Lam, you still have not fixed the quote function on this site. Are you trying to make life more difficult for members of this forum?
===================================================
Nov 19, 2011, 12:13am, rustyhoundog wrote:
Argument in rhetoric usually does not rely on feelings, but the feeling of an inference may be different. The feeling about a fact is usually looked at as a very weak argument.
===================================================
You wrote:
There's been a misunderstanding. Let me rephrase what I said. It's reasonable to infer that a rejection of Citizens United is a rejection of corporate personhood with regards to campaign contributions since this was the main issue in that case. (I add phrases like "it seems", "I feel", "I think" out of habit.)
===================================================
Inference is not fact. Solid argument is based on fact. It is never reasonable to infer any facts from political events; each event is unique as are peoples' reactions.
===================================================
Nov 19, 2011, 12:13am, rustyhoundog wrote:
Of course, you are now using polls as if they were facts, rather than as the seer's entrail replacements they really are.
===================================================
You wrote:
I'm not concerned with your disdain for polls and poll data. Polls from credible sources have credibility with the public and so I use them. I'm not going to claim they perfectly reflect reality, but they are the best we've got which is why they carry credibility.
===================================================
The first problem is with definitions. Exactly what are `credible' sources for polling data? Your statement that they do not perfectly reflect reality is disingenuous.
Nothing is perfect!
However we have many things far better than polling as it exists now. The most blatant `better' is the election the polling attempts to influence with the BS numbers they spout.
Simply because people accept polls says nothing about the credibility of polls. It does say volumes about the propaganda that has brought about that trust.
==================================================
Nov 19, 2011, 12:13am, rustyhoundog wrote:
Since when are resolutions of support real legal efforts? All those resolutions are from college towns. Boulder is home to the University of Colorado. Look further.
==================================================
You wrote:
I don't see why efforts starting in college towns don't seem to matter to you. It's gonna be America's youth that will primarily be affecting the political future of the nation. But I do have other sources as well.
freespeechforpeople.org/McGovernwww.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra....CPZN_blo g.html
In both cases, amendments to the Constitution have been made in the national Congress. There's your legal effort.
===================================================
Again with the blatant BS! Both URLs are about a SINGLE amendment.
More with the `seem' and the assumption of a non-fact.
The problem with the McGovern amendment are multiple and the language is far to specific. Then there is the problem of driving foreign influence through the hole of `natural person.' There is NO prohibition of non-citizens contributing.
The use of the phrase `private entity' is a red herring. It refers to entities created by the action of law, not foreign entities.
The whole thing is flawed by trying to create legislation rather than a constitutional framework for creating law in the Congress and the states.
Pointing to a gross error proves nothing; diverting into such things as `legal effort' rather than discussion of wording is not productive.
===================================================
Nov 19, 2011, 12:13am, rustyhoundog wrote:
It ignores the all important major subject of Citizens United; the legality of unlimited money in politics. It says absolutely nothing about First Amendment rights as loosely interpreted in current law, that money is the equivalent of political speech.
===================================================
You wrote:
Does is matter if money is the equivalent of free speech if the right of free speech is denied to corporations, unions, etc.?
===================================================
It most certainly matters if the law becomes a tyrant that declares some aspects of society which are essential to our well being as unprotected by the constitution.
Creating binary questions is also NOT HELPFUL!
The matter of money being equivalent of `free speech' is NOT the subject of of my answer, or Citizens United. The subject is the argument that corporations, being people, have the right to engage in POLITICAL SPEECH, considered the most protected speech by the present court. At it's core, Citizens United is an affirmation of corporate personhood. It is presented as defense of freedom of speech.
Free speech means being able to speak in the public forum with no prior restriction by the government. Removing freedom of speech from any person is anathema!
Removing personhood from corporations carries much more than restricting rights to political speech. It does not remove freedom of speech from those entities.
Just think about the implications.
===================================================
Nov 19, 2011, 12:13am, rustyhoundog wrote:
There is nothing to stop any person in the world from engaging in the political life of the nation; any foreigner in the world can put cash into the pot to influence the outcome of electioneering efforts. Remember, in the constitution people and person apply to all who are people or persons, citizen or not.
===================================================
You wrote:
If by foreigner you mean illegal immigrants, then I actually don't really mind. Besides, they probably won't have the money to spare for politics. If by foreigners you mean just foreign people from out of the country donating then regulating that is something Congress should do.
===================================================
It has nothing to do with `illegal' immigrants.
Section 2. above sets a constitutional framework for Congress to establish limits and consequences to any political contributions, including the penalties for foreign entities attempting to influence our political life.
===================================================
Nov 19, 2011, 12:13am, rustyhoundog wrote:
Some real statement absolutely stopping our present abusive cash and carry network in politics is needed. That means restricting those eligible to support politics by any substantial means to people only and only those people who are U.S. citizens.
===================================================
You wrote:
In response to this quote and the one above, we can add a second section clarifying that only those who are citizens can influence elections and legislation. I don't really mind either way. But it will be difficult to enforce. Say an illegal immigrant calls his representative in Congress. Firstly, how would anyone know about it? Secondly, what harm does it do? I say we limit contributions to only those residing in the U.S. so foreign nations and companies cannot influence our politics. And are foreign nations and companies aren't protected by our Constitution? If not, this shouldn't be a problem.
===================================================
Are you purposely ignoring what is in the proposed amendment?
Calling your congress persons is NOT making a contribution. Exactly what are you pushing here? It sounds like you have an ax to grind against `illegal' immigrants.
Residing in the US??? Just anyone residing in the US?
READ THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT!
Congress is free to build on this framework. We do NOT need to legislate here!
===================================================
Nov 19, 2011, 12:13am, rustyhoundog wrote:
The need is first to remove personhood from any and all entities created by law and second to restrict sources of contributions for political purposes.
===================================================
You wrote:
I think my section 1 already does the former. What do you propose we do for the latter issue, with the things I've said in mind?
===================================================
I'm sorry. Which section 1.of yours are you discussing? Where IS it? What is it?
A link here will be helpful to others.
Until that happens, consider the proposed amendment subject of this thread. It is complete and well thought out to be a framework for proper legislation.