Posted on Jul 26, 2016
GOP Platform's Hideous Plan to “Rebirth” the Constitution
695
4
7
1
1
0
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
Um... ignoring personal opinion on the article as a whole, and focusing on it its technical argument merits.
It cites Citizens United. I would like to remind people that Citizens United was about the 1a ability to show a FILM regarding Hillary Clinton during an election year. Somehow the narrative has been shifted to "campaign money" (a reasonable issue itself) but the "seed" of that case was whether people could make and show a film about someone running for election.
There is so much misinformation being spread about that case that it is hard to identify the willfully ignorant from the disingenuous at this point. However, based on the rest of the article, I "think" the author is likely the latter.
It's an attack piece. Sure it has some good points in it, but it is a pandering attack piece, and should be viewed through that lens.
It cites Citizens United. I would like to remind people that Citizens United was about the 1a ability to show a FILM regarding Hillary Clinton during an election year. Somehow the narrative has been shifted to "campaign money" (a reasonable issue itself) but the "seed" of that case was whether people could make and show a film about someone running for election.
There is so much misinformation being spread about that case that it is hard to identify the willfully ignorant from the disingenuous at this point. However, based on the rest of the article, I "think" the author is likely the latter.
It's an attack piece. Sure it has some good points in it, but it is a pandering attack piece, and should be viewed through that lens.
(1)
(0)
SGT Edward Wilcox
Citizens United was about more than just wanting to show a film. They wanted to show the film during a primary season, in direct violation of the McCain-Feingold Act. The lower courts upheld the Act. The Supreme Court reversed that decision. What was NOT part of the case, and where the conservative majority on the Court erred, was in granting corporations the same rights as individuals. They exceeded the scope of the case, and ruled that corporations could spend unlimited amounts of money to indirectly support political candidates.
So, your claim of misinformation and willful ignorance is, in itself, willful and ignorant, because you ignore the long reaching effects of a ruling that had nothing to do with the substance of the original case. I find it interesting that, while railing about "activist" justices, Republicans fully support the most egregious example of over-reaching by activist justices.
So, your claim of misinformation and willful ignorance is, in itself, willful and ignorant, because you ignore the long reaching effects of a ruling that had nothing to do with the substance of the original case. I find it interesting that, while railing about "activist" justices, Republicans fully support the most egregious example of over-reaching by activist justices.
(0)
(0)
SGT Edward Wilcox
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - Don't recall saying that you, specifically, were a Republican, but I can see how you could infer that from my statement.
(0)
(0)
The religious right wing of the GOP has been trying to repaint the founding fathers and their document as being Christians creating a Christian country for decades.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next