This week there is just so much going on in our Law and Political Governing system, that once again; I need to push back my intended material, and focus on a recent national event.
Thursday's Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Its rear that the Supreme Court actually decides on cases, but when they do they usually pick a few at a time and over a few week span may vote on more than one, and that is what is happening right now.
In this case, it was a case to allow the government from limiting businesses and organizations form hiring workers such as writers and authors who support one candidate or political party over the other, also it would allow books from being black listed on book clubs and libraries.
How did the Supreme Court Vote to protect the freedom of speech?
They voted to uphold the current 1st amendment, of course right? They did, but it wasn't that clean of a break. The court voted in favor 5-4 to keep the 1st amendment intake. The four justices who consider themselves as "liberal" all voted "NO". Why would the Political mind who controls the White House, Both congresses and a majority in the Supreme Court want to give more power to the Government and less to the American people?
You can figure it out: Have you ever studied the Soviet political cue? The "revolution' that turned the USSR into a 180 degree turn? Study the USSR, and compare it with the Leftist or SR's in our political Left. I dare you.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Over the next several weeks i will be working on smoothing this layout and style but until then it is still important for me to continue bloging:
Since Laws are Public domain - will be quoting a large section of a Law Voted on today and decided in the Supreme Court. here is the full link: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION
COMMISSION
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
No. 08–205. Argued March 24, 2009—Reargued September 9, 2009––Decided January 21, 2010
As amended by §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002(BCRA), federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that is an “electioneering communication” or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate. 2 U. S. C. §441b. An electioneering communication is “any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication” that “refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office” and is made within 30 days of a primary election,§434(f)(3)(A), and that is “publicly distributed,” 11 CFR §100.29(a)(2),which in “the case of a candidate for nomination for President . . . means” that the communication “[c]an be received by 50,000 or more persons in a State where a primary election . . . is being held within 30 days,” §100.29(b)(3)(ii). Corporations and unions may establish apolitical action committee (PAC) for express advocacy or electioneer-ing communications purposes. 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2). In McConnell
v.
Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U. S. 93, 203–209, this Court upheld limits on electioneering communications in a facial challenge, relying on the holding in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494
U.
S. 652, that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity.
Where did our candidates stand on this issue in 2008? John McCain one of the writers of the bill had actually back tracked a little and made a compromise saying he would not vote on his bill in its form. Ok? Barack Obama on the other hand took a firm stance along with the 2008 Democrat Platform to reduce such funding. Ok?
Well then: So this new Law as it have been passed today, and can only be reversed in a future vote in the supreme court, makes it legal for corporations and unions to spend as much money they want on elections. What is interesting is that many Unions have the power to increase dues at any time, now could you imagine how many unions are going to increase dues just to aid candidates and political parties? ALOT. How the Supreme Court could have ever voted such a thing, especially after what happened in 2008: were many corporations donated the max amount of money to Obama's aid, as well as money prior to his official nomination were they were not so limited - later to file bankruptcy.
But this isn't a normal Supreme Court, a court full of wise non-partisan judges, it is a court mostly filled with liberal judges who are looking to advance the Democrat-Liberal Agenda in Washington to your home.
Since Laws are Public domain - will be quoting a large section of a Law Voted on today and decided in the Supreme Court. here is the full link: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION
COMMISSION
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
No. 08–205. Argued March 24, 2009—Reargued September 9, 2009––Decided January 21, 2010
As amended by §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002(BCRA), federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that is an “electioneering communication” or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate. 2 U. S. C. §441b. An electioneering communication is “any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication” that “refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office” and is made within 30 days of a primary election,§434(f)(3)(A), and that is “publicly distributed,” 11 CFR §100.29(a)(2),which in “the case of a candidate for nomination for President . . . means” that the communication “[c]an be received by 50,000 or more persons in a State where a primary election . . . is being held within 30 days,” §100.29(b)(3)(ii). Corporations and unions may establish apolitical action committee (PAC) for express advocacy or electioneer-ing communications purposes. 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2). In McConnell
v.
Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U. S. 93, 203–209, this Court upheld limits on electioneering communications in a facial challenge, relying on the holding in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494
U.
S. 652, that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity.
Where did our candidates stand on this issue in 2008? John McCain one of the writers of the bill had actually back tracked a little and made a compromise saying he would not vote on his bill in its form. Ok? Barack Obama on the other hand took a firm stance along with the 2008 Democrat Platform to reduce such funding. Ok?
Well then: So this new Law as it have been passed today, and can only be reversed in a future vote in the supreme court, makes it legal for corporations and unions to spend as much money they want on elections. What is interesting is that many Unions have the power to increase dues at any time, now could you imagine how many unions are going to increase dues just to aid candidates and political parties? ALOT. How the Supreme Court could have ever voted such a thing, especially after what happened in 2008: were many corporations donated the max amount of money to Obama's aid, as well as money prior to his official nomination were they were not so limited - later to file bankruptcy.
But this isn't a normal Supreme Court, a court full of wise non-partisan judges, it is a court mostly filled with liberal judges who are looking to advance the Democrat-Liberal Agenda in Washington to your home.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Who I am and what i think.
The most powerful media outlet today is the Internet. Most political science nerds surf blogs and news columns for hours on end hoping to read a post that reports good news for their candidate or political alliance. It is here were reports of scandals and dumb moments are caught and not forgotten while daytime television refuses to report the story. Blogger have one advantage over the Main stream media; they do not depend on ratings.
I think of myself as a Conservative-Libertarian, but more times than not i simply say Conservative. I am impressed with the Libertarian grass roots movement, and its backbone cause to address and fix the market by going back on the Gold Standard. I see this as an important, but difficult task. For that they have earned my highest respect. However the small government rhetoric which is intriguing to many, has left void gaps in their party for anarchy and liberal youth to stretch out its means, thus changing their goals. As the Democratic Party has shifted to the Left, so has the Liberian Party. This party was an alternative voice for Gopers, but now it is simply a fiscally conservative, socially liberal platform.
I look further to find a similar party which is more socially conservative: I find the Constitution Party, impressed with this party. But it is simply too small of a party for me to switch my voter registration. It only has a sizable presence in the south.
I find is surprising that Libertarians and Constitutionalists are at odds just like our current Democrats and Republicans are. No wonder both parties are having a hard time capitalizing on large numbers of new independent voters. Ron Paul a 10 term Republican-Libertarian from TX ran an amazing campaign in 2008, and ended up endorsing the Constitutional Party candidate Chuck Baldwin over the Libertarian Bob Barr. In so the [R'evol'ution] was stopped in its tracks.
Bob Barr even with Paul's endorsement was not going to lead the Libertarian ticket to any symbolic victory in 2008: because Bob Barr was not a true Libertarian.
In our current system voters are outraged when a politician during backroom deals goes out and votes differently on an issue than the one he stands firmly on, or when a politician changes parties and suddenly disagrees with past bills he voted for. Bob Barr as a Republican has the voting record as a RINO (a term given to big-business-big-government Republicans who vote on matter for elites and the rich.) he was the sponsor on Marriage bills against gay marriage, against abortions, In favor of the Patriot Act, and supported the 2nd amendment.
Once a Libertarian candidate: he became: pro-choice, supported gay marriage, was against the patriot act, and wanted to ban guns. He was just a 3rd option of the same thing. Democrat-Republican-Libertarian mixture in 2008.
So many disgruntled voters are sick of the political system, and maybe the political parties are all the blame. Actually they are a large part of it, but we as voters and non voters fill the gap and make it even worse. Many voters in the last several months before the 2008 Election complained that our choices were Democrat Sen. Obama (Il) and Republican Sen. McCain (Az) a Sophomore Liberal verses an old time moderate. [Isn't it interesting how the younger looking the candidate, the more likely he will win?] Not many choices here. So lets support a 3rd party: Libertarians are running a few ads in a few states and are really trying to build up state support in several Libertarian strong holds, and the Constitutional Party is doing the same thing in a couple states as well. Nader is running ads across a handful of states while splitting with the Green Party, but this time around isn't running as a serious candidate.
So in our anger we consider voting for a 3rd party, but on election day many of us either voted between the 2 DENO and RINO or simply stayed home and got angry on either outcome.
There is a voting process that would even help both political parties to get in line with the general public, and would eliminate the need of so many 3rd parties. Although an alternative voice would be nice.
Although it would be nice to be like NY: that has Liberal, Democrat, Independent, Republican, Conservative as well as a few other options on the ballot, where candidates can cross over on several ticket. But that is not in our control at this time, but what is is just as important, if not more important. We as voters need to be apart of the voting process all year long, not just every 2 or 4 years. During the primaries we need to go out and vote, It is here where many of the great candidates often fall short.
More articles to come soon:
Massachusetts elects a Republican to fill Kennedy's seat.
Mitt Romney was not a Conservative.
Martin Luther King Jr was a Republican.
What if Clinton were President?
I think of myself as a Conservative-Libertarian, but more times than not i simply say Conservative. I am impressed with the Libertarian grass roots movement, and its backbone cause to address and fix the market by going back on the Gold Standard. I see this as an important, but difficult task. For that they have earned my highest respect. However the small government rhetoric which is intriguing to many, has left void gaps in their party for anarchy and liberal youth to stretch out its means, thus changing their goals. As the Democratic Party has shifted to the Left, so has the Liberian Party. This party was an alternative voice for Gopers, but now it is simply a fiscally conservative, socially liberal platform.
I look further to find a similar party which is more socially conservative: I find the Constitution Party, impressed with this party. But it is simply too small of a party for me to switch my voter registration. It only has a sizable presence in the south.
I find is surprising that Libertarians and Constitutionalists are at odds just like our current Democrats and Republicans are. No wonder both parties are having a hard time capitalizing on large numbers of new independent voters. Ron Paul a 10 term Republican-Libertarian from TX ran an amazing campaign in 2008, and ended up endorsing the Constitutional Party candidate Chuck Baldwin over the Libertarian Bob Barr. In so the [R'evol'ution] was stopped in its tracks.
Bob Barr even with Paul's endorsement was not going to lead the Libertarian ticket to any symbolic victory in 2008: because Bob Barr was not a true Libertarian.
In our current system voters are outraged when a politician during backroom deals goes out and votes differently on an issue than the one he stands firmly on, or when a politician changes parties and suddenly disagrees with past bills he voted for. Bob Barr as a Republican has the voting record as a RINO (a term given to big-business-big-government Republicans who vote on matter for elites and the rich.) he was the sponsor on Marriage bills against gay marriage, against abortions, In favor of the Patriot Act, and supported the 2nd amendment.
Once a Libertarian candidate: he became: pro-choice, supported gay marriage, was against the patriot act, and wanted to ban guns. He was just a 3rd option of the same thing. Democrat-Republican-Libertarian mixture in 2008.
So many disgruntled voters are sick of the political system, and maybe the political parties are all the blame. Actually they are a large part of it, but we as voters and non voters fill the gap and make it even worse. Many voters in the last several months before the 2008 Election complained that our choices were Democrat Sen. Obama (Il) and Republican Sen. McCain (Az) a Sophomore Liberal verses an old time moderate. [Isn't it interesting how the younger looking the candidate, the more likely he will win?] Not many choices here. So lets support a 3rd party: Libertarians are running a few ads in a few states and are really trying to build up state support in several Libertarian strong holds, and the Constitutional Party is doing the same thing in a couple states as well. Nader is running ads across a handful of states while splitting with the Green Party, but this time around isn't running as a serious candidate.
So in our anger we consider voting for a 3rd party, but on election day many of us either voted between the 2 DENO and RINO or simply stayed home and got angry on either outcome.
There is a voting process that would even help both political parties to get in line with the general public, and would eliminate the need of so many 3rd parties. Although an alternative voice would be nice.
Although it would be nice to be like NY: that has Liberal, Democrat, Independent, Republican, Conservative as well as a few other options on the ballot, where candidates can cross over on several ticket. But that is not in our control at this time, but what is is just as important, if not more important. We as voters need to be apart of the voting process all year long, not just every 2 or 4 years. During the primaries we need to go out and vote, It is here where many of the great candidates often fall short.
More articles to come soon:
Massachusetts elects a Republican to fill Kennedy's seat.
Mitt Romney was not a Conservative.
Martin Luther King Jr was a Republican.
What if Clinton were President?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
