@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Then I am forced to say, sir, that you are no patriot and that you do not love the American way of life. You are an Aristocrat, desiring our country to be ruled by a group of powerful and rich elite, with the voice of the common man relegated to nothing. You are exactly the sort of person that would have been on the wrong side in the revolutionary war.
I reject your false equivalence between actual persons and corporate persons. Anyone with a brain knows that the two are different; even you know. You just don't give a ****, because it gets you what you want: more power for the rich.
Disgusting. You really ought to be ashamed of yourself for holding such an opinion.
Cycloptichorn
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. David may indeed be a nutcase, but he's pretty much wiping the floor with you at the moment.
1. Corporate Personhood is not a figment of his imagination. (Research a little before digging deeper.)
2. Celebrating the defense of the very first item on the Bill of Rights is hardly unpatriotic. (What an absurd conclusion, that.)
3. He need not be ashamed of anything he's posted here (yet.)
There seems to be some concern over the Supreme Court trumping lawmakers. There shouldn’t be. In these United States the Supreme Court of the land, NOT the legislature has the final say... and short of a constitutional amendment (that would never fly) this will remain the case. And this is good. While the court has frequently been fundamentally wrong (See Dred Scott, or Plessy v. Ferguson, etc.), it is still the greatest protection from "the man" I've ever even heard of. Legislators were not at all unclear about their intent in the half century of "Separate but Equal" lawmaking... but that didn't make it any less wrong... and we should all be grateful that the Supreme Court had the power to toss a half century of overt oppression out the window in Brown v Board of Education (<-- a must read for those who haven't.)
When the Supreme Court flexes its considerable muscle in seemingly excessively broad defense of the Bill of Rights and/or later amendments, it should be applauded, not cursed. Broad interpretations insure the narrow ones we truly depend on are as secure as ever. When the KKK marches in the streets, I despise them, but I smile inwardly knowing that means I can say whatever the hell I damn well please. When a murderer walks on a
technicality it’s a shame… but it is the reason who knows how many innocent’s won’t have their constitutional rights trampled. When a seemingly well intentioned Law is tossed because it infringes on our constitutional rights, this too is worthy of noting as evidence that our system of protection still works.
While I would personally like to see some meaningful campaign finance reform (not to be confused with the watered down half-measure just laid to waste); I would not place a higher value on such a piece of legislation than I do on the constitution. Any bill that violates the constitution is a bill not worth keeping.
