Pro Life?

[OmaHusker]

For our system to work, the judiciary needs to have independence from the legislative and executive branches.

Without question. But what recourse is there when they get it wrong? It seems Congress acquiesces too easily. Miranda comes to mind. Supreme Court interpretation of the constitution became law without much resistance.

[ChitownHusker]

Without question. But what recourse is there when they get it wrong? It seems Congress acquiesces too easily. Miranda comes to mind. Supreme Court interpretation of the constitution became law without much resistance.

That's because the Supreme Court has the final say on constitutionality. That's been settled since Marbury versus Madison in the early 1800's. The only recourse available is the passage of a constitutional amendment changing the court's holding.

[Husker Mort]

That's because the Supreme Court has the final say on constitutionality. That's been settled since Marbury versus Madison in the early 1800's. The only recourse available is the passage of a constitutional amendment changing the court's holding.

Speaking of, what is your stance on Citizens United, Chitown?

[ChitownHusker]

Speaking of, what is your stance on Citizens United, Chitown?

My view is that it is a good decision, and that it has been misrepresented in the media. Remember what was at issue in that case. The FEC banned a political documentary about Hillary Clinton. Forget about the corporation/personhood issue. That is a sideshow. It has always been established that corporations are vehicles through which people pool their resources. Its not that corporations have rights, its that the people who own them do.

The real issue is, can the federal government ban the production and dissemination of a political documentary? I would respectfully submit that if the First Amendment's free speech guarantee is to have any meaning at all, it means that the government cannot outright ban political speech.

Importantly, and this is never mentioned in the press, the Supreme Court said that regulation of political speech by the FEC is appropriate. There are all kinds of regulations of PACs and Super PACs that I believe the Supreme Court would permit. Interestingly, Congress has shown no interest in replacing the outright ban that was overturned in Citizens United with sensible regulations. I would start with transparency. I believe that people are entitled to speak through corporations, but they are not entitled to do so anonymously. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. I would require the disclosure of the names and amounts of all donations to Super PACs.

[Husker Mort]

My view is that it is a good decision, and that it has been misrepresented in the media. Remember what was at issue in that case. The FEC banned a political documentary about Hillary Clinton. Forget about the corporation/personhood issue. That is a sideshow. It has always been established that corporations are vehicles through which people pool their resources. Its not that corporations have rights, its that the people who own them do.

The real issue is, can the federal government ban the production and dissemination of a political documentary? I would respectfully submit that if the First Amendment's free speech guarantee is to have any meaning at all, it means that the government cannot outright ban political speech.

Importantly, and this is never mentioned in the press, the Supreme Court said that regulation of political speech by the FEC is appropriate. There are all kinds of regulations of PACs and Super PACs that I believe the Supreme Court would permit. Interestingly, Congress has shown no interest in replacing the outright ban that was overturned in Citizens United with sensible regulations. I would start with transparency. I believe that people are entitled to speak through corporations, but they are not entitled to do so anonymously. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. I would require the disclosure of the names and amounts of all donations to Super PACs.

Thanks, Chitown. Why should someone affiliated with a corporation be able to double-dip? Shouldn't their voice as a private citizen be enough?

[McKinneyTXHusker]

Remember what was at issue in that case. The FEC banned a political documentary about Hillary Clinton.

The real issue is, can the federal government ban the production and dissemination of a political documentary? I would respectfully submit that if the First Amendment's free speech guarantee is to have any meaning at all, it means that the government cannot outright ban political speech.

Thanks, Chitown. Why should someone affiliated with a corporation be able to double-dip? Shouldn't their voice as a private citizen be enough?

How often does a private citizen, as an individual, produce a documentary film that receives any significant commercial distribution? Even Michael Moore makes his (wholly political) films via a corporation, not as a private citizen. Why should Moore's corporation be able to continue to produce and distribute political films, while another corporation is barred from doing so?

[Husker Mort]

How often does a private citizen, as an individual, produce a documentary film that receives any significant commercial distribution? Even Michael Moore makes his (wholly political) films via a corporation, not as a private citizen. Why should Moore's corporation be able to continue to produce and distribute political films, while another corporation is barred from doing so?

Don't believe I said that, McTex.

[McKinneyTXHusker]

Don't believe I said that, McTex.

Not exactly, but you asked why a private citizen should be able to "double dip" - ie, distribute a corporately-produced political film - which WAS what the Citizen's United ruling was focused on. I provided my answer - because private citizens don't produce any such thing as private citizens - but SOME corporations (i.e. Michael Moore, Inc.) were being allowed to do so, while others were being told by the FCC that they were prohibited. That's what Citizen's United overruled.