Osler's Razor

I had a different reaction; I thought Kennedy's strict scrutiny test was improperly done. He seemed to assume that this had a chilling effect/restriction on speech that was somehow unnecessary or chilled more than the speech that sought to be chilled. I read the law as more of a reasonable time, place and manner restriction rather than a simple ban on speech.

After all, no one has banned large organizations, including corporations, from engaging in lobbying, political speech, or campaigning... just no electioneering within 30 days of an election. That is more akin to keeping pollsters away from polling places by 100 yards than it is an actual chill on speech.

*shrug*

There are other legislative options that Congress could pass soon that would be better protections than McCain-Feingold.
 

Personally, I'd outlaw the death penalty and make it explicitly clear that gay people are entitled to the same rights and protections as straight people. I'd also make it explicitly clear that corporations are not people and do not enjoy the same rights and freedoms as actual human beings. I would probably also throw in some term limit clauses for Congress and the Senate. I would remove the requirement that a person must be a natural born citizen in order to be President.

That's all I can think of at the moment, although I'm sure I'll think of a few more soon enough.
 

I'd require more cowbell.
 

What amendments would I make to the Constitution? Primarily, I would just clean up the language of a few amendments. For instance, I would split the First Amendment up into sub-amendments. For instance, it should protect: (1) political speech; (2) social, artistic, scientific, literary or other valuable expression; (3) freedom of religious expression; (4) freedom from religious establishment; (5) freedom of the press to publish what they feel is necessary limited only by libel law; (6) freedom of the press to protect confidential sources except in cases of court order.

I would likewise amend the 8th Amendment to exclude the death penalty, at least until greater procedural safeguards could be put in place.

I would redefine the scope of habeas corpus to apply to all persons subject to legal jeopardy within the United States.

I would also have all national offices elected directly.

And, of course, I would amend the Constitution to prevent the private ownership of the means of production, and rather have them owned by local cooperatives (hahaha you all thought I'd gone soft on you!).
 

Oh yeah, and get rid of the electoral college.
 

While I enjoyed Keith Olberman's (that faithful GE employee) comparison of this decision to Dred Scott, I think he's gone a bit "over-the-top" again (see his apology to Scott Brown as induced by his comrade Mr. Stewart). I just don't see disastrous consequences from this decision. If anything, it begins to level the playing field. Now, instead of October surprises only from media subsidiaries (forged documents anyone?) and other huge corporations that can afford to lobby and navigate the current regulations, the little corps. can get a message out, too.

As for changes to the current Constitution, I think we'd be much better off without the 16th & 17th Amendments.
 

I agree with your reading of the opinion and generally with the undesireable practical effects.

However, one thing that is worth considering is the fact that if the President can -- with a simple announcement of a war on banks -- in one day drop a corporations stock value by 5%-10% (or more?), shouldn't those voters, united and stronger by their common shares (much like unions), be able to have some impact on who holds the title of President?

I'm not sure what the proper approach is, but I am sure that Kennedy got McCain-Feingold right.
 

I would also vote to get rid of the 17th amendment. Specifically, let's go back to the old way of electing senators.
 

How is it that the corporate money skews elections? America spent something like 8 billion on ALL elections last year. That's about the same as we spend on potato chips.
Furthermore, I don't see how the corporate donations further the distance between "human constituents," corporations are after all run by people. These people get together and decide its bad for business when the president does A, B, C, or D. Since money is at stake, they put out political speech to stop him.
How is that different than me giving money to a candidate that promises to lower my taxes?
i'm not saying there shouldn't be limits on the amounts. If a corporation is an entity like me, it should be limited to certain amounts just like I am or the non-profit is, or the PAC is.
I don't, however, think that this will really cause any real changes in how elections are run or viewed. In the end, it's still people that vote.
 

ADA-- My understanding is that this decision removed the chance that there could be limits on what corporations could spend directly on political advertising.

There still can be limits on what can be given to a candidate.
 

Since when do corporations have individual rights?
 

Require Congressional districts to be drawn simply by geography via independent commissions (as done in Iowa) to set up more competitive races for Congress.
 

Corporations like Exxon Mobil and GE have a lot more money than most PACs and certainly more than private individuals. While it's true that corporations are run by people, their allocation of resources is (generally) controlled by a small group of people. So while a group of, say, 5 individuals can only donate so much money to do things like buy airtime for commercials and do direct mailings, a group of 5 corporations has a much greater ability to do so. What's to stop a company or group of companies from deciding that they're going to spend $200 million on an election in order to assure that the candidate of their choice gets as much exposure as possible.

Also, I'm curious as to why some of you dislike the 17th amendment. What's the problem with direct election of senators?
 

the one amendment to the constitution that I would pass is easy to figure out for anyone who has walked through BLS parkinglot...

i would ban kittens.
 

third amendment is stupid. i would get rid of the thrid amendment.
 

The 3d Amendment is arguably the most effective amendment in the history of civilization.

Number of soldiers quartered in homes without the owner's consent during peacetime in America, post passage: ZERO.
 

First, this line made me proud:

"Since when do corporations have individual rights?"

Direct, funny, and true. Nicely played.

Second, I think the Supreme Court did good on this one. Victory for first amendment rights.

Third, I think getting rid of the 16th amendment is a good idea.

Fourth, potential amendments I would like to see:

-free beer on fridays.

-an amendment making it illegal for you to cough when you walk by me and I'm smoking...look, I get it, drama queen.

-an amendment banning the Philadelphia Eagles from playing professional football. I will never forgive them for what they did to the playmaker.

-an amendment to prohibit serious people from arguing in favor of the merits of Madonna's music.

-an amendment making Osler the King of Detroit. The Superdome can be his castle.
 

I heartily disapprove of what Jonathan says, but I will defend to the death his right to say it. Wait, Jonathan...you aren't incorporated are you? :P
 

My first change would be to abolish the death penalty.

My second change would be to state more clearly in the 2nd amendment that the "right to bear arms" is subject to deep and meaningful criminal background checks AND firearms training.

My third change would be to state that corporations are not people and are not therefore entitled to the rights that people are.

And let me quote Justice O'Connor here, for all you lawyer types...

“I think today we can anticipate that labor unions and trial lawyers, for instance, might have the financial means to win one particular state judicial election,” she said, “And maybe tobacco firms and energy companies have enough to win the next one. And if both sides unleash their campaign spending monies without restrictions, then I think mutually assured destruction is the most likely outcome.”
 

Repeal the direct election of senators.
 

Seriously, will someone explain this to me? What is wrong with letting the people of a state choose their national senator?
 

I would pass an amendment that read:

"No State shall deny to any citizen the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, as expressed in any provision of the Amendments to this Constitution.

Nothing in this provision shall be construed to limit the protection of the equal protection of the law afforded to any person within a State's jurisdiction."
 

Yeah, I don't understand what's wrong with directly electing U. S. senators, either.

I second Justin, IPLG, and TallTenor's requests.

And get rid of the electoral college, as someone said.

Also, I would add an amendment making all compulsory K-12 education public, banning the ability to open a private K-12 school.
 

To Tapp and the other 17th A. lovers...I liked thhttp://www.nhinet.org/hoebeke.htm
 

This link provides a better answer to Tapp's question (and other 17th A. lovers) than I could hope to provide: http://www.nhinet.org/hoebeke.htm

My brief take: The idea of bicameralism was to balance direct and representative democracy to avoid majority tyranny (in saying this I imagine Beal screaming something about babies), and the 17th A. undermines that balance. Further, the supposed goals of the 17th A. were surprisingly similar to the recent "progressive" reforms to campaign finance. Not surprisingly, the results of these changes evidence a massive failure to cure our money-in-politics problems, and seem instead to exacerbate them.
 

The fear of a "tyranny of the majority" is unfounded, because we have a rule of law that prevents the majority from taking actions that are to the detriment of the minority. The idea that the people cannot be trusted to govern themselves is a holdover from the elitism of the aristocracy.
 

So basically the American people aren't smart enough to directly elect their own senators, and need the legislators they directly elected to do it for them? If there's one thing that always makes things less complicated and more productive, it's a middleman.
 

While it's ironic to hear lefties (the champions of bureaucrats and judicial oligarchs) rail against elitism and aristocracy, you didn't address the 2nd part of my answer to your question. Or are you conceding that (like so many "progressive reforms") the 17th A. failed miserably to cure the problems it was designed to address?
 

Kendall, how many "leftists" do you know? I ask because traditionally, leftists are on the side of labor and the working class against the gentry, aristocracy and capital-holders. Federalists generally paint the 17A in a negative light because, as was the case in 1776, they desire an oligarchy of powerful, monied interests to rule. The rallying cry of federalists has been that "special interests" control Senators, but no hard data showing that Senators vote against their constituencies in favor of lobbyists exists… mostly because that's entirely false.

The people can be trusted to elect their own legislators to represent their interests in Congress
 

Lane...How many "federalists" do you know? Your view of the founders is drastically different than mine, which means we will probably agree on very little. Leftists give lip service to standing up for labor until they get power and the laborers disagree with them (like right now). That's why the "nanny state" is such an appropriate term. Conservatives (like the founders) want to maximize economic liberty for all. The Senate was designed to make the Feds. less efficient to ensure greater consensus and avoid short-run populism before making dramatic changes. As you implied, I'm sure you're aware of these arguments against the 17th A., which makes senators less accountable to the states they represent (and less responsive to individuals who don't make large campaign contributions). This has contributed to a massive expansion in the size and scope of the federal govt.

"[N]o hard data showing that Senators vote against their constituencies in favor of lobbyists exists… mostly because that's entirely false."
Hmm...if that is true, why do we need campaign finance reform?

This is a good conversation, but it seems everyone else has moved on, so I will too. I'll leave you the last word at your discretion.
 

Conservatives (like the founders) want to maximize economic liberty for all.

I'm pretty sure the founders didn't believe in economic liberty for all, specifically anyone who wasn't a white property-owning male. Last time I checked, 3/5 ≠ 5/5.
 

Kendall, I hate being one of those "gotta have the last word" people, because I'm not, but calling the founders "conservatives" by modern lights is a bit disingenuous. For their time, they were quite radical, all of them, although their specific ideological leanings varied quite widely. No one will accuse Hamilton and Jefferson of being political bedfellows.