Re: A new "constitutional right"

Home| Search | About
User Password
Register Now! Lost Password?

General Metalworking - All aspects of working with metal. 

Bookmark this page:  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Re: A new "constitutional right" Ed Huntress 01-30-2010
Posted by Ed Huntress on January 30, 2010, 12:59 pm
Please log in for more thread options


>
>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:09:54 -0600, grey_ghost471-newsgroups@yahoo.com
>> (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>>>>> Buy your rethugs now !!!
>>>>
>>>> Excuse me, but unions support the Dems and the decision was about
>>>> corporations and the last 60 days prior to an election.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Do you expect Cliff to get anything right?
>>
>> The decision applied to unions.
>
> The decision applied to unions *AND* corporations.

There was no decision regarding unions. It would require another case to
decide it, and speculation is all over the map.

> The Democrats, of
> course, are more concerned about the corporations getting their voice
> back after losing it in McCain-Feingold than they are about the unions
> getting theirs back. Ever wonder why?

No question. The corporations are interested in things that will improve
their bottom line, like having the ability to move all their manufacturing
operations to China. Republicans are very GDP-centered and have favored
corporate interests since before the turn of the last century.

Democrats tend to look more at improving the incomes of people at the
bottom, which makes them a natural match for industrial unions and the
interests of their members.

We all learned this in grade school. It was one of the few things about
government and economics that our teachers got right.

>
>> Get YOUR facts right now & then at least.
>>
>> http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/01/supreme-court-gives-corporati
>> o.html "Supreme Court Gives .... Unions Power to Spend Unlimited
>> Sums on Political
>> Messaging"
>> " .. the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such groups may now spend
>> unlimited
>> amounts of money advocating for or against politicians."

They did not. Somebody didn't read the decision.

"Perhaps the most important question that one might ask in the wake of
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is: are labor unions as free
as corporations to spend as much as they wish -- independently of
candidates -- to influence elections to Congress and the White House? The
likely answer is: Probably, but check back later."

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/01/analysis-a-few-open-or-not-so-open-questions/

Like the Heller decision, this one leaves a lot of questions unanswered.
Expect a *lot* more litigation, in the lower federal courts, that will keep
the issues boiling for a long time.

>>
>> What better way to control things than to buy some rethugs?
>
> You think Dems aren't for sale? Ask Landrieu and Nelson. ;)
>
>> Found those "WMDs" yet?
>
> I'm not looking for them....are you?
>
> --
> Sleep well tonight,
>
> RD (The Sandman)
>
> Some points to ponder:
> Why is it good if a vacuum cleaner really sucks?
> Why is the third hand on a clock called the "second hand"?
> Why did Kamikaze pilots wear helmets?
> Why do we sing "Take me out to the ballgame" when we are already
> there?



Posted by dcaster@krl.org on January 30, 2010, 3:04 pm
Please log in for more thread options



> "Perhaps the most important question that one might ask in the wake of
> Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is: are labor unions as fr=
ee
> as corporations to spend as much as they wish -- independently of
> candidates -- to influence elections to Congress and the White House? =A0=
The
> likely answer is: Probably, but check back later."
>

As I read the decision it struck down the limits on both Corporations
and Unions. Since the decision was made on a case involving a
corporation, corporations are mentioned more than Unions. But it
seems pretty clear to me that it affects both unions and
corporations. Excerpt from Wiki follows:
The decision is too long to post here.

Dan

The Court's decision struck down a provision of the McCain-Feingold
Act that banned for-profit and not-for-profit corporations and unions
from broadcasting =93electioneering communications=94 in the 30 days
before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general
elections.[2] The decision completely overruled Austin v. Michigan
Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v.
Federal Election Commission (2003).[4] The decision upheld the
requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of
advertisements, and the ban on direct contributions from corporations
or unions to candidates, in part IV.[5]



Posted by Ed Huntress on January 30, 2010, 3:28 pm
Please log in for more thread options




> "Perhaps the most important question that one might ask in the wake of
> Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is: are labor unions as
> free
> as corporations to spend as much as they wish -- independently of
> candidates -- to influence elections to Congress and the White House? The
> likely answer is: Probably, but check back later."
>

>As I read the decision it struck down the limits on both Corporations
>and Unions. Since the decision was made on a case involving a
>corporation, corporations are mentioned more than Unions. But it
>seems pretty clear to me that it affects both unions and
>corporations. Excerpt from Wiki follows:
>The decision is too long to post here.
>
> Dan
>
>The Court's decision struck down a provision of the McCain-Feingold
>Act that banned for-profit and not-for-profit corporations and unions
>from broadcasting “electioneering communications” in the 30 days
>before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general
>elections.[2] The decision completely overruled Austin v. Michigan
>Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v.
>Federal Election Commission (2003).[4] The decision upheld the
>requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of
>advertisements, and the ban on direct contributions from corporations
>or unions to candidates, in part IV.[5]

You can read it any way you like, but, even though the Court treated the
case as a facial confrontation with the 1st Amendment, and it was a sweeping
decision, the actual decision was that the part of McCain-Feingold that
applies to corporations was overturned.

As the ScotusBlog entry says, it's likely that the courts will apply the
principle to unions, as well. But the decision did not overturn
McCain-Feingold; it only overturned the application of it to corporations.

This may seem like threading a needle but that's precisely what you have to
do with Supreme Court decisions. Don't make assumptions.

--
Ed Huntress



Similar ThreadsPosted
Re: A new "constitutional right" January 29, 2010, 4:53 pm
Re: A new "constitutional right" January 30, 2010, 9:39 am
Re: A new "constitutional right" January 30, 2010, 1:00 pm
Re: A new "constitutional right" January 31, 2010, 6:51 am
Re: A new "constitutional right" January 31, 2010, 12:09 pm
Re: A new "constitutional right" February 1, 2010, 12:35 am
Re: A new "constitutional right" February 3, 2010, 2:20 pm
Re: A new "constitutional right" February 3, 2010, 2:42 pm
Re: A new "constitutional right" March 29, 2010, 10:44 pm
Re: A new "constitutional right" March 31, 2010, 1:43 am

Contact Us | Privacy Policy

XML SitemapXML Sitemap