Article

2010-02-25 Home Front: Politix

Dodd introduces constitutional amendment to reverse SCOTUS on campaign spending

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2010-02-25 00:00|| || Front Page|| [5 views ] Top

#1 Dodd = tool.

Posted by Whiskey Mike 2010-02-25 04:21|| 2010-02-25 04:21|| Front Page Top

#2 We don't need no stinking Free Speech*!

*Free Speech copyright of the UAW, SEIU, et al of the Democratic Party.

Posted by Proocpius2k 2010-02-25 07:25|| 2010-02-25 07:25|| Front Page Top

#3 Last timeÂ I checked the US Constitution is awfully difficult to amend, not to mention that it is slow and that by November the Democrats will not have the majorities required (2/3 of Congressmen and ratification by 38 states)...
In other words its is just posturing very similar to male chimps trying to impress females.

Posted by JFM 2010-02-25 09:09|| 2010-02-25 09:09|| Front Page Top

#4 Oddly enough, and only through very convoluted logic, Dodd has a point. But the issue is not corporate campaign spending, but the entire premise of corporations being treated in the law as citizens with civil rights.

The issue began when an official Supreme Court reporter interpreted a decision to mean that corporations had civil rights, which he confirmed with just the oral opinion of the Chief Justice at the time, that this is what the rest of the court believed as well. That is, there is *no* SCOTUS precedent that establishes corporate civil rights.

Many of the other issues of corporate civil rights were then flushed out by a Lincoln appointed Supreme Court Justice, Stephen Johnson Field, who was on the bench for about 35 years. Often they were piggybacked on to the 14th Amendment.

However, corporate civil rights have now emerged as perhaps the most common primary element of all corporate law today. And therein lies the problem--that they are *not* persons. That they are inherently different from persons.

Elsewhere, the issue is being brought to a head right now by a corporation on the east coast, which is literally attempting to run for public office. In other words, it is no longer a stable concept, but is growing beyond common sense.

Legally speaking, as things stand now, this corporation could argue that it has the "right" to an election seat. To a great extent because much of civil rights law is now based on the 14th Amendment, which was very liberally written.

But back to the new amendment. This is the real amendment that is needed, not just campaign spending limitation, or other such surface gesture, but to address the entire issue of "corporations and other organizations as having civil rights."

Corporations must *not* have civil rights as persons, but they obviously need *some* rights. Corporate rights, as unique and different from civil rights. They need to be split away from any recognition as persons and have their own constitutional amendment.

Yet another reason to have a constitutional convention.

Posted by Anonymoose 2010-02-25 09:56|| 2010-02-25 09:56|| Front Page Top

#5 this corporation could argue that it has the "right" to an election seat

I can see it now: "The chair recognizes the Senator from Wal-Mart!" Or "the chair recognizes the Senator from GE." He who has the gold rules.

Posted by JohnQC 2010-02-25 12:34|| 2010-02-25 12:34|| Front Page Top

#6 well at least he has his priorities staright

Posted by chris 2010-02-25 12:53|| 2010-02-25 12:53|| Front Page Top

#7 Elsewhere, the issue is being brought to a head right now by a corporation on the east coast, which is literally attempting to run for public office

What?

Posted by john frum 2010-02-25 15:28|| 2010-02-25 15:28|| Front Page Top

#8 Murray Hill Incorporated, a liberal public relations firm, recently announced that it planned to run in the Republican primary in Marylands 8th Congressional District.

Posted by Anonymoose 2010-02-25 20:29|| 2010-02-25 20:29|| Front Page Top

#9 To what end, Anonymoose?

Posted by trailing wife 2010-02-25 20:44|| 2010-02-25 20:44|| Front Page Top

#10 Murray Hill can't be a public relations firm. It was my telephone exchange. Is nothing sacred?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-02-25 21:13|| 2010-02-25 21:13|| Front Page Top

23:46 trailing wife
23:14 USN,Ret. (in Michigan)
23:12 Cornsilk Blondie
23:06 tu3031
22:24 phil_b
22:19 trailing wife
22:07 Willy
22:05 trailing wife
22:01 SteveS
22:01 Glavigum Bonaparte4309
21:56 SteveS
21:43 Anguper Hupomosing9418
21:35 newc
21:31 Last Breath Farm Resident
21:29 Secret Asian Man
21:19 Last Breath Farm Resident
21:13 Nimble Spemble
21:06 Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division
21:04 Last Breath Farm Resident
20:55 Tom- Pa
20:55 Last Breath Farm Resident
20:49 trailing wife
20:44 trailing wife
20:42 Last Breath Farm Resident