112
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2015 03:38 am
@parados,
Quote:
But he was specifically stating campaign contributions were corruption.


Here's where the law stood before the Citizens United changes.

Quote:
The overriding concern behind the enactment of statutes such as the Federal Corrupt Practices Act was the problem of corruption of elected representatives through the creation of political debts. The importance of the governmental interest in preventing this occurrence has never been doubted.[20]

Here again the Court seems to go beyond the concern about quid pro quo vote-trading, this time to characterize corruption as "the creation of political debts." Four years later, in FEC v. National to Right Work Committee, the Court again discussed the need to insure that corporate "war chests" not be used to create "political debts."[21]

For the most part in these early cases the Court does little to explain its notion of corruption, and we are left to read between the lines. But in the 1984 case of FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee, the majority opinion by Justice Rehnquist offers a definition:

Corruption is a subversion of the political process. Elected officials are influenced to act contrary to their obligations of office by the prospect of financial gain to themselves or infusions of money into their campaigns. The hallmark of corruption is the financial quid pro quo: dollars for political favors.[22]

Here a much wider standard of corruption appears with a restatement of the familiar quid pro quo as a "hallmark." Rehnquist says that elected officials violate their public trust when they are influenced by the "prospect of financial gain to themselves or infusions of money into their campaigns." If Rehnquist had wanted to limit the corruption interest to quid pro quos, he could simply have said so. Instead he calls quid pro quo vote-trading the "hallmark" of political corruption. Again in this passage the Court seems to be acknowledging the second standard, the monetary influence standard of corruption.


From this article.

And on the folly of the Citizens United ruling:

Quote:
The basic premise underlying the Court’s ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker’s identity, including its “identity” as a corporation. While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law. Nor does it tell us when a corporation may engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose. It does not even resolve the specific question whether Citizens United may be required to finance some of its messages with the money in its PAC. The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2015 08:28 am
@Builder,
Quote:


Everything the Nazi party did in their day was also legal. Legislating criminal actions to become legal didn't make the Nazi's crimes any less culpable in the eyes of the rest of the world, did it?

You are confused about some things. The Nazi's may have made what they did legal in Germany but it was still illegal under international law and under treaties Germany had signed.

Fund raising is not illegal under international law. In fact fund raising is legal in some form in every democratic country.

Quote:
You like this system, Parados?
I never said I liked it. I pointed out disagreeing with a policy doesn't make that policy illegal. Would I like to change the rules of fund raising? Yes. Does that desire make the current fund raising laws bribery? No.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2015 08:31 am
@Builder,
Quote:
That’s a big claim. In their conclusion, Gilens and Page go even further, asserting that “In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes.

We are a Constitutional Republic. That means the majority doesn't get to decide every policy decision. We are governed by a system that the majority assented to when we approved our Constitution. There are many instances where the majority doesn't get to decide such as gay marriage where I am guessing you would agree with the policy to allow it.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2015 08:35 am
@Builder,
And just like gay marriage, the courts decided based on the US Constitution. We are free to amend our Constitution if we find the decision to be unacceptable. But as you have now pointed out, campaign contributions are not illegal which means they can't be corruption.

However, I would agree that the court erred when they decided that the campaign contributions couldn't be viewed as corruption.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2015 02:00 am
@parados,
Quote:
There are many instances where the majority doesn't get to decide such as gay marriage where I am guessing you would agree with the policy to allow it.


Looks like a red herring to me. As long as the issue divides and polarises the public, the admin will keep trotting it out as a tool of manipulation.
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2015 02:40 am
It is very simple, The economy of the USA is going down, down, down!
So that there will be very very very poor people dependent on the state for food, and very litle extremely rich people who will cal the shots.
Communistic model comes to mind, or might call it fascism
(both created and paid for by the USA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
, both are the same!
But before that a LOT of people wil be killed by the government by food, vaccinations, shot by police and so on and so forth.

I know people don't want to believe this, but before one starts to ridicule do some research first thank you!

0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2015 04:44 am
@parados,
Quote:
You are confused about some things.


You're not a qualified psycho-analyst, so comments like this only make me chuckle.

parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2015 04:15 pm
@Builder,
What? I point out that the US doesn't allow the majority to decide issues and you call it a red herring? Our Constitution is hardly a red herring. It is rather important to the process of our government.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2015 04:16 pm
@Builder,
Confusion is now a physiological disorder? I think you are moving past confusion at this point.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2015 04:23 pm
@parados,
If the majority isn't allowed to decide on issues, why do we vote?
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 12:18 am
@Baldimo,
Quote:
If the majority isn't allowed to decide on issues, why do we vote?


Because you live in a democratic republic, of course. Voting is not compulsory, so why should it count for anything important?

Smoke and mirrors, and lots of feel-good divisive flag-waving allowed.

Oh, and he (or she) who "raises" the most money wins the race.
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 12:24 am
@parados,
Quote:
Our Constitution is hardly a red herring. It is rather important to the process of our government.


Quote:
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."


Article here.

Quote:
(CNSNews.com) - A coalition of seventeen states joined together today to file suit against the Obama administration, arguing that President Obama swept aside the constitutional limits on his power and violated his constitutional obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” when he moved to unilateral dismiss enforcement of the immigration laws against 4 million illegal aliens.


Article here.
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 01:59 am
@Builder,
Quote:
Because you live in a democratic republic, of course


Nope! Alas!
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 04:06 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Quote:
Nope! Alas!


Much like "Citizens United" it's all about sound bytes.
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 05:09 am
@parados,
Quote:
I think you are moving past confusion at this point.


I think that your role here is to muddy the waters.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 05:40 am
@Builder,
Quote:
Much like "Citizens United" it's all about sound bytes.

Yeah, sure!
But if the USA is a democracy how come most presidents are family , mate!

You see, presidents aren't elected at all, but Selected ( by their bloodline!)

Saying that the usa is a democracy is an oxymoron!



Researc h!!
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 06:44 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Quote:
Saying that the usa is a democracy is an oxymoron!


Shhhhh, I'm trying to ease them into this understanding.
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 06:50 am
@Builder,
oh ok ok ok ok shhhhhhhhh
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2015 01:15 am
I can't see a date on this headline, but it's an interesting read. From a time near the last presidential election.

Quote:
On Wednesday, Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve was overwhelmingly passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. The vote was 327 to 98. You would think that a bill with such overwhelming support would easily become law. But it won’t, because Barack Obama and the Democrats plan to kill it. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has already said that the Senate will not even consider the bill. But of course if Barack Obama called Harry Reid and told him that he wants this bill to get through the Senate so that he could sign it then Harry Reid would be singing a much different tune. Sadly, we all know that is not going to happen. Barack Obama’s good buddy Ben Bernanke called the Audit the Fed bill a “nightmare scenario” last week, and Obama is certainly not going to do anything to upset Bernanke – especially this close to the election. Obama needs Bernanke to do everything that he possibly can to stimulate the economy so that Obama will look as good as possible in November. The sad truth is that there is absolutely no chance that the Audit the Fed bill will become law and that is a crying shame.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2015 03:13 am
@Builder,
The fed is a murky operation to be sure, but these super smart people have their hands on the global leavers of power, and when crisis hit they jumped it, tore up all the rules because they had to to be supermen, saved the companies that should be saved and combined or let fail the rest, and through spending a few trillion dollars of our kids and grandkids on the charge card saved the day.

Right?



*sarcasm*
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 08/04/2020 at 10:53:59