in US companies, and they can form US corporations at will. Billy wants us all to think they can't, because he's having a hard time claiming he is in favor of US sovereignty while at the same time, against it. For billy, it's a mixed up world out there. The Right Wing is taking so many hits on this, National Review is trotting out this weak argument and try to make this pig fly. Keep flapping, billy. The president's statement is not false. Ask any accountant, there are a zillion ways to pull it off, and again, I post this link:

http://non-us.com/US-company-for-foreing-citizens.htm

Yeah, real tough, it's just impossible says Billy.

I need to preface my remarks by stating I am not a lawyer; never even played one on TV.
The flaw I see in your first statement,"Billy bob is trying to get us all to think that a flood of foreign money is good for our political system", is that you seem to confuse the law with its consequences.
Correct me if I am wrong ( as if you require my permission), but the SC is to rule on contitutionality of a law. Period. End of the matter.

You seem to be saying that because, in your opinion, the flood of feared international money will be bad, that the SC should have ruled other than they did.

Its not their job to fix bad law. The Legislative branch needs to do its job, and write better law, if that is necessary. But to say that the SC should create a law seems to be against what is their assigned roll.

The opinion expressed above is my own. I have not parroted talking points from any source.

What makes this a tough thing is that every opinion express here is right, including the President's.

If a power from outside the US wishes to influence an election they will now be free to do so without all the silly subtrafuges they have had to go though in the past.

Read up on the 'Bund' movement in the US during the 1930's. Germany knew if the US came into the war too soon it was all over for them, so the Bund was created to infulence Americans of German background to prevail upon our government to not get involved in Europe's war.

The Bund was very agressive about backing political canidates, and the Bund was financined 100% by Germany.

But the McCain-Finegold law was bad in the way it was written, not in it's intentions. I think the elected officials should go back to the drawing board and craft a law that will pass Constutional muster. Apparently not everyone feels this way.

My problem with the SCOTUS ruling is that I can find nowhere in the US Constitution that grants corporations the same rights as a person, in fact, I cannot even find the word "corporation", and yet, the SCOTUS did exactly that, ruling that Congress has no right to regulate their participation in the political process. The ruling was 5-4, meaning four of the justices agree with me. As far as "Congress doing it's job", Congress did do exactly that, and the Supreme Court struck them down based on this invented baloney crafted by the Republican appointees on the bench. Congress had done its job, and they did not like it, and decided to pass a decision that directly benefits their own political faction, allowing billions of dollars from corporate fatcats, national or international, to freely flow into our campaigns without regulation. Perhaps you can show me where a corporation is equal to yourself, politically, in the COTUS.

I will admit right now that this is a weak posting, but....

When I attended University we were taught that Corporations had attained the status of individuals due to some Supreme Court case from 1895 (?) where a Railroad Barron needed his company to be treated as an individual.

The lesson for that day was 'Money Talks'.

I don't remember much more than that, but then it has been about 50 years since I heard this.

And it's been all down hill ever since.

The legal status of corporations have evolved over time. They are taxed, subject to prosecution for civil and criminal acts . . . therefore they have "rights."

Whether George Soros or Steve Forbes spend their personal funds or corporate funds to push an agenda . . . how much does it actually matter?

again with this agitprop article from the c.i.a.'s mouthpiece?

this is the second (that i know of) thread in which you have posted this same article.

can't you find other sources for your campaign of disinformation?

That also means 5 justices disagree with you. But you won't respect that because they are Republican appointees. The only way their judgment would be good is if it agrees with yours or more specifically, whatever the Dems favor. I guess majority decision is only good for you if it goes your way. Otherwise, they suck.

AFAIK, they make interpretations based on the laws. If the laws change and can pass constitutional muster, they can have a different decision.

Yes, we know. All stuff Republican tainted are bad and even dog doo of a Dem is good. :rolleyes:

Yes, it cannot be what they interpret the laws to be based on what they read in the constitution. Sure.

That is my question. Dollars are still dollars and spend the same whether it is by this means or that. As long as it gets to the politician, what is the difference?

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/justice-samuel-alito-shows-distaste-with-barack-obamas-barb-on-campaign-finance-ruling/19335195?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fnation%2Farticle%2Fjustice-samuel-alito-shows-distaste-with-barack-obamas-barb-on-campaign-finance-ruling%2F19335195

someone forgot to tell obomma he is not in a classroom, can he just scold anyone he chooses

this aint over its just starting -- jz

If foreign money wants in on our political game . . . all they have to do is pull a Rupert.