8 ms·

The American government is not supposed to be a direct representation of the will of the people, but let's go through this anyway. On the PATRIOT Act, the link

The American government is not supposed to be a direct representation of the will of the people, but let's go through this anyway. On the PATRIOT Act, the link you provided shows that 63% of Americans either want to keep the entire thing or make minor changes. Citizens United came from the Supreme Court, an institution that is explicitly designed to be shielded from the will of the people as much as possible. The 2000 election was a clusterfuck, but it has happened exactly once since 1888. Besides, if a few hundred votes go the other way in Florida then we wouldn't even be talking about it. On bankers, 60% isn't overwhelming, and the government decided to go against the will of the people because they thought it was the best course of action. Most experts agree that it was the lesser of two evils. You can go read the TPP for yourself. It's been out for three months. [1] Americans are divided in their opinions on NSA surveillance. [2] None of this matters though because the will of the people is not supposed to be the final say in government action. There founding fathers did not believe in direct democracy. [1] https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/tran... [2] http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/ http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-ph...

mchahn 11y ago
> Citizens United came from the Supreme Court, an institution that is explicitly designed to be shielded from the will of the people as much as possible. The people have nothing to do with that decision. It is just plain unconstitutional. The framers of the constitution never meant for personal rights to be applied to corporations.
- phamilton 11y ago
  The people whose jobs are to determine that say otherwise.
- jayess 11y ago
  Aren't outlets of the free press primarily corporations?
- bmelton 11y ago
  The framers of the constitution never meant for government to have so much power that lobbying it would be able to buy much influence. Beyond that, considering that the vote was restricted to landed elites and mercantile class, there's more credence to the idea that the framers never meant for the government to stifle the speech of anyone (whether corporations or not) than there is to suggest they had any idea on corporate personhood. Regardless, corporate personhood has existed since colonial times, and the framers didn't do anything to stop it. Meanwhile, the McCain-Feingold act that Citizens United overturned had only been on the books for 8 years before much of it was overturned.
  - clouddrover 11y ago
    > never meant for government to have so much power that lobbying it would be able to buy much influence I don't think lobbying is a problem because the government has too much power, but rather because of the electoral system. When voting is voluntary elections are won by the party that is best able to get out the vote. In order to get out the vote huge sums of money must be spent on political advertising and organization. When political parties are desperate for money it requires them to devote a lot of their time to fundraising and it makes them vulnerable to special interest groups with deep pockets (aka lobbyists). Voluntary voting means more opportunity for money to buy influence. Compulsory voting, in contrast, means that almost all eligible voters will vote. Political parties can spend less money on advertising, less time fundraising, and more time developing policy and doing the job. Because the electors have to vote they're more likely to take an interest in the election, more likely to listen to the ideas being presented and vote accordingly. The only downside of compulsory voting is that there are more votes to count, but that cost is worth paying. Compulsory voting is a practical step towards getting the money out of politics and improving the quality of a democracy.
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      I don't see why political ads would decrease just because everybody had to vote.
    - kogus 11y ago
- LordKano 11y ago
  The framers never intended for individuals to give up their rights just because they form corporations. I have the right to freedom of speech. You have the right to freedom of speech(assuming that you're an American citizen). If you and I form a partnership with the express purpose of working together to combine our voices and speak together, we retain that right to freedom of speech. That was what Citizens United held. Beyond that, you're just plain wrong. Corporations are legal persons. Only persons can be parties to legal actions. If your neighbor's dog escapes and bites you, can you sue the dog? Of course not. You sue the neighbor, the person responsible. If your neighbor kills your dog, can your dog's puppies sue your neighbor? Of course not. Again, non-persons cannot be party to legal actions. A corporation can own property, pay taxes, sue, be sued and as a legal person, corporations have rights. They don't have all of the same rights as people, that's why I find it so frustrating when people conflate "people" with "persons". Legally, they are different concepts.
  - mtbcoder 11y ago
    > The framers never intended for individuals to give up their rights just because they form corporations. A person never lost their individual right to freedom of speech if they formed or became a member of a corporation.
    - LordKano 11y ago
      A person never lost their individual right to freedom of speech if they formed or became a member of a corporation. That was precisely the issue before the court in this case. Did the individuals who formed the corporation Citizens United retain their right to freedom of speech as it related to releasing a documentary about Hillary Clinton near an election, in violation of McCain-Feingold? The court ruled that they did not lose their right to freedom of speech.
  - alanwatts 11y ago
    >I find it so frustrating when people conflate "people" with "persons" They are virtually synonymous. People is a plural form of person. Most people don't speak legalese.
- adventured 11y ago
  The framers of the constitution never intended for the United States to become a massive welfare state, either. There's absolutely nothing in there covering programs like universal healthcare, social security, food stamps, et al. The framers very blatantly would not have supported such vast tax based subsidization of entitlements in which one citizen is forced to pay for another. They also would never have supported the total government cost in the US being equal to nearly 40% of the economy. Does that mean the US should end those programs and slash the government down to a fraction of its current size?
  - ckozlowski 11y ago
    The absence of these items from the Constitution does not imply their opinions on the matter. The Constitution sets out a system of government, not a definition of how the economy should be run. As to what you assert their opinions would be, you'd have to look at their own writings and find something to the effect; noting what many of the constructs you described wern't even being considered during that time. But that evidence won't be in the Constitution. The Constitution lays out who's responsible for what, and who can make what decisions. It is not a bible stating the mores of the nation.
  - pcvarmint 11y ago
    Yes.
- CWuestefeld 11y ago
  Let's make sure we know what we're talking about here. The CU decision was over a bunch of people who made a movie that was critical of a political candidate, and aired that movie not long before the election. Is it your contention that we really should prevent this kind of thing from happening? Because to me, it seems like the very cornerstone of the democratic system. The minute such activity is illegal, the people have lost and we've become an oligarchy, unable to provide information to our fellow citizens necessary to cast informed votes.
  - peterwwillis 11y ago
    > The minute such activity is illegal, the people have lost and we've become an oligarchy, unable to provide information to our fellow citizens necessary to cast informed votes. 'The people' aren't the ones 'providing information', campaigns full of biased individuals trying to beat a competitor are. The system and its 'elections' has nothing to do with the people, it has to do with a few powerful wealthy entities struggling for power. Yes, we should definitely prevent a very small minority of political Übermenschen with more money than God from being able to control the system for their own aims.
    - URSpider94 11y ago
      Campaigns are actually explicitly prohibited from coordinating in any way with the so-called SuperPAC's that have unlimited fundraising ability. As the parent said, how would you propose to limit political speech in a meaningful way without infringing on the free speech rights of the public at large?
  - dean 11y ago
    I admit I haven't read the CU decision, but whatever else it is, it has apparently opened the door to no-limit campaign financing. Which is bad for democracy. There are already laws protecting freedom of expression, so I think it's disingenuous to suggest that CU is all about freedom of expression, and therefore good for democracy.
    - 11y ago
- jemfinch 11y ago
  Freedom of speech doesn't disappear as soon as people band together in an organization or corporation. The free speech of the corporation is simply the aggregate free speech of the shareholders in that corporation, and that's what Citizens United held.
EdHominem 11y ago
> 63% of Americans [...] 100% of Americans have been specifically lied to by the government about those issues. The best thing about Snowden's leaks is how the release has continually shown the government to be lying, and lying in response to the last batch of lies. As such, opinions based on those lies aren't really valid. If they got to a voting booth and saw a General Alexander's taped confession for treason they'd (probably) rethink those opinions. > Americans are divided in their opinions on NSA surveillance. Again, only because the NSA has spent our tax dollars on specifically telling us things that they know to be untrue. These people don't support the NSA, they just don't want to die in terrorism and don't know enough to know how unlikely that is, or how useless the NSA is in that regard. > You can go read the TPP for yourself. Oh great, now that it's too late and it's technically impossible for it to change.
alanwatts 11y ago
>There founding fathers did not believe in direct democracy. Do you know why they didn't? Because it wasn't feasible to do so when information was traveling at the speed of the horse drawn carriage. >In a large society, inhabiting an extensive country, it is impossible that the whole should assemble to make laws. The first necessary step, then, is to depute power from the many to a few of the most wise and good. But by what rules shall you choose your representatives? Agree upon the number and qualifications of persons who shall have the benefit of choosing, or annex this privilege to the inhabitants of a certain extent of ground. -John Adams, Thoughts on Government The limitation or assumption that "it is impossible that the whole should assemble" is no longer true.
- darkerside 11y ago
  Doesn't mean that "first necessary step" is no longer necessary or even a good idea. It just means that original assumption no longer holds.
- zymhan 11y ago
  There's also a philosophical reason for the adoption of an indirect, representative democracy. One specific example is to protect against Tyranny of the Majority [1]. I'm dubious that a country where most issues are voted on directly by the people could function with any significant amount of participation, mostly because people are not experts in most fields, and don't necessarily understand e.g. the macroeconomic effects of letting the largest banks in the world all go bankrupt. We elect representatives because there is a lot of work to do governing a country thousands of miles wide with over 300 million people, and I want people who can devote their profession to improving government in charge. Ones that we get to vote for regularly, of course. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority "Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. " - James Madison, Federalist #51 : http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm

mchahn 11y ago

> Citizens United came from the Supreme Court, an institution that is explicitly designed to be shielded from the will of the people as much as possible. The people have nothing to do with that decision. It is just plain unconstitutional. The framers of the constitution never meant for personal rights to be applied to corporations.

phamilton 11y ago
The people whose jobs are to determine that say otherwise.
jayess 11y ago
Aren't outlets of the free press primarily corporations?
bmelton 11y ago
The framers of the constitution never meant for government to have so much power that lobbying it would be able to buy much influence. Beyond that, considering that the vote was restricted to landed elites and mercantile class, there's more credence to the idea that the framers never meant for the government to stifle the speech of anyone (whether corporations or not) than there is to suggest they had any idea on corporate personhood. Regardless, corporate personhood has existed since colonial times, and the framers didn't do anything to stop it. Meanwhile, the McCain-Feingold act that Citizens United overturned had only been on the books for 8 years before much of it was overturned.
- clouddrover 11y ago
  > never meant for government to have so much power that lobbying it would be able to buy much influence I don't think lobbying is a problem because the government has too much power, but rather because of the electoral system. When voting is voluntary elections are won by the party that is best able to get out the vote. In order to get out the vote huge sums of money must be spent on political advertising and organization. When political parties are desperate for money it requires them to devote a lot of their time to fundraising and it makes them vulnerable to special interest groups with deep pockets (aka lobbyists). Voluntary voting means more opportunity for money to buy influence. Compulsory voting, in contrast, means that almost all eligible voters will vote. Political parties can spend less money on advertising, less time fundraising, and more time developing policy and doing the job. Because the electors have to vote they're more likely to take an interest in the election, more likely to listen to the ideas being presented and vote accordingly. The only downside of compulsory voting is that there are more votes to count, but that cost is worth paying. Compulsory voting is a practical step towards getting the money out of politics and improving the quality of a democracy.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    I don't see why political ads would decrease just because everybody had to vote.
  - kogus 11y ago
LordKano 11y ago
The framers never intended for individuals to give up their rights just because they form corporations. I have the right to freedom of speech. You have the right to freedom of speech(assuming that you're an American citizen). If you and I form a partnership with the express purpose of working together to combine our voices and speak together, we retain that right to freedom of speech. That was what Citizens United held. Beyond that, you're just plain wrong. Corporations are legal persons. Only persons can be parties to legal actions. If your neighbor's dog escapes and bites you, can you sue the dog? Of course not. You sue the neighbor, the person responsible. If your neighbor kills your dog, can your dog's puppies sue your neighbor? Of course not. Again, non-persons cannot be party to legal actions. A corporation can own property, pay taxes, sue, be sued and as a legal person, corporations have rights. They don't have all of the same rights as people, that's why I find it so frustrating when people conflate "people" with "persons". Legally, they are different concepts.
- mtbcoder 11y ago
  > The framers never intended for individuals to give up their rights just because they form corporations. A person never lost their individual right to freedom of speech if they formed or became a member of a corporation.
  - LordKano 11y ago
    A person never lost their individual right to freedom of speech if they formed or became a member of a corporation. That was precisely the issue before the court in this case. Did the individuals who formed the corporation Citizens United retain their right to freedom of speech as it related to releasing a documentary about Hillary Clinton near an election, in violation of McCain-Feingold? The court ruled that they did not lose their right to freedom of speech.
- alanwatts 11y ago
  >I find it so frustrating when people conflate "people" with "persons" They are virtually synonymous. People is a plural form of person. Most people don't speak legalese.
adventured 11y ago
The framers of the constitution never intended for the United States to become a massive welfare state, either. There's absolutely nothing in there covering programs like universal healthcare, social security, food stamps, et al. The framers very blatantly would not have supported such vast tax based subsidization of entitlements in which one citizen is forced to pay for another. They also would never have supported the total government cost in the US being equal to nearly 40% of the economy. Does that mean the US should end those programs and slash the government down to a fraction of its current size?
- ckozlowski 11y ago
  The absence of these items from the Constitution does not imply their opinions on the matter. The Constitution sets out a system of government, not a definition of how the economy should be run. As to what you assert their opinions would be, you'd have to look at their own writings and find something to the effect; noting what many of the constructs you described wern't even being considered during that time. But that evidence won't be in the Constitution. The Constitution lays out who's responsible for what, and who can make what decisions. It is not a bible stating the mores of the nation.
- pcvarmint 11y ago
  Yes.
CWuestefeld 11y ago
Let's make sure we know what we're talking about here. The CU decision was over a bunch of people who made a movie that was critical of a political candidate, and aired that movie not long before the election. Is it your contention that we really should prevent this kind of thing from happening? Because to me, it seems like the very cornerstone of the democratic system. The minute such activity is illegal, the people have lost and we've become an oligarchy, unable to provide information to our fellow citizens necessary to cast informed votes.
- peterwwillis 11y ago
  > The minute such activity is illegal, the people have lost and we've become an oligarchy, unable to provide information to our fellow citizens necessary to cast informed votes. 'The people' aren't the ones 'providing information', campaigns full of biased individuals trying to beat a competitor are. The system and its 'elections' has nothing to do with the people, it has to do with a few powerful wealthy entities struggling for power. Yes, we should definitely prevent a very small minority of political Übermenschen with more money than God from being able to control the system for their own aims.
  - URSpider94 11y ago
    Campaigns are actually explicitly prohibited from coordinating in any way with the so-called SuperPAC's that have unlimited fundraising ability. As the parent said, how would you propose to limit political speech in a meaningful way without infringing on the free speech rights of the public at large?
- dean 11y ago
  I admit I haven't read the CU decision, but whatever else it is, it has apparently opened the door to no-limit campaign financing. Which is bad for democracy. There are already laws protecting freedom of expression, so I think it's disingenuous to suggest that CU is all about freedom of expression, and therefore good for democracy.
  - 11y ago
jemfinch 11y ago
Freedom of speech doesn't disappear as soon as people band together in an organization or corporation. The free speech of the corporation is simply the aggregate free speech of the shareholders in that corporation, and that's what Citizens United held.

EdHominem 11y ago

> 63% of Americans [...] 100% of Americans have been specifically lied to by the government about those issues. The best thing about Snowden's leaks is how the release has continually shown the government to be lying, and lying in response to the last batch of lies. As such, opinions based on those lies aren't really valid. If they got to a voting booth and saw a General Alexander's taped confession for treason they'd (probably) rethink those opinions. > Americans are divided in their opinions on NSA surveillance. Again, only because the NSA has spent our tax dollars on specifically telling us things that they know to be untrue. These people don't support the NSA, they just don't want to die in terrorism and don't know enough to know how unlikely that is, or how useless the NSA is in that regard. > You can go read the TPP for yourself. Oh great, now that it's too late and it's technically impossible for it to change.

alanwatts 11y ago

>There founding fathers did not believe in direct democracy. Do you know why they didn't? Because it wasn't feasible to do so when information was traveling at the speed of the horse drawn carriage. >In a large society, inhabiting an extensive country, it is impossible that the whole should assemble to make laws. The first necessary step, then, is to depute power from the many to a few of the most wise and good. But by what rules shall you choose your representatives? Agree upon the number and qualifications of persons who shall have the benefit of choosing, or annex this privilege to the inhabitants of a certain extent of ground. -John Adams, Thoughts on Government The limitation or assumption that "it is impossible that the whole should assemble" is no longer true.

darkerside 11y ago
Doesn't mean that "first necessary step" is no longer necessary or even a good idea. It just means that original assumption no longer holds.
zymhan 11y ago
There's also a philosophical reason for the adoption of an indirect, representative democracy. One specific example is to protect against Tyranny of the Majority [1]. I'm dubious that a country where most issues are voted on directly by the people could function with any significant amount of participation, mostly because people are not experts in most fields, and don't necessarily understand e.g. the macroeconomic effects of letting the largest banks in the world all go bankrupt. We elect representatives because there is a lot of work to do governing a country thousands of miles wide with over 300 million people, and I want people who can devote their profession to improving government in charge. Ones that we get to vote for regularly, of course. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority "Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. " - James Madison, Federalist #51 : http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm