A "living constitution" does not exist. The Constitution is not meant to facilitate change. The Constitution is to be thought of as a deed to property. It stands firm and is not for sale. Sorry, move on.
Think about this: Each citizen in our republic now has one vote. Each person has one voice. Each person is guaranteed freedom of speech. Where in the US Constitution does it say that money = speech?? It does not. This right wing activist court, in an effort to afford their political cronies more power, equates money with speech: someone with more money to have more speech. We need to amend the constitution to make it a felony to contribute more than $1 to a candidate for any office.
The constitution is so dead, it's just a relic for the sheeple to feel good about. Even in Rome once the ceasars were firmly in power the people thought they were still free. They had a senate and all the stuff they had when they were a republic. I think were about a decade away from the point of no return. Can we survive 16 years of Bush and Obama? Get rid of the CIA, IRS and all these other parasitical bureaucracy and maybe we have a chance. Also the fed has got to go.
See deconstructed videos regarding political satire: "Rush Limbaugh-Demagogues and Rabble", "President Obama's Amendment for the 99%", "Newt Gingrich: The Fanatic and Facile Fascist", "Ronald Reagan Tries to Get Out of Hell", "Rick Perry-Christian Rick the Perryman", "Citizens United and Morbidly Fat Cat Scalia" at haldonrichardson1.
Scalia speaks from the perspective of a constitutional originalist and from that perspective he is extremely consistent but that is a primary reason he chooses that path - consistency with the original reading of the text. Otherwise you get a situation of interpretation from 9 people who were not elected and have life time appointments.
This pontificating gas bag is the single most activist judge in history. His activist decision to trump the Florida State Supreme Court and Citizens United are right up there with Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson for elitist, undemocratic activism. Scalia is an enemy of the United States. Case closed.
Typical liberal Scalia opponent who can't distinguish his/her own perception of immorality from the Constitution. Citizens United? Yes, of course liberals don't want corporations to support presidential candidates (except for LIBERAL MEDIA CORPORATIONS, of course), that would be downright undemocratic. Thank the FSM you're not on the Supreme Court.
@Itsmeeman1 The 'Congress' you mentioned and the 'states', there in, does NOT apply to you and the 'country' you think you're living in.
The united states of America (country) went bankrupt 3 times and does NOT exist, except in your mind. The 'constitution' you're referring to is therefore invalid. It was replaced with a UNITED STATES of AMERICA (in capital letters) Corporation, so that the people there could continue to trade on the name but not as a country!
2) the 'tax' it refers to is NOT to 'individuals' but to corporations.
3) there is NO LAW stating an individual should pay an UN-PROPORTIONAL tax
4) there is NO LAW in existence that gives the IRS (a non-governmental corporation) the right to ask or demand a tax from an individual!!!! FACT - Learn to READ!
5) if you want to IRS off your back then fill the 1040 form in with all zeros! trust me on this!
@glitchnoise If you're really interested in that kind of stuff then start studying up on it. There's tons of stuff already posted on YT and I would suggest you start with asking why there are TWO USA 'Constitutions' as there's TWO USA's, only one being in existence, and that one's a Corporation, NOT a country! After that, you may want to look into the IRS and ask why you're paying taxes to them when you're not legally obliged to, as there's NO LAW stating that you should! Good luck!
@Itsmeeman1 Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913. Note History
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
The only way to abolish true income tax is to abolish this amendment. There is a law on taxes ^^^
@glitchnoise That would be quite a bit. Such as, Law Court cases where people have tried to use the 'constitution' to defend themselves and to claim 'rights', only to find out that those rights do not exist as the 'constitution' they think of as their own is NOT their's and since they (quote:- did not sign it, therefore, are not a 'party' to it.) There's tons more stuff about American's lack of rights and freedoms and status written in public records, but who's going to read them?
Richard Posner has an interesting criticism of the Scalia approach. Basically, Posner's position is that it is inconsistent to adopt an "originalist" approach to the text of the Constitution without adopting an "originalist" approach to the interpretive process itself.
Statutes in 1787 were interpreted very liberally. Anybody who's studied the Statute of Uses or the Statute of Charitable Uses knows that.
So, if we're originalists, that's the way the Constitution ought to be intrepreted.
@drbayoms He believes in a highly textual and literal approach to statutes/constitutional interpretation. He doesn't believe in looking to the purpose of the legislature or to their intent since he believes that judges would just manipulate it to their own advantage. He takes a pretty narrow view of the history and tradition of our nation, in order to support his interpretation of the constitution as a document frozen in time. He isn't activist because he doesn't want to go beyond the words
Actually he is an activist. Adhering to a "highly textual approach" to the Constitution...when it supports his ideology IS Activism in itself. And Tony do not ALWAYS use a "highly textual approach". Please take a look at his writings on the 2nd amendment gun laws. How is his "literal approach" on display here?
I appeal to those who understand that this man must be made post living to engage their patriotism in an act of lone wolf activity. This is a dangerously out of touch elitist court justice and must be made to pay for his treason against our nation. He is responsible for the deciding vote which determined that the corporations are individuals with the same rights as people. This is an act of treason and is punishable by. . . you know what. This act would put everything in balance again.
The U.S. Constitution establishes a well-defined democratic Republic: a sovereign representative democracy for the citizens of the United States. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land and, as such, is not subservient to the dictates of international charters. Any law repugnant to the Constitution possesses the mere color of law.
To ALL AMERICANS... the U.S. Constitution does NOT apply to YOU!!! YOU are NOT 'a party' to it!!! YOU are NOT 'the people' mentioned in it. It is a contract of debt and slavery against you and your earnings to pay off a debt to King George! It is a loan/debt agreement! Find out where your money goes when it gets to the IRS! You are NOT legally obliged to pay taxes to the IRS! You're paying off the interest to some one else's debt! Dumb Americans!
Many of those who have made comments on this video clip have NO idea what Scalia is saying. The job of judges is to interpret the laws and uphold the constitution, not reinterpret it for the times. The man is doing his job. Bravo!
I don't think you understand. Scalia says that the constitution is dead and thus needs to be revitalized for the times, this is a cute way of saying I have the ability to determine better than the forefathers what their intentions were. He is not doing his job. His job is to ensure that while considering contemporaneous factors, to hold true to the original intentions of the bill of rights and the constitution when ruling. Habeas Corpus comes to mind.
This man is Sick. The Constituion is not subject to the whims of bought judges like his ilk. Its time for a house cleaning, revisionist tyrants like Scalia deserve to be imprisoned or worse for such obvious treasonous actions.
I'd love to see him debate Michael Badnarik, Judge Napolitano or Ron Paul with this nonsense.
A lot of the US Constitution is permanent and means the same now as it did when it was written. Like the 1st and 2nd Amendments. But other parts of the Constitution is vulnerable to interpretation like the Equal Protection clause and Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
What a moron. He should be tried for treason you pompous idiot! He took an oath to uphold the Constitution and it's written in plain English ignorant fool. I hate these idiots that think they know so much and put themselves on a pedestal. NO where in the Constitution does it say it was designed to change unless specific rules are used in amending it! They are the ones killing it and it's up to We the people to breathe life back into it!The only thing dead is his brain..."Brain Dead Judge"!
Scalia's line of reasoning is extreme. The Constitution has never been seen as a "morphing" set of rules. The rules don't morph, they remain the same. However, the Founders did embed an extraordinary degree of flexibility into the document, because, being the wise men they were, they understood that the social environment within the country would indeed evolve with the passage of time. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition, and Scalia should be ashamed of himself for distorting it.
"Never in history has a federal court invalidated a law regulating the private ownership of firearms on Second Amendment grounds............................" Dean of the Harvard Law School 1946-1967, Erwin Griswold, Washington Post, November 4, 1990..............
200+ years and Scalia Thomas & Roberts and crew finally got it all figured out LOL
"Never in history has a federal court invalidated a law regulating the private ownership of firearms on Second Amendment grounds............................" Dean of the Harvard Law School 1946-1967, Erwin Griswold, Washington Post, November 4, 1990..............................
200+ years and Scalia Thomas & Roberts and crew finally got it all figured out LOL
The Muslim Imams in the Middle East that are controlling the muslims here said it best.(they really said this, but you have to be able to speak and read farsi to see it because these documents have never been translated into english.) If you cant beat them. Join them, and undermine them from within, like termites. Once you have sufficiently weakened them from within. You destroy them from without. That is what the Elite (Left and Right together) is doing to destroy the constitution.
A living Constitution is complete anarchy in which the aristocracy can simply legislate their will when the legislature fails them or when the capitalist class seeks to invalidate the will of the people. California judges overrule voters who voted yes on prop 8. 5 US 137 Marbury v. Madison was the last time our Constitution applied. Ever since we have relied on case law or judge made law.
It does not evolve except through amendments. It is certainly not a living constitution. That would be entirely political and utterly meaningless. Liberals always whine about civil rights being up to vote by the majority. In a living costitution the new party comes into power and takes away the civil rights f despised populations then. It means whatever they desire it to mean. Unelected judges deciding your rights on political whims?
@Hreinn91 The US Constitution was written with definitive terms and enacted with enumerated and limited powers that it may be interpreted and applied strictly over our course of History so that it may not be ambiguously and arbitrarily adapted to benefit one or disfavor another but to treat and provide to all men equal Justice under the Law, according to the dictates proposed in our founding Documents and expressed in our Common Law.
@Hreinn91 I don't think so, give us an example of vague ambiguity.. When i read ... the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed" I take it literally and without ambiguity. And as such any rule , regulation, or law concerning firearms in any regard positive or negative is an obstructive INFRINGEMENT thus whole and completely Unconstitutional without ambiguity. The Constitution is written for the layman to know when tyranny is upon him.
Justice Scalia is 110% correct. A "living breathing" constitution is one=Impossible and two= a one liner designed by the Anti-American Anti-Constitution demoncraps, liberals, communists etc.
@nytmstr Not totally exact. The founding fathers wrote the Constitution so that it would still apply in changing times. Times 200+ years ago are *certainly* different, and the fathers knew it would be different.
@nytmstr The Constitution is enduring Scalia once said, and correct. What is living is We the People who embody the Creator/Natural law the Constitution was spawned from.
Of course that is what you wrote. I am agreeing with you. And separation of powers does not apply here. The constitution does not give equal power to all three branches, just checks on the other branches. The congress can remove anyone from office and amend the constitution and the other branches can do nothing. only we the people can. And yes, and yes to both of your points as to a new congress that respects and understands our first laws.
We will not find justice at the hands of corrupt judges. (See YouTube videos) Judge to Judge on Illegal Payments to Judges / Evil Triangle of Court Corruption / Richard fine / Dr Shirley Moore slush funds /SBX 211. To end this title wave of corruption in our country must start with the corrupt judges. We can not bring evidence of corruption to corrupt judges. Los Angeles Superior Court judges are illegally and unconstitutionally taking 50,000.00 each for a total of 23 million per year.
I'd thought he and Dick Cheney met on a hunting trip to discuss the pedophile scandal. What's dead really? Didn't he had to have U. S. Marshals censor media at a church a few years ago? It goes to Orin Hatch and the Moral Majority claims. They made America defensless to AIDS. Now we are paying for it.
Well sir I am a sovereign. I am under no obligation to be PC for anyone. A sovereign is someone who withdraws their consent to be represented and reclaims their sovereignty. You are mistaken about the 2nd amendment. The right to bare arms is now and has always been our protection against a tyranical governing force. I know first hand that congress is confused, as I deal with them on a regular basis. Most legislators are not educated in the true meaning of our constitution.
Well Mr. Scalia, the only reason this philosophy has made any headway is because parasites like yourself has traded your soul to represent the courts and their elitist sugar daddy's instead of the sovereign public which you are paid to represent. You are the problem Mr. Scalia......you and your overpaid criminal companions. You can bet that a significant portion of the population are going to take back what you've stolen you pissant.....count on it!!
@stonecypher0306 But they don't represent the public. Or are you living in a bubble? Our so-called representatives do not represent the public. I have not embarrassed myself Mr. Stone....I am simply stating a fact. We no longer have representation. jail 4 judges dot org
@NoGuff Well clearly you did not pay close attention to the video. In the past several years we have had many treason pieces of legislation. The Patriot Act, FISA, Real ID, Pass ID, The Detention Bill of 2010, the Homegrown Terrorist Act, and a whole slew of others. These constitution shredding bills manage to get passed despite the fact that legislators and judges are both responsible for stopping it. He rationalizes this treason by saying our constitution morphs.
There are people, citizens, today who don't even know what freedom really is. They've never been taught. And if they were, they were taught by Leftists spewing their propaganda
They don't know there are 3 branches of govt or why. I can't tell you how many I've encountered who think the President works for Congress. I even have a good friend who's very smart who thinks the order in which the Constitution's articles appear are an inherent pecking order betrween the 3 branches
@NoGuff I have read most of the comments you have left and you are quite right. The president doesn't work for congress, but, neither does the congress work for the president. That seems to be the current philosophy in Washington. And all power granted to the federal government by the constitution was granted to the congress. And if congress speaks with one voice it trumps the president. The courts can trump an act of congress if congress strays outside the confines of the constitution.
"neither does the congress work for the president"
--I never said they did, I said the Constitution stipulates they are equal branches with separate powers. Thus, the idea of "checks and balances." The Congress makes law, the President enforces it, the Court validates it
"current philosophy in Washington"
--I disagree. If so, why was Pelosi considered so powerful?
"And if congress speaks with one voice it trumps the president"
@NoGuff Pelosi IS very powerful! As speaker of the house, she is the most powerful member of the congress and if all of congress supports her, she is more powerful than the president. I told a friend of mine last summer that if Pelosi ever finds out how much power she truly wields we will all be in trouble. I think she found out. However, most members of congress over the last few decades think that the president sets the agenda and that congress just validates his power.
"As speaker of the house, she is the most powerful member of the congress and if all of congress supports her, she is more powerful than the president"
--Yes on part 1, no on part 2. Separation of powers.
"most members of congress ..... think that the president sets the agenda and that congress just validates his power"
--That's why we need to toss most members out of Congress. They don't even know the Constitution.
This distinction between denotation and application is something the "originalists" are blind to and is the real flaw in their argument. Applying it consistently would lead eg to information technology being outside the commerce clause (since no IT commerce existed at the Republic's founding). In any event, insinuating that this approach to the 8th Am. is characteristic of a wider issue is misleading, since the 8th requires the Court to ask a question regarding changeable facts.
"information technology being outside the commerce clause (since no IT commerce existed at the Republic's founding)."
--You can't even grasp what he's referring to, you only have your dogma. He's not talking about clarifications of laws in consideration of new technologies, he 's talking about the itnerpretation of laws, rights, and the purpose of the Constitution itself in consideration of society's changing ideas.
He cites an "activist" agenda in the 8th Am.'s changing with "evolving standards of decency". The 8th Am. expressly requires the court to determine what is "unusual" punishment. As a punishment become less common in the US, it becomes "unusual". But, that does not mean that the meaning of the word "unusual" changes; it retains its original meaning of "uncommon"; all that changes is the answer one gets when one applies the fixed concept of unusual to the changing facts of the what is usual.
The constitution is dead. The founding fathers recommended that it be revised via a constitutional convention every few generations. This eliminates wild reinterpretations and twisting the original intent. In other words if you dont like me amend me but dont not put words in my mouth.
The living constitution preamble: We the Oligarchy of the US, in Order to form a more perfect central government, establish only criminal Justice, insure controlling Tranquility, provide for the common redistribution, promote social Welfare, and secure Liberty to the Oligarchy and our Posterity, do establish this erratic constitution for the US. Wakeup folks, we are on the road to serfdom.
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." However 1 defines "welfare," public financial safety-nets appear constitutional if the representatives of the people vote in favor of them. I think our Constitution has a heart & a beat.
A86 Because interpreting "domestic violence" in Article IV to mean what it commonly means today -- a household disturbance -- is idiotic, that's how. Any interpretive methodology that doesn't interpret that phrase in its archaic -- meaning original -- meaning, is brain-dead.
A86 "since the 2nd Amendment right to 'bear arms' is current interpreted to mean 'firearms'. Not just anything that can be used as a weapon as sklanger claimed."
Utterly false. It's in fact the other way round, since the Supreme Court itself has "currently interpreted" arms to mean "bearable weapon" -- not just firearms -- in D.C. v. Heller, precisely as I claimed.
@sklanger - Yes, I saw the statute you quoted a while I said that. But it had a problem - it just ASSUMED even things that did not exist in 1776. The definition the decision quoted didn't say "even weapons that don't exist yet".
@A86 You makes no sense. Implicit in general nouns (like "food," "vehicles," "arms,") is the notion that they apply to any class of objects that meet the definition. That class is neither bounded in space or time. It's an "assumption" only if you don't understand how English words function.
@sklanger - You bind it by space and time by binding the word to whatever the "original meaning" is of the time those words are written.
Even today there are limitations to the "bearable weapon" definition. A mustard gas grenade is indeed a "bearable weapon" but I doubt the right to carry mustard gas grenades would be upheld.
@A86 Nonsense. One can fix the meaning of a general noun like "planet" without limiting the word to planets that exist at a particular moment in time. Future planets of unknown composition may form and subsequently be discovered. Obviously.
"mustard gas"
But whether it is a "bearable weapon" is just one part of the analysis. A ban may still be upheld under strict scrutiny if it's a narrowly tailored means of furthering a compelling governmental interest -- not because it isn't a "weapon."
@sklanger - The term "planet" is a very specific word defined by the IAU. Much more precise than a word like "liberty" or "unusual".
As for mustard gas grenades I wasn't arguing that they're not weapons. I was arguing that the "bearable weapon" interpretation seems to have limits. Some things which are bearable weapons aren't legal to use on people for civilians. In a simultaneously more ridiculous yet darker example: the human penis.
@A86 And the IAU's definition contains general nouns that meaningfully encompass the class of future, as-yet unformed planets. Just as "arms" has a founding-era dictionary definition that contains even future weapons within the scope of that definition and its original meaning.
And your mustard gas example is pointless -- it patently failed to demonstrate that mustard gas grenades aren't "arms" under the meaning of the 2nd Amendment (which was what you set out to do). Again, end of.
@sklanger - The term "planet" was already defined before 2006. The 2006 definition is not the first and might not be the last. The 2006 definition was far more specific and excluded heavenly bodies such as Pluto which had previously been considered a "planet" by previous definition. So the 1926 definition of the word is explicitly not the same as the 2006 definition and excludes some things that met the previous one.
@sklanger - I don't know what infinite elasticity has to do with the conversation as "living document" proponents don't believe language and meanings are infinitely elastic with no parameters. What you're using is nothing more than a strawman argument.
And "funding" does not strictly refer to direct funding. A corporation funding a political ad for a candidate is still a form of funding. Just not of the direct campaign contributions variety.
@A86 It isn't a form of funding of the candidate's campaign. It's funding of my own speech. Again, just because the views expressed in my own speech happens to dovetail with yours doesn't mean I'm funding "your" speech or "your" political campaign.
As for elasticity, it has to do with refuting your retort that elasticity 'also' has parameters. Not if it is completely/infinitely elastic it hasn't. "Living" constitutionalism's indeterminate elasticity is precisely that way.
@sklanger - If the ads corporations run can also be carried by a candidate or party that's an indirect way of funding a candidate or party.
Earlier you specified you meant infinite elasticity. "Living" doesn't mean infinitely elastic and I know of no "living Constitution" proponents who believe language in general or the Constitution specifically is infinitely elastic.
@A86 It isn't "an indirect way" of funding you anymore than I am "indirectly funding you" when I buy a website and express political views that you happen to agree with. That's a very stupid and unilluminating way of looking at it. Because everybody is "indirectly funding" everybody else's speech in some remote sense, if that is the case.
@sklanger - If my company creates an ad praising you and criticizing your opponent and you're allowed to use it for your political campaign on TV and the Web that money I just spent went for a tactical and crucial part of your campaign that could give you an edge over your opponent. Now if several companies do this for your campaign and you're allowed to use them all - in a way that's reducing the campaign to whoever gets the most companies behind them wins.
Then that's not an "independent expenditure" -- it's a coordinated expenditure. Meaning: not "independent." Meaning, not what Citizens United was talking about. Meaning, your hypothetical is inapplicable. At this point I'm simply repeating myself when I tell you to read the case instead of making stupid hypotheticals that are beside the point, irrelevant, and a waste of your breath and my time.
@sklanger - No one ever claimed mustard gas grenades aren't arms. I pointed out that though they fall under the "bearable weapons" definition there is no argument to make them legal for citizens to carry under the 2nd Amendment. Obviously there are some limits to what "bearable weapons" are considered defensible by the 2nd Amendment.
@A86 Stop being idiotic. If my campaign uses the advertisement you created, it is by definition no longer an independent expenditure but a coordinated expenditure, as I would be "materially involved" in the dissemination of the advertisement. 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(7)(C); see 11 C.F.R. 109.21(d)(2)(i)-(vi).
Not all advertisements are independent expenditures -- especially not the one in your example.
The only one confused is you. Stop confusing others. And stop wasting my time.
It's only becomes something other than an independent expenditure if requested by the candidate or party in question. If a company, corporation or labor union does it on its own and the candidate or party didn't ask for the ad then it's not coordinated.
@A86 Wrong again. Read your own link, cretin: "A communication satisfies this part of the test if it meets any one of the five standards regarding . . . conduct." A request is just one of five possible ways for it to turn into a coordinated expenditure, not the "only" way.
If my campaign uses the advertisement you created, I would be "materially involved" in deciding when, where, how, and to whom it is broadcast, making it a coordinated expenditure.See point 2 of the conduct prong in your link.
@sklanger - And would a candidate or party be materially involved in the decision-making (the statues specifically state material involvement in the decision-making) by asking to distribute the ad own their own (i.e. independently of the corporation's distribution) after the ad has already been finished?
@A86 "Asking" to distribute the ad on their own would amount to a request concerning the distribution of the ad. Your tweaked example fails to evade even the first prong of the conduct standard. Are you such a simpleton that you imagine the FEC hasn't already thought of the obvious circumventions to the law before promulgating its regulations?
@sklanger - If a candidate or party doesn't ask to use it and posts the ad on their blog (let's say the ad is available on YouTube) that doesn't satisfy the parameters of material involvement. It makes little difference because even though the party or candidate did not ask the ad was already clearly made to promote them anyway. A corporation still spent money on something that could easily influence an election, a form of indirect funding in my and most people's book.
@sklanger - I added that bit on after a while. However, if the ad is distributed in a publicly available medium and a candidate ASKS to use it that still wouldn't violate (2)(d)(2). I later said the stature is irrelevant for YOUR example because the corporation is not giving direct campaign contributions. It's simple.
Yes, you are done. Absolutely nothing you said changed a blessed a thing as even asking to link a created ad posted on YouTube isn't material involvement. Checkmate.
@sklanger - Oh. I looked back and my example varied slightly more than once. If you look at the paragraph I'm referring to it starts off with (2). I arranged the citation as I did so there is no confusion. A minor point and it's simply you being bitchy and distracting.
The paragraph states "is not satisfied if the information material to the creation....was obtained from a publicly available source". So even if a candidate ASKS to link a YouTube ad it doesn't violate the clause. The end.
@A86 That's because it's (d)(2), which is why the subsection is labeled (2), you imbecile. As I said, you don't actually know how to read a court decision or federal regulations. That's a major indictment of your credibility.
"it doesn't violate the clause."
Wrong. Again, the paragraph exempts publicly available information material to decisions concerning the creation/distribution of the ad. Not the ads themselves, on whatever medium.
Get a brain transplant if you can't tell the difference.
@A86 Pitiful even from you. As I said: not all political advertisements are independent expenditures, especially your example.The plain terms do not state otherwise.
In fact, your own link explains why it isn't, and cites the same authority I do: 11 C.F.R. 109.21(d).
Have you read it yet? I'm detecting a habitual failure from you to read the things you cite. First Citizens United, now FEC regulations. It must hurt to be you.
You have no idea what you're talking about, as usual. Stop digging.
"they [the corporation] avoid confusion by making clear that the ads are not funded by a candidate or political party."
A corporation creating an ad promoting a candidate and then allowing the candidate to post it on their blog is NOT a violation of the independent expenditures clause.
@A86 I can only roll my eyes in amusement at how hard you're trying.
First, your quote is from the syllabus, not the "decision itself." The syllabus is not the "decision." Second, "they" refers to the disclaimers, not the corporation, as the actual opinion makes clear: "the DISCLAIMERS avoid confusion by making clear that the ads are not funded by a candidate or political party." Slip op. at 53.
@sklanger - Slip op. at 53 is irrelevant because no one ever claimed the party or candidate funded the ad. Putting an ad on YouTube would not make any party or candidate who decides to link to the YouTube ad on their blog influencing distribution as YouTube is considered a publicly available source. (2)(d)(2) clearly stated a candidate or party can use the ad if it's from a publicly available source.
Stick a fork in you. You're done. Thanks for playing but quibbling won't save you.
@A86 Slip op. at 53 is Citizens United, you dimwit. Why did you bring it up in the first place if it was irrelevant? You're contradicting yourself.
And that's not what "(2)(d)(2)" says. It says that the standard for material involvement is not satisfied by publicly available information that influences the making or distribution of the ad. Not that there is no material involvement if the ad is distributed on a publicly available medium.
Thanks for proving that you fail reading comprehension.
@sklanger - "(2) Material involvement.The law states "This paragraph, (d)(2), is not satisfied if the information material to the creation, production, or distribution of the communication was obtained from a publicly available source."
You should read the whole thing in context instead of cherry-picking tidbits you feel are vague enough to support your incorrect and misguided assertions.
Pack it up. You're toast. There is no refutation for this.
@A86 Except you stated in your example that your company created the advertisement that I used. And how I use that advertisement -- when, where, and to whom it is distributed -- is not information from a publicly available source. Your own example refutes you.
But you're right. I should pack it up rather than attempt to educate an obstinate mule, seeing as you are a complete waste of time.
@A86 Because interpreting "domestic violence" in Article IV to mean what it commonly means today -- a household disturbance -- is idiotic, that's how. Any interpretive methodology that doesn't interpret that phrase in its archaic -- meaning original -- meaning, is brain-dead.
@A86 The meaning of "bearable weapon" does not change with time -- it applies to any bearable weapon. The original meaning therefore includes within its scope any bearable weapon, whether or not they existed before, now, or in the future. The meaning of "food" doesn't change just because I invent a new dish tomorrow that the label "food" applies to. Don't be asinine.
@sklanger - What constitutes as a "bearable weapon" does indeed change. A taser was not a "bearable weapon" in 1776. Thus by your logic tasers should not be constitutionally permissible to carry since the original meaning of "arms" in 1776 didn't refer to them.
Tasers are not universally legal to carry in the US despite being a "bearable weapon".
@A86 Wrong. You are confusing meaning with reference. A taser that existed in 1776 would still be "bearable" and a "weapon." The original meaning of "arms" includes all past, present, and future iterations of bearable weapons -- and that includes tasers -- even if it refers to no weapon in particular.
That tasers are not universally legal to carry just means that its legality hasn't been litigated post-Heller. Handguns weren't either; then came litigation and McDonald v. Chicago last term.
@sklanger - Since tasers did not exist in 1776 they were not thinking of them. Now you're saying it applies to all arms invented in the FUTURE which means you're admitting the term is not "dead". Something dead can't grow to include something which doesn't exist at the time the contract was written.
And no, the government currently defines "arms" as "firearms" which is why the federal government has not nationally legalized tasers.
@A86 They were thinking of bearable weapons. And a taser would fit that definition. The meaning of a term can encompass even future, unimagined technologies. Just as "food" that has a fixed, "dead" meaning can apply to future, as-yet uninvented dishes. You have no idea what you're talking about.
@sklanger - Where did the Founding Fathers say "by arms we meant just any bearable weapons"?
Your "food" example is somewhat silly as "food" is considered what is fit for consumption. The definition of that varies from culture to culture. In parts of Paupa New Guinea human beings were (and still are by a few) considered to be "food".
@A86 The food example illustrates perfectly well how the meaning of a word can encompass and apply to as-yet uninvented dishes. Human beings are food to cannibals -- or do you claim that that statement isn't meaningful in the English language? If you concede that it is meaningful, then you concede my point.
As for arms as weapons, I've already answered that. Founding-era dictionaries give that definition. Game over for you.
@sklanger - Humans are not defined as "food" in the US yet are in a few societies of the world. Humans probably were defined under "food" for much earlier societies. We can probably be pretty sure ancient societies who saw humans as falling under the "food" category didn't expect this to change in the future yet it did.
"I cited a decision quoting founding-era definitions"
@wind0wninja Treaties do not trump the Constitution. Otherwise you would be able to sign away your 1st Amendment rights without amending the Constitution itself, simply by entering into a treaty.
@sklanger Half right, "every nation has the right to preserve it's existence..." This is done threw international treaty. It is was the founders did for themselves except that you likely have other adhesion contracts in place and no variation of agreement to come out.
It's just black ink on white paper...
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas and Offenses against the Law of Nations
Means that entire book was incorporated into the Constitution.
I’m no fan of Scalia….in fact, I think he’s the worst Justice besides Roberts. I also don’t agree with the premises of United Citizens v. FEC (the very existence of the Supreme Court, corporations or elections). But going along with the gag that states are legitimate and the Constitution is valid, wouldn’t the government barring firms from giving their own candidate of their choice money for broadcasting be a violation of free speech?
@AntonBatey - Hey! I'm well, I hope all has been well with you too.
While corporations do technically have freedom of speech, or at least its shareholders, CEOs and employees do, if they're allowed to contribute money the same way an individual does then they would always overrule millions of other individual citizens. I personally don't think companies should be viewed as people. I think they should be viewed as organizations like any other club int he nation.
It's hard for me to even have an opinion on this, since I don't technically think there even SHOULD be corporations, a Supreme Court or elections anyway.
I have to admit though, I do sort of like Sotomayor and Breyer a LITTLE. They voted against Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project in June, which I think is the biggest violation of freedom of speech in decades.
@A86 Look it up in Blacks Law dictionary. Or just think about it. What is a person? First and foremost a person is a word which can be defined as a speech sound. My question to you is can you be a speech sound?
How else can other corporations deal with you if not threw another corporate entity?
You're not a person, you have a person...
example: A86 is not you, it's your handle. It's a corporate artifice you use to interact with YT
If you assume to be the fiction then you're subject to it.
@wind0wninja - I think I get what you're saying. You're saying a person is like an identity, which I guess I can agree with in many ways.
However, corporations have the same rights in this country as an individual. Corporations may have personhood in the sense you were talking about but they are not individuals. They are organizations comprised of a bunch of individuals and some capital (physical and monetary). If corporations should be considered individuals so should every club in existence.
@A86 Yes by conventional wisdom, but what's it mean? The individual has the same rights as the Corporations, if you think you're a person, you're bound by the terms and conditions of that legal status. That's why we have a society which does commerce with other societies. How can you NOT be identified as a person in this system? You can't or no one can do business with you. Which is really better because it's the fiction is governed & not you specifically, under commercial limited liability.
@wind0wninja - Being an individual is separate from personhood. Being an individual is a state of existence, not an identity. Corporations don't exist as individuals. Regardless of their identity. If a single person identifies as several people (like people with Multiple Personality Disorder and some schizophrenics do) they're still an individual even though they have several identities.
@A86 Yes, but we all do to some degree. The CEO speaks for the Corporation like you speak for your Person. We all have to be slightly psychotic just to relate to the system because none of it is real. All the words we use to describe things are in fact not the things we've attempt to label. Language is about as abstract a concept as they come. When is it that you acquire an ID? At the moment of decision to be referred to in the past tense. Otherwise "dead". Just as dead as the Constitution is.
@wind0wninja - Proprietary companies aren't considered individuals because they have a boss which speaks for them. A CEO is a single individual within a corporation. A corporation is composed of many individuals. An individual human like you and I are not.
If the Constitution was "dead" there wouldn't be Amendments. The Founding Fathers knew it wasn't perfect and intended for it to be expanded upon in the future. Ex: the lack of mention of slavery in the original draft before the Amendments.
@A86 In Ballentines Law: Human = monster. How do you know what the founders intended? Show me how it's a living document. Where do you get your contract right? Why was it amended in the first place? To secure the debt of the United States. The original 13th amendment was "no titles of nobility" meaning attorneys can't serve office. Why amend it? So the attorneys could preside over the US bankruptcy. To this day the Prez and SoS expatriate to do so. Otherwise it's treason.
@wind0wninja - Trop v. Dulles, Missouri v. Holland 252 U.S. 416. When it comes to equal protection clauses liberty and equal protection are not the same now as they were 200 years ago. Originally the Constitution only granted the right of white male property owners to vote when leaving voting rights up to states.
@A86 Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah. 14 Georgia 438, 520 which states " But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true, is a compact but he is not a party to it."
"Living Constitutionalist" = Judiciaries usurping the power of the legislature
SCALIA IS RIGHT
cyberpolice9000 1 month ago 2
A "living constitution" does not exist. The Constitution is not meant to facilitate change. The Constitution is to be thought of as a deed to property. It stands firm and is not for sale. Sorry, move on.
sjr341 1 month ago
Think about this: Each citizen in our republic now has one vote. Each person has one voice. Each person is guaranteed freedom of speech. Where in the US Constitution does it say that money = speech?? It does not. This right wing activist court, in an effort to afford their political cronies more power, equates money with speech: someone with more money to have more speech. We need to amend the constitution to make it a felony to contribute more than $1 to a candidate for any office.
haldonrichardson1 2 months ago
The constitution is so dead, it's just a relic for the sheeple to feel good about. Even in Rome once the ceasars were firmly in power the people thought they were still free. They had a senate and all the stuff they had when they were a republic. I think were about a decade away from the point of no return. Can we survive 16 years of Bush and Obama? Get rid of the CIA, IRS and all these other parasitical bureaucracy and maybe we have a chance. Also the fed has got to go.
MrRrrrrrryyyy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
See deconstructed videos regarding political satire: "Rush Limbaugh-Demagogues and Rabble", "President Obama's Amendment for the 99%", "Newt Gingrich: The Fanatic and Facile Fascist", "Ronald Reagan Tries to Get Out of Hell", "Rick Perry-Christian Rick the Perryman", "Citizens United and Morbidly Fat Cat Scalia" at haldonrichardson1.
haldonrichardson1 2 months ago
Thank you for posting this, ForaTv.
writersblock26 2 months ago
Scalia speaks from the perspective of a constitutional originalist and from that perspective he is extremely consistent but that is a primary reason he chooses that path - consistency with the original reading of the text. Otherwise you get a situation of interpretation from 9 people who were not elected and have life time appointments.
boddhizattva 2 months ago
This pontificating gas bag is the single most activist judge in history. His activist decision to trump the Florida State Supreme Court and Citizens United are right up there with Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson for elitist, undemocratic activism. Scalia is an enemy of the United States. Case closed.
haldonrichardson1 3 months ago
@haldonrichardson1
Typical liberal Scalia opponent who can't distinguish his/her own perception of immorality from the Constitution. Citizens United? Yes, of course liberals don't want corporations to support presidential candidates (except for LIBERAL MEDIA CORPORATIONS, of course), that would be downright undemocratic. Thank the FSM you're not on the Supreme Court.
cyberpolice9000 1 month ago
Comment removed
haldonrichardson1 3 months ago
when justice becomes murder the constitution is dead.
TheTime4solutions 3 months ago
I think he means the interpretation that the court gives it rather than the physical text. I believe he is talking about judicial review.
slingblade98 5 months ago
So, Scalia says, "Unfortunately, activist interpretation of the constitution by the Court has caused much harm in the last few years."
Well, give the man, who created life out of inert matter, a cigar! He is, for once in his life, correct.
irrefudiate 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2/3 of Congress to morph it, huh? You haven't been paying attention.
spec24 5 months ago
Suck my non-fascist dic# Scalia. Amendments, 13th:1865 14th:1868 15th:1870 19th:1920 26th:1971 with the 1st and the fifth if we ever meet.
waterspindle 6 months ago
Comment removed
haldonrichardson1 3 months ago
Oh boy. SMH.
ceceliacolleen 7 months ago
It takes 2/3 of congress to morph the constitution !
3PawPaw38 7 months ago
@3PawPaw38
Or through legislative actions that completely ignore the Constitution.
Or Judicial review being established paradoxically.
Or an executive branch which ignores it
and a people that allow it.
Verator 7 months ago
@Itsmeeman1 The 'Congress' you mentioned and the 'states', there in, does NOT apply to you and the 'country' you think you're living in.
The united states of America (country) went bankrupt 3 times and does NOT exist, except in your mind. The 'constitution' you're referring to is therefore invalid. It was replaced with a UNITED STATES of AMERICA (in capital letters) Corporation, so that the people there could continue to trade on the name but not as a country!
You've been living under a lie!!!
Itsmeeman1 8 months ago
@boxingboycow
1) the 16th Amendment was NEVER ratified!!!
2) the 'tax' it refers to is NOT to 'individuals' but to corporations.
3) there is NO LAW stating an individual should pay an UN-PROPORTIONAL tax
4) there is NO LAW in existence that gives the IRS (a non-governmental corporation) the right to ask or demand a tax from an individual!!!! FACT - Learn to READ!
5) if you want to IRS off your back then fill the 1040 form in with all zeros! trust me on this!
Itsmeeman1 8 months ago
@glitchnoise If you're really interested in that kind of stuff then start studying up on it. There's tons of stuff already posted on YT and I would suggest you start with asking why there are TWO USA 'Constitutions' as there's TWO USA's, only one being in existence, and that one's a Corporation, NOT a country! After that, you may want to look into the IRS and ask why you're paying taxes to them when you're not legally obliged to, as there's NO LAW stating that you should! Good luck!
Itsmeeman1 8 months ago
@Itsmeeman1 Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913. Note History
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
The only way to abolish true income tax is to abolish this amendment. There is a law on taxes ^^^
boxingboycow 8 months ago
@glitchnoise That would be quite a bit. Such as, Law Court cases where people have tried to use the 'constitution' to defend themselves and to claim 'rights', only to find out that those rights do not exist as the 'constitution' they think of as their own is NOT their's and since they (quote:- did not sign it, therefore, are not a 'party' to it.) There's tons more stuff about American's lack of rights and freedoms and status written in public records, but who's going to read them?
Itsmeeman1 8 months ago
Richard Posner has an interesting criticism of the Scalia approach. Basically, Posner's position is that it is inconsistent to adopt an "originalist" approach to the text of the Constitution without adopting an "originalist" approach to the interpretive process itself.
Statutes in 1787 were interpreted very liberally. Anybody who's studied the Statute of Uses or the Statute of Charitable Uses knows that.
So, if we're originalists, that's the way the Constitution ought to be intrepreted.
UdallIn72 8 months ago
So when the GOP complains about activist judges, how is he any different? And yes I believe he is a Conservative.
drbayoms 9 months ago
@drbayoms He believes in a highly textual and literal approach to statutes/constitutional interpretation. He doesn't believe in looking to the purpose of the legislature or to their intent since he believes that judges would just manipulate it to their own advantage. He takes a pretty narrow view of the history and tradition of our nation, in order to support his interpretation of the constitution as a document frozen in time. He isn't activist because he doesn't want to go beyond the words
dak879 8 months ago
@dak879
Actually he is an activist. Adhering to a "highly textual approach" to the Constitution...when it supports his ideology IS Activism in itself. And Tony do not ALWAYS use a "highly textual approach". Please take a look at his writings on the 2nd amendment gun laws. How is his "literal approach" on display here?
drbayoms 8 months ago
I appeal to those who understand that this man must be made post living to engage their patriotism in an act of lone wolf activity. This is a dangerously out of touch elitist court justice and must be made to pay for his treason against our nation. He is responsible for the deciding vote which determined that the corporations are individuals with the same rights as people. This is an act of treason and is punishable by. . . you know what. This act would put everything in balance again.
imaginativelads 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The U.S. Constitution establishes a well-defined democratic Republic: a sovereign representative democracy for the citizens of the United States. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land and, as such, is not subservient to the dictates of international charters. Any law repugnant to the Constitution possesses the mere color of law.
ThingsTerrestrial 9 months ago
To ALL AMERICANS... the U.S. Constitution does NOT apply to YOU!!! YOU are NOT 'a party' to it!!! YOU are NOT 'the people' mentioned in it. It is a contract of debt and slavery against you and your earnings to pay off a debt to King George! It is a loan/debt agreement! Find out where your money goes when it gets to the IRS! You are NOT legally obliged to pay taxes to the IRS! You're paying off the interest to some one else's debt! Dumb Americans!
Itsmeeman1 9 months ago
@Itsmeeman1 what information do you have to back that up?
glitchnoise 8 months ago
Many of those who have made comments on this video clip have NO idea what Scalia is saying. The job of judges is to interpret the laws and uphold the constitution, not reinterpret it for the times. The man is doing his job. Bravo!
semajthethird 10 months ago
@semajthethird
I don't think you understand. Scalia says that the constitution is dead and thus needs to be revitalized for the times, this is a cute way of saying I have the ability to determine better than the forefathers what their intentions were. He is not doing his job. His job is to ensure that while considering contemporaneous factors, to hold true to the original intentions of the bill of rights and the constitution when ruling. Habeas Corpus comes to mind.
wearechangeatlanta1 10 months ago
@wearechangeatlanta1
He is attempting to update the book, so to speak. Only he is doing it based on political ideology. I hope he goes slowly.
drbayoms 9 months ago
@semajthethird Mine eyes can see that Lucifer is their Lord
A gorged neocon with 33 degrees in tow
He hath given the Zionist his sword
His swastika marches on.
HAARP HAARP Hallelujah
HAARP HAARP Hallelujah
HAARP HAARP Hallelujah
His swastika marches on.
thechangeling613 9 months ago
This man is Sick. The Constituion is not subject to the whims of bought judges like his ilk. Its time for a house cleaning, revisionist tyrants like Scalia deserve to be imprisoned or worse for such obvious treasonous actions.
I'd love to see him debate Michael Badnarik, Judge Napolitano or Ron Paul with this nonsense.
wearechangeatlanta1 10 months ago
@wearechangeatlanta1 WTH are you talking about???
semajthethird 10 months ago
A lot of the US Constitution is permanent and means the same now as it did when it was written. Like the 1st and 2nd Amendments. But other parts of the Constitution is vulnerable to interpretation like the Equal Protection clause and Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
FRSFreeState 10 months ago
What a moron. He should be tried for treason you pompous idiot! He took an oath to uphold the Constitution and it's written in plain English ignorant fool. I hate these idiots that think they know so much and put themselves on a pedestal. NO where in the Constitution does it say it was designed to change unless specific rules are used in amending it! They are the ones killing it and it's up to We the people to breathe life back into it!The only thing dead is his brain..."Brain Dead Judge"!
helobelow 10 months ago
Scalia's line of reasoning is extreme. The Constitution has never been seen as a "morphing" set of rules. The rules don't morph, they remain the same. However, the Founders did embed an extraordinary degree of flexibility into the document, because, being the wise men they were, they understood that the social environment within the country would indeed evolve with the passage of time. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition, and Scalia should be ashamed of himself for distorting it.
armyveteran101st 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ANTONIN "KOCH SUCKER" SCALIA...
HUMANSAREBENEATHME 10 months ago
Scalia is a genius and a scholar.
mjn76 11 months ago
Scalia is an absolute asshole-
PERIZ99 11 months ago
"Never in history has a federal court invalidated a law regulating the private ownership of firearms on Second Amendment grounds............................" Dean of the Harvard Law School 1946-1967, Erwin Griswold, Washington Post, November 4, 1990..............
200+ years and Scalia Thomas & Roberts and crew finally got it all figured out LOL
USAHistory1 11 months ago
"Never in history has a federal court invalidated a law regulating the private ownership of firearms on Second Amendment grounds............................" Dean of the Harvard Law School 1946-1967, Erwin Griswold, Washington Post, November 4, 1990..............................
200+ years and Scalia Thomas & Roberts and crew finally got it all figured out LOL
USAHistory1 11 months ago
Scalia +1, ignorant Americans -1.
diamondthree 11 months ago
His statement is a lot more accurate than he realizes.
Madfoot713 11 months ago
The Muslim Imams in the Middle East that are controlling the muslims here said it best.(they really said this, but you have to be able to speak and read farsi to see it because these documents have never been translated into english.) If you cant beat them. Join them, and undermine them from within, like termites. Once you have sufficiently weakened them from within. You destroy them from without. That is what the Elite (Left and Right together) is doing to destroy the constitution.
Porojukaha 1 year ago
A living Constitution is complete anarchy in which the aristocracy can simply legislate their will when the legislature fails them or when the capitalist class seeks to invalidate the will of the people. California judges overrule voters who voted yes on prop 8. 5 US 137 Marbury v. Madison was the last time our Constitution applied. Ever since we have relied on case law or judge made law.
911FalseFlagTerror01 1 year ago
It does not evolve except through amendments. It is certainly not a living constitution. That would be entirely political and utterly meaningless. Liberals always whine about civil rights being up to vote by the majority. In a living costitution the new party comes into power and takes away the civil rights f despised populations then. It means whatever they desire it to mean. Unelected judges deciding your rights on political whims?
911FalseFlagTerror01 1 year ago
@911FalseFlagTerror01 i think you misunderstood what he was saying. listen to it again and google living constitution if you don't get it
hitlerscow 1 year ago
everything the government does is constitutional unless the supreme court says otherwise
matchbox555 1 year ago
@matchbox555 I think this is a blind minded statement and naive to say the least.
altops 1 year ago
The constitution was written vaguely for it to be interpreted differently over the years so it can apply and protect everybody
Hreinn91 1 year ago
@Hreinn91 The US Constitution was written with definitive terms and enacted with enumerated and limited powers that it may be interpreted and applied strictly over our course of History so that it may not be ambiguously and arbitrarily adapted to benefit one or disfavor another but to treat and provide to all men equal Justice under the Law, according to the dictates proposed in our founding Documents and expressed in our Common Law.
isaias1776 1 year ago
@Hreinn91 I don't think so, give us an example of vague ambiguity.. When i read ... the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed" I take it literally and without ambiguity. And as such any rule , regulation, or law concerning firearms in any regard positive or negative is an obstructive INFRINGEMENT thus whole and completely Unconstitutional without ambiguity. The Constitution is written for the layman to know when tyranny is upon him.
altops 1 year ago
Why doesn't Scalia run for senate or presidency as a republican instead of being a judge. Judges are supposed to be impartial.
MrWsad 1 year ago 2
Justice Scalia is 110% correct. A "living breathing" constitution is one=Impossible and two= a one liner designed by the Anti-American Anti-Constitution demoncraps, liberals, communists etc.
nytmstr 1 year ago
@nytmstr Not totally exact. The founding fathers wrote the Constitution so that it would still apply in changing times. Times 200+ years ago are *certainly* different, and the fathers knew it would be different.
MinGophers 1 year ago
@MinGophers And our original constitution is based on common sence and normal human behavior, something todays politicians try hard to outlaw.
nytmstr 1 year ago
@nytmstr The Constitution is enduring Scalia once said, and correct. What is living is We the People who embody the Creator/Natural law the Constitution was spawned from.
altops 1 year ago
Of course that is what you wrote. I am agreeing with you. And separation of powers does not apply here. The constitution does not give equal power to all three branches, just checks on the other branches. The congress can remove anyone from office and amend the constitution and the other branches can do nothing. only we the people can. And yes, and yes to both of your points as to a new congress that respects and understands our first laws.
sunsabre 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We will not find justice at the hands of corrupt judges. (See YouTube videos) Judge to Judge on Illegal Payments to Judges / Evil Triangle of Court Corruption / Richard fine / Dr Shirley Moore slush funds /SBX 211. To end this title wave of corruption in our country must start with the corrupt judges. We can not bring evidence of corruption to corrupt judges. Los Angeles Superior Court judges are illegally and unconstitutionally taking 50,000.00 each for a total of 23 million per year.
danielcooper1000 1 year ago
Comment removed
donatellanobody 1 year ago
I'd thought he and Dick Cheney met on a hunting trip to discuss the pedophile scandal. What's dead really? Didn't he had to have U. S. Marshals censor media at a church a few years ago? It goes to Orin Hatch and the Moral Majority claims. They made America defensless to AIDS. Now we are paying for it.
bronjoful 1 year ago
Well sir I am a sovereign. I am under no obligation to be PC for anyone. A sovereign is someone who withdraws their consent to be represented and reclaims their sovereignty. You are mistaken about the 2nd amendment. The right to bare arms is now and has always been our protection against a tyranical governing force. I know first hand that congress is confused, as I deal with them on a regular basis. Most legislators are not educated in the true meaning of our constitution.
mozartgenetics 1 year ago
that's unconstitutional
waterchildtera 1 year ago
Well Mr. Scalia, the only reason this philosophy has made any headway is because parasites like yourself has traded your soul to represent the courts and their elitist sugar daddy's instead of the sovereign public which you are paid to represent. You are the problem Mr. Scalia......you and your overpaid criminal companions. You can bet that a significant portion of the population are going to take back what you've stolen you pissant.....count on it!!
mozartgenetics 1 year ago
@mozartgenetics - really? The role of judges is to represent the public? I think you just embarrassed yourself.
stonecypher0306 1 year ago
@stonecypher0306 But they don't represent the public. Or are you living in a bubble? Our so-called representatives do not represent the public. I have not embarrassed myself Mr. Stone....I am simply stating a fact. We no longer have representation. jail 4 judges dot org
mozartgenetics 1 year ago
@mozartgenetics
"traded your soul to represent the courts and their elitist sugar daddy's instead of the sovereign public"
--What are the things he did?
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff Well clearly you did not pay close attention to the video. In the past several years we have had many treason pieces of legislation. The Patriot Act, FISA, Real ID, Pass ID, The Detention Bill of 2010, the Homegrown Terrorist Act, and a whole slew of others. These constitution shredding bills manage to get passed despite the fact that legislators and judges are both responsible for stopping it. He rationalizes this treason by saying our constitution morphs.
mozartgenetics 1 year ago
@mozartgenetics
I did. I believe he's saying something else. Its not about this or that law, its about the changing of what things mean in the Constitution.
Ex 1. Natural born citizen. We all used to know what it meant. Now its not PC to exclude anchor babies, so it now means anyone born here.
Ex. 2. The 2nd Amdt. We all used to know it meant an individual right to own arms. Now it means only the Nat'l Guard.
Ex. 3. Congress makes law. Now, even Congressmen think Exec. Orders are law.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@mozartgenetics
There are people, citizens, today who don't even know what freedom really is. They've never been taught. And if they were, they were taught by Leftists spewing their propaganda
They don't know there are 3 branches of govt or why. I can't tell you how many I've encountered who think the President works for Congress. I even have a good friend who's very smart who thinks the order in which the Constitution's articles appear are an inherent pecking order betrween the 3 branches
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff I have read most of the comments you have left and you are quite right. The president doesn't work for congress, but, neither does the congress work for the president. That seems to be the current philosophy in Washington. And all power granted to the federal government by the constitution was granted to the congress. And if congress speaks with one voice it trumps the president. The courts can trump an act of congress if congress strays outside the confines of the constitution.
sunsabre 1 year ago
Comment removed
NoGuff 1 year ago
@sunsabre
"neither does the congress work for the president"
--I never said they did, I said the Constitution stipulates they are equal branches with separate powers. Thus, the idea of "checks and balances." The Congress makes law, the President enforces it, the Court validates it
"current philosophy in Washington"
--I disagree. If so, why was Pelosi considered so powerful?
"And if congress speaks with one voice it trumps the president"
--Constitutionally, it can, by overriding a veto.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff Pelosi IS very powerful! As speaker of the house, she is the most powerful member of the congress and if all of congress supports her, she is more powerful than the president. I told a friend of mine last summer that if Pelosi ever finds out how much power she truly wields we will all be in trouble. I think she found out. However, most members of congress over the last few decades think that the president sets the agenda and that congress just validates his power.
sunsabre 1 year ago
@sunsabre
"Pelosi IS very powerful"
--Isn't that what I wrote?
"As speaker of the house, she is the most powerful member of the congress and if all of congress supports her, she is more powerful than the president"
--Yes on part 1, no on part 2. Separation of powers.
"most members of congress ..... think that the president sets the agenda and that congress just validates his power"
--That's why we need to toss most members out of Congress. They don't even know the Constitution.
NoGuff 1 year ago
This distinction between denotation and application is something the "originalists" are blind to and is the real flaw in their argument. Applying it consistently would lead eg to information technology being outside the commerce clause (since no IT commerce existed at the Republic's founding). In any event, insinuating that this approach to the 8th Am. is characteristic of a wider issue is misleading, since the 8th requires the Court to ask a question regarding changeable facts.
mjl1000000000 1 year ago
@mjl1000000000
"information technology being outside the commerce clause (since no IT commerce existed at the Republic's founding)."
--You can't even grasp what he's referring to, you only have your dogma. He's not talking about clarifications of laws in consideration of new technologies, he 's talking about the itnerpretation of laws, rights, and the purpose of the Constitution itself in consideration of society's changing ideas.
Political Correctness is s prime example.
NoGuff 1 year ago
Comment removed
mjl1000000000 1 year ago
He cites an "activist" agenda in the 8th Am.'s changing with "evolving standards of decency". The 8th Am. expressly requires the court to determine what is "unusual" punishment. As a punishment become less common in the US, it becomes "unusual". But, that does not mean that the meaning of the word "unusual" changes; it retains its original meaning of "uncommon"; all that changes is the answer one gets when one applies the fixed concept of unusual to the changing facts of the what is usual.
mjl1000000000 1 year ago
The constitution is dead. The founding fathers recommended that it be revised via a constitutional convention every few generations. This eliminates wild reinterpretations and twisting the original intent. In other words if you dont like me amend me but dont not put words in my mouth.
pupil8 1 year ago
The living constitution preamble: We the Oligarchy of the US, in Order to form a more perfect central government, establish only criminal Justice, insure controlling Tranquility, provide for the common redistribution, promote social Welfare, and secure Liberty to the Oligarchy and our Posterity, do establish this erratic constitution for the US. Wakeup folks, we are on the road to serfdom.
Mike10four 1 year ago
thumbs up
yougiberishtube 1 year ago
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." However 1 defines "welfare," public financial safety-nets appear constitutional if the representatives of the people vote in favor of them. I think our Constitution has a heart & a beat.
supraTruth 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A86 Because interpreting "domestic violence" in Article IV to mean what it commonly means today -- a household disturbance -- is idiotic, that's how. Any interpretive methodology that doesn't interpret that phrase in its archaic -- meaning original -- meaning, is brain-dead.
sklanger 1 year ago
A86 "since the 2nd Amendment right to 'bear arms' is current interpreted to mean 'firearms'. Not just anything that can be used as a weapon as sklanger claimed."
Utterly false. It's in fact the other way round, since the Supreme Court itself has "currently interpreted" arms to mean "bearable weapon" -- not just firearms -- in D.C. v. Heller, precisely as I claimed.
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger - Yes, I saw the statute you quoted a while I said that. But it had a problem - it just ASSUMED even things that did not exist in 1776. The definition the decision quoted didn't say "even weapons that don't exist yet".
A86 1 year ago
@A86 You makes no sense. Implicit in general nouns (like "food," "vehicles," "arms,") is the notion that they apply to any class of objects that meet the definition. That class is neither bounded in space or time. It's an "assumption" only if you don't understand how English words function.
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger - You bind it by space and time by binding the word to whatever the "original meaning" is of the time those words are written.
Even today there are limitations to the "bearable weapon" definition. A mustard gas grenade is indeed a "bearable weapon" but I doubt the right to carry mustard gas grenades would be upheld.
A86 1 year ago
@A86 Nonsense. One can fix the meaning of a general noun like "planet" without limiting the word to planets that exist at a particular moment in time. Future planets of unknown composition may form and subsequently be discovered. Obviously.
"mustard gas"
But whether it is a "bearable weapon" is just one part of the analysis. A ban may still be upheld under strict scrutiny if it's a narrowly tailored means of furthering a compelling governmental interest -- not because it isn't a "weapon."
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger - The term "planet" is a very specific word defined by the IAU. Much more precise than a word like "liberty" or "unusual".
As for mustard gas grenades I wasn't arguing that they're not weapons. I was arguing that the "bearable weapon" interpretation seems to have limits. Some things which are bearable weapons aren't legal to use on people for civilians. In a simultaneously more ridiculous yet darker example: the human penis.
A86 1 year ago
@A86 And the IAU's definition contains general nouns that meaningfully encompass the class of future, as-yet unformed planets. Just as "arms" has a founding-era dictionary definition that contains even future weapons within the scope of that definition and its original meaning.
And your mustard gas example is pointless -- it patently failed to demonstrate that mustard gas grenades aren't "arms" under the meaning of the 2nd Amendment (which was what you set out to do). Again, end of.
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger - The term "planet" was already defined before 2006. The 2006 definition is not the first and might not be the last. The 2006 definition was far more specific and excluded heavenly bodies such as Pluto which had previously been considered a "planet" by previous definition. So the 1926 definition of the word is explicitly not the same as the 2006 definition and excludes some things that met the previous one.
A86 1 year ago
@sklanger - Typo. By "time" I meant. Not by space.
A86 1 year ago
@sklanger - I don't know what infinite elasticity has to do with the conversation as "living document" proponents don't believe language and meanings are infinitely elastic with no parameters. What you're using is nothing more than a strawman argument.
And "funding" does not strictly refer to direct funding. A corporation funding a political ad for a candidate is still a form of funding. Just not of the direct campaign contributions variety.
A86 1 year ago
@A86 It isn't a form of funding of the candidate's campaign. It's funding of my own speech. Again, just because the views expressed in my own speech happens to dovetail with yours doesn't mean I'm funding "your" speech or "your" political campaign.
As for elasticity, it has to do with refuting your retort that elasticity 'also' has parameters. Not if it is completely/infinitely elastic it hasn't. "Living" constitutionalism's indeterminate elasticity is precisely that way.
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger - If the ads corporations run can also be carried by a candidate or party that's an indirect way of funding a candidate or party.
Earlier you specified you meant infinite elasticity. "Living" doesn't mean infinitely elastic and I know of no "living Constitution" proponents who believe language in general or the Constitution specifically is infinitely elastic.
A86 1 year ago
@A86 It isn't "an indirect way" of funding you anymore than I am "indirectly funding you" when I buy a website and express political views that you happen to agree with. That's a very stupid and unilluminating way of looking at it. Because everybody is "indirectly funding" everybody else's speech in some remote sense, if that is the case.
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger - If my company creates an ad praising you and criticizing your opponent and you're allowed to use it for your political campaign on TV and the Web that money I just spent went for a tactical and crucial part of your campaign that could give you an edge over your opponent. Now if several companies do this for your campaign and you're allowed to use them all - in a way that's reducing the campaign to whoever gets the most companies behind them wins.
A86 1 year ago
Then that's not an "independent expenditure" -- it's a coordinated expenditure. Meaning: not "independent." Meaning, not what Citizens United was talking about. Meaning, your hypothetical is inapplicable. At this point I'm simply repeating myself when I tell you to read the case instead of making stupid hypotheticals that are beside the point, irrelevant, and a waste of your breath and my time.
So I won't. Ciao.
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger - No one ever claimed mustard gas grenades aren't arms. I pointed out that though they fall under the "bearable weapons" definition there is no argument to make them legal for citizens to carry under the 2nd Amendment. Obviously there are some limits to what "bearable weapons" are considered defensible by the 2nd Amendment.
You misunderstood the point of what I was saying.
A86 1 year ago
@sklanger - An advertisement is indeed a type of "independent expenditure". It's one of the primary examples used to define the term. Look it up.
A86 1 year ago
@A86 Stop being idiotic. If my campaign uses the advertisement you created, it is by definition no longer an independent expenditure but a coordinated expenditure, as I would be "materially involved" in the dissemination of the advertisement. 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(7)(C); see 11 C.F.R. 109.21(d)(2)(i)-(vi).
Not all advertisements are independent expenditures -- especially not the one in your example.
The only one confused is you. Stop confusing others. And stop wasting my time.
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger - Wrong:
(dot) fec (dot) gov / pages / brochures / indexp (dot) shtml
It's only becomes something other than an independent expenditure if requested by the candidate or party in question. If a company, corporation or labor union does it on its own and the candidate or party didn't ask for the ad then it's not coordinated.
Sit down.
A86 1 year ago
@A86 Wrong again. Read your own link, cretin: "A communication satisfies this part of the test if it meets any one of the five standards regarding . . . conduct." A request is just one of five possible ways for it to turn into a coordinated expenditure, not the "only" way.
If my campaign uses the advertisement you created, I would be "materially involved" in deciding when, where, how, and to whom it is broadcast, making it a coordinated expenditure.See point 2 of the conduct prong in your link.
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger - And would a candidate or party be materially involved in the decision-making (the statues specifically state material involvement in the decision-making) by asking to distribute the ad own their own (i.e. independently of the corporation's distribution) after the ad has already been finished?
A86 1 year ago
@A86 "Asking" to distribute the ad on their own would amount to a request concerning the distribution of the ad. Your tweaked example fails to evade even the first prong of the conduct standard. Are you such a simpleton that you imagine the FEC hasn't already thought of the obvious circumventions to the law before promulgating its regulations?
Stop squirming.
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger - If a candidate or party doesn't ask to use it and posts the ad on their blog (let's say the ad is available on YouTube) that doesn't satisfy the parameters of material involvement. It makes little difference because even though the party or candidate did not ask the ad was already clearly made to promote them anyway. A corporation still spent money on something that could easily influence an election, a form of indirect funding in my and most people's book.
A86 1 year ago
@A86 That wasn't your example. Your example was that I asked to use it. And that I used it not just on the Web, but "on TV."
That makes it a coordinated expenditure.
Now you're changing your example.
You lose.
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger - I added that bit on after a while. However, if the ad is distributed in a publicly available medium and a candidate ASKS to use it that still wouldn't violate (2)(d)(2). I later said the stature is irrelevant for YOUR example because the corporation is not giving direct campaign contributions. It's simple.
Yes, you are done. Absolutely nothing you said changed a blessed a thing as even asking to link a created ad posted on YouTube isn't material involvement. Checkmate.
A86 1 year ago
@A86 "I added that bit on after a while."
Your weaselly failed attempt to use a different example.
"However, if the ad is distributed in a publicly available medium and a candidate ASKS to use it that still wouldn't violate (2)(d)(2)."
False. That's not what "(2)(d)(2)" says. And it's (d)(2). Not "(2)(d)(2)." You can't even name the regulation correctly, let alone what it says.
Not to mention that it would still be a request under (d)(1).
Give it up. Game over for you.
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger - Oh. I looked back and my example varied slightly more than once. If you look at the paragraph I'm referring to it starts off with (2). I arranged the citation as I did so there is no confusion. A minor point and it's simply you being bitchy and distracting.
The paragraph states "is not satisfied if the information material to the creation....was obtained from a publicly available source". So even if a candidate ASKS to link a YouTube ad it doesn't violate the clause. The end.
A86 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@A86 That's because it's (d)(2), which is why the subsection is labeled (2), you imbecile. As I said, you don't actually know how to read a court decision or federal regulations. That's a major indictment of your credibility.
"it doesn't violate the clause."
Wrong. Again, the paragraph exempts publicly available information material to decisions concerning the creation/distribution of the ad. Not the ads themselves, on whatever medium.
Get a brain transplant if you can't tell the difference.
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger - Furthermore:
(dot) fec (dot) gov/ pdf / forms/fecfrm5i (dot) pdf
See Instructions for Schedule 5-E (Itemized Independent Expenditures). Political advertisement clearly falls under independent expenditures.
You tried your damndest to weasel around plain terms but ultimately you failed. Give up before you hurt yourself even more.
A86 1 year ago
@A86 Pitiful even from you. As I said: not all political advertisements are independent expenditures, especially your example.The plain terms do not state otherwise.
In fact, your own link explains why it isn't, and cites the same authority I do: 11 C.F.R. 109.21(d).
Have you read it yet? I'm detecting a habitual failure from you to read the things you cite. First Citizens United, now FEC regulations. It must hurt to be you.
You have no idea what you're talking about, as usual. Stop digging.
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger - The decision itself states:
"they [the corporation] avoid confusion by making clear that the ads are not funded by a candidate or political party."
A corporation creating an ad promoting a candidate and then allowing the candidate to post it on their blog is NOT a violation of the independent expenditures clause.
A86 1 year ago
@A86 I can only roll my eyes in amusement at how hard you're trying.
First, your quote is from the syllabus, not the "decision itself." The syllabus is not the "decision." Second, "they" refers to the disclaimers, not the corporation, as the actual opinion makes clear: "the DISCLAIMERS avoid confusion by making clear that the ads are not funded by a candidate or political party." Slip op. at 53.
Do you know what you're talking about? No.
Are you an incoherent mess? Yes.
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger - Slip op. at 53 is irrelevant because no one ever claimed the party or candidate funded the ad. Putting an ad on YouTube would not make any party or candidate who decides to link to the YouTube ad on their blog influencing distribution as YouTube is considered a publicly available source. (2)(d)(2) clearly stated a candidate or party can use the ad if it's from a publicly available source.
Stick a fork in you. You're done. Thanks for playing but quibbling won't save you.
A86 1 year ago
@A86 Slip op. at 53 is Citizens United, you dimwit. Why did you bring it up in the first place if it was irrelevant? You're contradicting yourself.
And that's not what "(2)(d)(2)" says. It says that the standard for material involvement is not satisfied by publicly available information that influences the making or distribution of the ad. Not that there is no material involvement if the ad is distributed on a publicly available medium.
Thanks for proving that you fail reading comprehension.
sklanger 1 year ago
@A86 To sum up:
You were caught confusing the syllabus for the opinion. A schoolboy error. More proof that you haven't actually read the decision.
You've changed your example. An admission that it wasn't an independent expenditure to begin with.
You don't actually know how to read a court decision or federal regs.
You wantonly misstate the law, and you're dishonest about it.
You're incoherent, which is a function of not knowing what you're talking about.
You're done, I've melted your face.
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger - "(2) Material involvement.The law states "This paragraph, (d)(2), is not satisfied if the information material to the creation, production, or distribution of the communication was obtained from a publicly available source."
You should read the whole thing in context instead of cherry-picking tidbits you feel are vague enough to support your incorrect and misguided assertions.
Pack it up. You're toast. There is no refutation for this.
A86 1 year ago
@A86 Except you stated in your example that your company created the advertisement that I used. And how I use that advertisement -- when, where, and to whom it is distributed -- is not information from a publicly available source. Your own example refutes you.
But you're right. I should pack it up rather than attempt to educate an obstinate mule, seeing as you are a complete waste of time.
sklanger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@A86 Because interpreting "domestic violence" in Article IV to mean what it commonly means today -- a household disturbance -- is idiotic, that's how. Any interpretive methodology that doesn't interpret that phrase in its archaic -- meaning original -- meaning, is brain-dead.
sklanger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@A86 Notice he doesn't say that the original meaning is "particular, singular and unified"? Admit you were wrong.
sklanger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@A86 The meaning of "bearable weapon" does not change with time -- it applies to any bearable weapon. The original meaning therefore includes within its scope any bearable weapon, whether or not they existed before, now, or in the future. The meaning of "food" doesn't change just because I invent a new dish tomorrow that the label "food" applies to. Don't be asinine.
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger - What constitutes as a "bearable weapon" does indeed change. A taser was not a "bearable weapon" in 1776. Thus by your logic tasers should not be constitutionally permissible to carry since the original meaning of "arms" in 1776 didn't refer to them.
Tasers are not universally legal to carry in the US despite being a "bearable weapon".
A86 1 year ago
@A86 Wrong. You are confusing meaning with reference. A taser that existed in 1776 would still be "bearable" and a "weapon." The original meaning of "arms" includes all past, present, and future iterations of bearable weapons -- and that includes tasers -- even if it refers to no weapon in particular.
That tasers are not universally legal to carry just means that its legality hasn't been litigated post-Heller. Handguns weren't either; then came litigation and McDonald v. Chicago last term.
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger - Since tasers did not exist in 1776 they were not thinking of them. Now you're saying it applies to all arms invented in the FUTURE which means you're admitting the term is not "dead". Something dead can't grow to include something which doesn't exist at the time the contract was written.
And no, the government currently defines "arms" as "firearms" which is why the federal government has not nationally legalized tasers.
A86 1 year ago
@A86 They were thinking of bearable weapons. And a taser would fit that definition. The meaning of a term can encompass even future, unimagined technologies. Just as "food" that has a fixed, "dead" meaning can apply to future, as-yet uninvented dishes. You have no idea what you're talking about.
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger - Where did the Founding Fathers say "by arms we meant just any bearable weapons"?
Your "food" example is somewhat silly as "food" is considered what is fit for consumption. The definition of that varies from culture to culture. In parts of Paupa New Guinea human beings were (and still are by a few) considered to be "food".
A86 1 year ago
@A86 The food example illustrates perfectly well how the meaning of a word can encompass and apply to as-yet uninvented dishes. Human beings are food to cannibals -- or do you claim that that statement isn't meaningful in the English language? If you concede that it is meaningful, then you concede my point.
As for arms as weapons, I've already answered that. Founding-era dictionaries give that definition. Game over for you.
sklanger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sklanger - Humans are not defined as "food" in the US yet are in a few societies of the world. Humans probably were defined under "food" for much earlier societies. We can probably be pretty sure ancient societies who saw humans as falling under the "food" category didn't expect this to change in the future yet it did.
"I cited a decision quoting founding-era definitions"
Which one?
A86 1 year ago
God bless Scalia! :D
RockyBalboa211 1 year ago
Article1section8 of the Constitution - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers...
So they can't pass an unconstitutional law because if they passed it, it had to be what?
"necessary and proper".
It also says,
-To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
Meaning international treaty under the Law of Nations trumps the Constitution.
Plus, where did YOU sign it?
wind0wninja 1 year ago
@wind0wninja Treaties do not trump the Constitution. Otherwise you would be able to sign away your 1st Amendment rights without amending the Constitution itself, simply by entering into a treaty.
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger Half right, "every nation has the right to preserve it's existence..." This is done threw international treaty. It is was the founders did for themselves except that you likely have other adhesion contracts in place and no variation of agreement to come out.
It's just black ink on white paper...
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas and Offenses against the Law of Nations
Means that entire book was incorporated into the Constitution.
wind0wninja 1 year ago
@wind0wninja Within constitutional limits. The Piracies and Felonies Clause doesn't cause the treaty power to "trump the Constitution."
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger What limits? there are no constitutional limits.
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers...
If they pass any law, they pass it because it's "necessary and proper".
wind0wninja 1 year ago
Hey Scalia, you dumbfuck, James Madison recognized that society changes, which is one of the reasons he wrote the Ninth Amendment.
AntonBatey 1 year ago
@AntonBatey You're the dumbfuck. Scalia is saying that it's the Constitution that remains the same, not society.
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger
Right, and it doesn't.
Dumbfuck.
AntonBatey 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AntonBatey That's not what you said earlier. Dumbfuck.
sklanger 1 year ago
Amen! We need more Justice Scalia's on our courts.
Gaius8666a 1 year ago
Scalia - a brilliant, well spoken man who sold out his country for his own benefit.
DrQuijano 1 year ago
Yeah Scalia. You would know....you helped kill it personally. Remember that Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission bullshit?
Thanks for handing the American government over to Wall Street. Prick.
A86 1 year ago 3
I’m no fan of Scalia….in fact, I think he’s the worst Justice besides Roberts. I also don’t agree with the premises of United Citizens v. FEC (the very existence of the Supreme Court, corporations or elections). But going along with the gag that states are legitimate and the Constitution is valid, wouldn’t the government barring firms from giving their own candidate of their choice money for broadcasting be a violation of free speech?
BTW, hope all has been well with you, sir.
AntonBatey 1 year ago
@AntonBatey - Hey! I'm well, I hope all has been well with you too.
While corporations do technically have freedom of speech, or at least its shareholders, CEOs and employees do, if they're allowed to contribute money the same way an individual does then they would always overrule millions of other individual citizens. I personally don't think companies should be viewed as people. I think they should be viewed as organizations like any other club int he nation.
A86 1 year ago
@A86
It's hard for me to even have an opinion on this, since I don't technically think there even SHOULD be corporations, a Supreme Court or elections anyway.
AntonBatey 1 year ago
@AntonBatey - Good point.
A86 1 year ago
@A86
I have to admit though, I do sort of like Sotomayor and Breyer a LITTLE. They voted against Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project in June, which I think is the biggest violation of freedom of speech in decades.
AntonBatey 1 year ago
@A86 Companies are viewed as people because people are corporations.
wind0wninja 1 year ago
@wind0wninja - How the heck are people corporations?
A86 1 year ago
@A86 Look it up in Blacks Law dictionary. Or just think about it. What is a person? First and foremost a person is a word which can be defined as a speech sound. My question to you is can you be a speech sound?
How else can other corporations deal with you if not threw another corporate entity?
You're not a person, you have a person...
example: A86 is not you, it's your handle. It's a corporate artifice you use to interact with YT
If you assume to be the fiction then you're subject to it.
wind0wninja 1 year ago
@wind0wninja - I think I get what you're saying. You're saying a person is like an identity, which I guess I can agree with in many ways.
However, corporations have the same rights in this country as an individual. Corporations may have personhood in the sense you were talking about but they are not individuals. They are organizations comprised of a bunch of individuals and some capital (physical and monetary). If corporations should be considered individuals so should every club in existence.
A86 1 year ago
@A86 Yes by conventional wisdom, but what's it mean? The individual has the same rights as the Corporations, if you think you're a person, you're bound by the terms and conditions of that legal status. That's why we have a society which does commerce with other societies. How can you NOT be identified as a person in this system? You can't or no one can do business with you. Which is really better because it's the fiction is governed & not you specifically, under commercial limited liability.
wind0wninja 1 year ago
@wind0wninja - Being an individual is separate from personhood. Being an individual is a state of existence, not an identity. Corporations don't exist as individuals. Regardless of their identity. If a single person identifies as several people (like people with Multiple Personality Disorder and some schizophrenics do) they're still an individual even though they have several identities.
A86 1 year ago
@A86 Yes, but we all do to some degree. The CEO speaks for the Corporation like you speak for your Person. We all have to be slightly psychotic just to relate to the system because none of it is real. All the words we use to describe things are in fact not the things we've attempt to label. Language is about as abstract a concept as they come. When is it that you acquire an ID? At the moment of decision to be referred to in the past tense. Otherwise "dead". Just as dead as the Constitution is.
wind0wninja 1 year ago
@wind0wninja - Proprietary companies aren't considered individuals because they have a boss which speaks for them. A CEO is a single individual within a corporation. A corporation is composed of many individuals. An individual human like you and I are not.
If the Constitution was "dead" there wouldn't be Amendments. The Founding Fathers knew it wasn't perfect and intended for it to be expanded upon in the future. Ex: the lack of mention of slavery in the original draft before the Amendments.
A86 1 year ago
@A86 In Ballentines Law: Human = monster. How do you know what the founders intended? Show me how it's a living document. Where do you get your contract right? Why was it amended in the first place? To secure the debt of the United States. The original 13th amendment was "no titles of nobility" meaning attorneys can't serve office. Why amend it? So the attorneys could preside over the US bankruptcy. To this day the Prez and SoS expatriate to do so. Otherwise it's treason.
/watch?v=EQ5MyGFiCJk
wind0wninja 1 year ago
@wind0wninja - Trop v. Dulles, Missouri v. Holland 252 U.S. 416. When it comes to equal protection clauses liberty and equal protection are not the same now as they were 200 years ago. Originally the Constitution only granted the right of white male property owners to vote when leaving voting rights up to states.
A86 1 year ago
@A86 Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah. 14 Georgia 438, 520 which states " But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true, is a compact but he is not a party to it."
wind0wninja 1 year ago
@wind0wninja - What does a breach of the Constitution have to do with whether or not it adjusts?
A86 1 year ago
@A86 Like Padelford, we're not party to it. It doesn't adjust per se it's just subject to International Treaty.
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.
They can't pass an unconstitutional law. Why? if they passed it, it had to be... "necessary and proper".
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas and Offenses against the Law of Nations
International treaty under Law of Nations trumps the Constitution
wind0wninja 1 year ago