Skip to content
BOL Conferences
Learn More - Click Here!

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
Thread Options
#1333718 - 01/29/10 03:41 PM "You Lie" redux?
straw Offline
Power Poster
straw
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
"For those who strongly object to the ruling in Citizens United and still do not see the impropriety of criticizing the Court this way, consider Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie!" outburst during the president's address to a joint session of Congress in September. No one denied the right of a congressman to criticize the accuracy of the president's remarks. The objection was to the rudeness and disrespect shown the president, for which Mr. Wilson promptly apologized. So too should the president."

Op-ed in WSJ authored by Mr. Barnett,who teaches constitutional law at Georgetown Law Center, and is author of "Restoring the Lost Constitution" (Princeton, 2005).

Return to Top
Chat! - BOL Watercooler
#1333731 - 01/29/10 03:45 PM Re: "You Lie" redux? straw
A_G Offline
10K Club
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 18,989
Mary lied.
_________________________
With the lights out, it's less dangerous.

Return to Top
#1333775 - 01/29/10 04:00 PM Re: "You Lie" redux? A_G
Blade Scrapper Offline
Power Poster
Blade Scrapper
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,912
Outside A Garage
Wow. Just, wow.
_________________________
...you guys, I'm going home

Return to Top
#1333779 - 01/29/10 04:01 PM Re: "You Lie" redux? Blade Scrapper
A_G Offline
10K Club
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 18,989
I know!

Can you repost that rhyme? I thought it was hilarious! laugh
_________________________
With the lights out, it's less dangerous.

Return to Top
#1333785 - 01/29/10 04:04 PM Re: "You Lie" redux? A_G
Blade Scrapper Offline
Power Poster
Blade Scrapper
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,912
Outside A Garage
I'll PM it to you.
_________________________
...you guys, I'm going home

Return to Top
#1333787 - 01/29/10 04:05 PM Re: "You Lie" redux? Blade Scrapper
Miscuit Offline
10K Club
Miscuit
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 18,789
TX
i don't get it...?




whistle

Return to Top
#1333790 - 01/29/10 04:06 PM Re: "You Lie" redux? Miscuit
Blade Scrapper Offline
Power Poster
Blade Scrapper
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,912
Outside A Garage
I can't help you.
_________________________
...you guys, I'm going home

Return to Top
#1333792 - 01/29/10 04:07 PM Re: "You Lie" redux? Blade Scrapper
Miscuit Offline
10K Club
Miscuit
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 18,789
TX
i know

Return to Top
#1333796 - 01/29/10 04:08 PM Re: "You Lie" redux? Blade Scrapper
Pale Rider Offline
10K Club
Pale Rider
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 34,318
under the Lone Star
the President was factually in error saying that this decision opened up the floodgates of foreign money....that was the lie...

how hi-po to even mention foreign money when the Obama campaign got all those mysterious credit card donations......
_________________________
Societies that do not find work in and of itself "pleasing to God and requisite to Man," tend to be highly corrupt.


Return to Top
#1333804 - 01/29/10 04:12 PM Re: "You Lie" redux? Pale Rider
straw Offline
Power Poster
straw
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
I also think the time and place was inappropriate for the criticism, just like with the you lie comment. Certainly can say the President lied, just inappropriate to shout out during the speech.

President can certainly disagree with the Court's decision, just inappropriate to do it in the forum.

Return to Top
#1333807 - 01/29/10 04:14 PM Re: "You Lie" redux? straw
Peepers Offline
10K Club
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 13,994
I'm lost here, what forum, was it in the SOTU address?
_________________________
blah

Return to Top
#1333809 - 01/29/10 04:14 PM Re: "You Lie" redux? Peepers
Blade Scrapper Offline
Power Poster
Blade Scrapper
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,912
Outside A Garage
yes
_________________________
...you guys, I'm going home

Return to Top
#1333810 - 01/29/10 04:15 PM Re: "You Lie" redux? Blade Scrapper
Buccs Offline
Power Poster
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 3,567
Ohio
:waits for the cries of "judicial activism":

Oh, wait. Wrong political party. Carry on.

Return to Top
#1333812 - 01/29/10 04:15 PM Re: "You Lie" redux? Blade Scrapper
Peepers Offline
10K Club
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 13,994
ok, that's what I was thinking, and that was tied into the shot of Alito too right?
_________________________
blah

Return to Top
#1333814 - 01/29/10 04:16 PM Re: "You Lie" redux? Pale Rider
Buccs Offline
Power Poster
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 3,567
Ohio
Originally Posted By: Pale
the President was factually in error saying that this decision opened up the floodgates of foreign money....that was the lie...


And how exactly is this accusation untrue?

Return to Top
#1333832 - 01/29/10 04:25 PM Re: "You Lie" redux? Buccs
manylayers Offline
Gold Star
manylayers
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 263
PA
currently, it's a matter of semmantics and perspective.

I think it's logical to assume that if large corps can spend limitless $$$$ on advertisments designed to sway voters....it will include the opinions and desires of the foreign arms of those corporations.

So many companies have overseas subsidiaries...and many that are here may be based in other countries (car manufacturing comes to mind. The ruling is unclear where the line would be drawn...and where lines are unclear...you know how it goes! smile

my own person beef...we should never spend this much of any person's money to get anyone elected to public service....the amount spent between the primaries for all parties could be put to such better purposes... It just seems like such a waste...

Return to Top
#1333834 - 01/29/10 04:27 PM Re: "You Lie" redux? Peepers
Miscuit Offline
10K Club
Miscuit
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 18,789
TX
Originally Posted By: Triumph
ok, that's what I was thinking, and that was tied into the shot of Alito too right?


affirmative

he wasn't a happy camper

Return to Top
#1333878 - 01/29/10 04:43 PM Re: "You Lie" redux? Buccs
straw Offline
Power Poster
straw
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
Originally Posted By: Buccs
Originally Posted By: Pale
the President was factually in error saying that this decision opened up the floodgates of foreign money....that was the lie...


And how exactly is this accusation untrue?


The law still disallows unlimited corporate donations to candidates directly and still disallows foreign money. The Court's decision didn't change that, but understandable that you would not know that, as the media has failed to mention that as well.

Not so understandable that the President, a constitutional law scholar, doesn't seem to know this.

Return to Top
#1333884 - 01/29/10 04:45 PM Re: "You Lie" redux? straw
straw Offline
Power Poster
straw
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121



________________________________________
January 26, 2010
Op-Ed Contributor
Stampede Toward Democracy
By JAN WITOLD BARAN
Washington
IN just seven years, the Supreme Court has declared most of the fabled McCain-Feingold law unconstitutional. The court has struck down the law’s bans on contributions by minors, on independent spending by political parties and on issue ads within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election, as well as restrictions on “millionaire” candidates. With last week’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the court has now declared that corporations and unions may spend money on political advertising that urges the election or defeat of a candidate for public office.
The reaction was swift and intense. Conservatives and libertarians praised the ruling’s preservation of the First Amendment and freedom of speech. Liberals and reformers expressed horror. President Obama predicted a “stampede of special-interest money in our politics” and declared, “I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest.” (Disclosure: I filed a brief with the Supreme Court in support of Citizens United.)
One would think from all this that corporations and unions are now free to buy candidates on the open market. But what, if anything, will be different in our elections?
Will corporations and unions be able to give money to candidates or political parties? No. Federal law, which regulates campaigns for president, the Senate and the House, prohibits such contributions. The ban was left untouched by the Supreme Court.
Can corporations spend money in cahoots with candidates and political parties? No. The Supreme Court decision addressed only “independent expenditures,” which are, by definition, “not coordinated with a candidate.” Monies spent in collaboration with candidates or parties are treated as contributions — and are still banned.
Perhaps all of this corporate spending will be secret? Wrong again. The Supreme Court upheld the laws that require any corporate or union spender to file reports with the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours of spending the first dime.
What about the “stampede of special-interest money”? The president’s comment implies there must not have been any corporate or union spending before Citizens United. In fact, in the final days of the Massachusetts special election for senator, corporations and unions spent at least $2.7 million on television and radio advertising. How do we know? Those reports were filed with the F.E.C. And while this was a good deal of spending, it was not unusual.
So what will actually occur as a result of the Citizens United case? The answer is at once mundane and momentous.
Since the 1970s, Congress has passed an assortment of laws that banned anyone from spending money on independent ads — laws that were uniformly declared unconstitutional when they restricted spending by individuals, political action committees and political parties. But in a 1990 decision, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the court upheld a ban on corporate spending to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate.
Because of the 1990 ruling, corporations and unions have been limited to so-called issue ads, which usually end with statements like “call Candidate Jones and tell her” — take your choice — “to stop raising taxes/ support health care reform/ support alternative energy sources.” Now that Citizens United has overturned Austin, corporations and unions can run independent ads that contain words of express advocacy. So instead of “Call Candidate Jones and demand that she not raise taxes,” it can be: “Vote for Candidate Smith because Candidate Jones wants to raise taxes.”
There is also no factual basis to predict that there will be a “stampede” of additional spending. As the court noted, 26 states and the District of Columbia already permit independent corporate and union campaign spending. There have been no stampedes in those states’ elections. Having a constitutional right is not the same as requiring one to exercise it, and there are many reasons businesses and unions may not spend much more on politics than they already do. As such, the effect of Citizens United on the 2010 campaigns is debatable.
However, the effect of Citizens United on further legislative meddling with campaign speech is clear. In recent years, Congress interpreted its power to regulate campaigns as a license to limit, restrict, burden and confuse anyone who wished to engage in political campaigns.
But the court has reminded us that the First Amendment is not a license to regulate — it is a limitation on Congress. As the court said in its ruling, “The First Amendment does not permit laws that force speakers to retain a campaign finance attorney, conduct demographic marketing research, or seek declaratory rulings before discussing the most salient political issues of our day.”
While this may be disheartening to Washington lawyers and lawmakers, it should be a breath of fresh air to everyone else. The greatest benefit of Citizens United is that it will restrain Congress from flooding us with arcane, burdensome, convoluted campaign laws that discourage political participation.
The history of campaign finance reform is the history of incumbent politicians seeking to muzzle speakers, any speakers, particularly those who might publicly criticize them and their legislation. It is a lot easier to legislate against unions, gun owners, “fat cat” bankers, health insurance companies and any other industry or “special interest” group when they can’t talk back.
Jan Witold Baran is the author of the book “The Election Law Primer for Corporations.”

Good piece about this from the NY Times.

Return to Top
#1333894 - 01/29/10 04:49 PM Re: "You Lie" redux? straw
Buccs Offline
Power Poster
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 3,567
Ohio
A scene for your consideration:

China: "Hey GM, you'd like to continue to do business here wouldn't you?"
GM: "Yeah, totally!"
China: "Well we're getting killed on US import/export policy, so what you can do is take this money and support candidates like Jim Doe who are going to help us. If you don't, we might have to reconsider GM's role in China."
GM: "When can you have the money in our account?"

~3 weeks later~

TV: "John Anderson wants to kill your children and eat your puppies for dinner. Vote for Jim Doe, a candidate against infanticide. And dog eating."

-end scene-

Foreign money directly sure, but foreign companies/people/governments using corporations as passthroughs for political donations.

Return to Top
#1333899 - 01/29/10 04:50 PM Re: "You Lie" redux? Buccs
straw Offline
Power Poster
straw
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
same thing can happen today, only the money goes to GM's PAC.

Return to Top
#1333901 - 01/29/10 04:51 PM Re: "You Lie" redux? Buccs
Sound Tactic Offline
Power Poster
Sound Tactic
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,349
You're getting desperate Buccs.
_________________________
If your tagline references disclaimers regarding the nature of political posts, then you should just hit notify.

Return to Top
#1333906 - 01/29/10 04:54 PM Re: "You Lie" redux? Sound Tactic
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Besides that, there's still the fact, you know, that it's still illegal!

Return to Top
#1333913 - 01/29/10 04:57 PM Re: "You Lie" redux? Jokerman
straw Offline
Power Poster
straw
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
That can't be. The President said they have opened the flood gates.

Return to Top
#1333923 - 01/29/10 05:03 PM Re: "You Lie" redux? Jokerman
Bobby Boucher Offline
Power Poster
Bobby Boucher
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,577
Down Yonder
Originally Posted By: Jokerman
Besides that, there's still the fact, you know, that it's still illegal!
But it could happen! (so, you're saying there's a chance...)

Buccs, changing gears a little bit, do you have an opinion on whether it was appropriate for the president to call out the SC during the SOBO (oops!) SOTU? Do you think an apology is called for?
_________________________
...not only will I do it for you, I... I... I... yes, yes, I'll do it for you.

Return to Top
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3