Why does the New York Times Corporation get special privileges? The law in question in the Citizens United case gave the New York Times privileges it did not give Citizens United.
The first person to actually address the point. The law being challnged in the Citizens United case gave special privileges to corporations like the New York Times that it restricted from corporations like Citizens United. Citizens United was a corporation created expressly for the purpose of making a film about Hillary Clinton. The law said that they could not distribute that film within 60 days (I believe that is the correct number) of the election, yet allowed the New York Times to endorse a candidate (or to negatively comment about a candidate).
The best information I have been able to find suggests that the word "press" as used by the Framers of the Constitution refers to printing press, not news media. That is, a reading of the First Amendment relative to that would be "Congress shall make no law abridging people's right to publish whatever they want."
I do not believe there is any way to limit the ability of corporations to publish what they want that does not result in the government picking and choosing who gets to control public dialogue about political issues. And if the government starts picking and choosing who gets to control the public dialogue, it will not be long before the people it chooses are those who support the politicians who are in power.
The case in question was whether or not Citizens United could distribute their movie about Hilary Clinton within the 60 days before the election. The FEC said that the law said that they could not...maybe it would help if you were familiar with the law that was being challenged in that case. That law treated Citizens United differently than it treated the New York Times.
Really, you mean that the New York Times Corporation does not have any more "voice" than an average citizen? Why does the New York Times Corporation have more right to a say in public dialogue than Citizens United Corporation?
Why do you believe that the New York Times Corporation has more right to express their political opinion than the Citizens United Corporation? Which is what the law the Supreme Court overturned in the Citizens United case said.
How does allowing people to group together with others to express their political opinions damage democracy? Or are you one of those people who believe that only corporations that own newspapers/magazines/television stations should be allowed to promote their political opinions? Or maybe you think that only those individuals wealthy enough to buy airtime/print ads/billboards should be able to express their opinion? If I need to pool my money with others in order to do so, you don't want to hear what I have to say?
He misses an important point when he says that people were duped because they believe that if it comes from sources such as Google and Wikipedia that it must be true. That point is that people make another assumption, if it is supported by the RIAA and the MPAA, people assume, accurately in every case I can think of, that it is a bad bill.
Oh come on, is there anything he has done that makes you think he meant that? This is way down on the list of things he has done that violate that oath (although I agree that a President should veto any bill that he thinks violates the Constitution). He "recess" appointed several people while the Senate was in session in clear violation of the Constitution. He amended the No Child Left Behind Act by granting waivers to states for some of the provisions, even though there is no provision in any law for such waivers. There are other things that could be listed, but those two are not just failures to defend the Constitution, but outright violations of it.
Let's start with the fact that corporations don't have the freedom of speech. They're not endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.
However, corporations are composed of people who are so endowed. Those people do not lose their rights just because they choose to form a corporation. That is the basis for the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United. The Supreme Court found that the people who formed Citizens United had the right to form such a corporation in order to say certain things and the fact that they had formed a corporation did not diminish their right to say those things.
No, Project Gunrunner began under the Bush Administration. Operation Fast & Furious was the expansion of it under the Obama Administration. Operation Fast & Furious had several modifications from Project Gunrunner as run under the Bush Administration. The biggest one being that they no longer bothered to work with the Mexican authorities (or even inform them--or U.S. agents working in Mexico) to attempt to intercept the guns once they entered Mexico.
A lot of oppressing, poorly-fed soldiers will get more food to eat plus some for their relatives. It will be like Christmas for them as they get to use the extra food to reward their favorites.
Isn't that a good enough reason to allow yourself to be "duped" once in a while...?
I was wondering why the government was backing this. It seemed way too practical an idea. How were the connected people going to be able to siphon the government money off? Now I understand. It is not practical and the government expects the companies to lose money. Which will handily explain where the money went, without anybody (hopefully) noticing that it went into the pockets of big political donors. That did not work out so well with Solyndra and now people are looking closer at other solar energy companies, so the politicians need some other type of venture that isn't examined so closely.
There is already a projected shortage of uranium for nuclear power plants either already built or in the process of being built. This shortage is in the next 20 years.
Yes, it will be mandated that it works all the time and yes it will be checked as part of the annual inspection. And like all the other safety features it will be one more thing that will make a car that is in a minor accident too expensive to repair so that over time it will become more and more difficult for the poor to find affordable transportation except for that provided by the government to travel to government approved locations.
Moreover if we take this statement together with Luke 6:25; Matt 6:24 (also Luke 16:13); etc. there can be no doubting the import of Jesus' words: If you are rich, if you pursue wealth even, you are fucked for all eternity...
Actually, after the disciples question Jesus as to who can then be saved, Jesus replies that for man it is impossible, but God makes it possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Why does the New York Times Corporation get special privileges? The law in question in the Citizens United case gave the New York Times privileges it did not give Citizens United.
The first person to actually address the point. The law being challnged in the Citizens United case gave special privileges to corporations like the New York Times that it restricted from corporations like Citizens United. Citizens United was a corporation created expressly for the purpose of making a film about Hillary Clinton. The law said that they could not distribute that film within 60 days (I believe that is the correct number) of the election, yet allowed the New York Times to endorse a candidate (or to negatively comment about a candidate).
The best information I have been able to find suggests that the word "press" as used by the Framers of the Constitution refers to printing press, not news media. That is, a reading of the First Amendment relative to that would be "Congress shall make no law abridging people's right to publish whatever they want."
I do not believe there is any way to limit the ability of corporations to publish what they want that does not result in the government picking and choosing who gets to control public dialogue about political issues. And if the government starts picking and choosing who gets to control the public dialogue, it will not be long before the people it chooses are those who support the politicians who are in power.
The case in question was whether or not Citizens United could distribute their movie about Hilary Clinton within the 60 days before the election. The FEC said that the law said that they could not...maybe it would help if you were familiar with the law that was being challenged in that case. That law treated Citizens United differently than it treated the New York Times.
Because it will be easier to hide voter fraud with electronic voting machines.
Really, you mean that the New York Times Corporation does not have any more "voice" than an average citizen? Why does the New York Times Corporation have more right to a say in public dialogue than Citizens United Corporation?
Why does the law in question in the case give the New York Times Corporation more First Amendment protection than it gives Citizens United?
Why does the New York Times Corporation get more First Amendment rights than the Citizens United Corporation?
So why does the New York Times Corporation get an exemption?
are the people that compose a corporation spending their own money/speech on political bribes ... er.... I mean advertisements?
Does the New York Times Corporation have more First Amendment rights than the Citizens United Corporation?
Why should the New York Times Corporation have more First Amendment rights than the Citizens United Corporation?
Why do you believe that the New York Times Corporation has more right to express their political opinion than the Citizens United Corporation? Which is what the law the Supreme Court overturned in the Citizens United case said.
The question still is, why should the New York Times Corporation get protected by the First Amendment but Citizens United Corporation shouldn't?
How does allowing people to group together with others to express their political opinions damage democracy? Or are you one of those people who believe that only corporations that own newspapers/magazines/television stations should be allowed to promote their political opinions? Or maybe you think that only those individuals wealthy enough to buy airtime/print ads/billboards should be able to express their opinion? If I need to pool my money with others in order to do so, you don't want to hear what I have to say?
He misses an important point when he says that people were duped because they believe that if it comes from sources such as Google and Wikipedia that it must be true. That point is that people make another assumption, if it is supported by the RIAA and the MPAA, people assume, accurately in every case I can think of, that it is a bad bill.
Oh come on, is there anything he has done that makes you think he meant that? This is way down on the list of things he has done that violate that oath (although I agree that a President should veto any bill that he thinks violates the Constitution). He "recess" appointed several people while the Senate was in session in clear violation of the Constitution. He amended the No Child Left Behind Act by granting waivers to states for some of the provisions, even though there is no provision in any law for such waivers. There are other things that could be listed, but those two are not just failures to defend the Constitution, but outright violations of it.
Let's start with the fact that corporations don't have the freedom of speech. They're not endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.
However, corporations are composed of people who are so endowed. Those people do not lose their rights just because they choose to form a corporation. That is the basis for the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United. The Supreme Court found that the people who formed Citizens United had the right to form such a corporation in order to say certain things and the fact that they had formed a corporation did not diminish their right to say those things.
Guess what? Their prices are going to go up too.
3) tax gas like any other sale.
So, you want to lower the taxes on gas?
No, Project Gunrunner began under the Bush Administration. Operation Fast & Furious was the expansion of it under the Obama Administration. Operation Fast & Furious had several modifications from Project Gunrunner as run under the Bush Administration. The biggest one being that they no longer bothered to work with the Mexican authorities (or even inform them--or U.S. agents working in Mexico) to attempt to intercept the guns once they entered Mexico.
A lot of oppressing, poorly-fed soldiers will get more food to eat plus some for their relatives. It will be like Christmas for them as they get to use the extra food to reward their favorites.
Isn't that a good enough reason to allow yourself to be "duped" once in a while...?
FTFY
I was wondering why the government was backing this. It seemed way too practical an idea. How were the connected people going to be able to siphon the government money off? Now I understand. It is not practical and the government expects the companies to lose money. Which will handily explain where the money went, without anybody (hopefully) noticing that it went into the pockets of big political donors. That did not work out so well with Solyndra and now people are looking closer at other solar energy companies, so the politicians need some other type of venture that isn't examined so closely.
There is already a projected shortage of uranium for nuclear power plants either already built or in the process of being built. This shortage is in the next 20 years.
Yes, it will be mandated that it works all the time and yes it will be checked as part of the annual inspection. And like all the other safety features it will be one more thing that will make a car that is in a minor accident too expensive to repair so that over time it will become more and more difficult for the poor to find affordable transportation except for that provided by the government to travel to government approved locations.
Yes, and people who "reason ethically" by your definition can (and do) justify anything they want to do as ethical.
Moreover if we take this statement together with Luke 6:25; Matt 6:24 (also Luke 16:13); etc. there can be no doubting the import of Jesus' words: If you are rich, if you pursue wealth even, you are fucked for all eternity...
Actually, after the disciples question Jesus as to who can then be saved, Jesus replies that for man it is impossible, but God makes it possible.