3 ms·

True, the draft is not an ideal example. None the less, the court is hardly infallible: for example, it is odd that congress can not constitutionally require me

True, the draft is not an ideal example. None the less, the court is hardly infallible: for example, it is odd that congress can not constitutionally require medical insurance but can institute taxes and even prohibit the consumption of anything deemed to be an intoxicant. Or for more specific examples, given, Gore v Bush, when exactly does the court have standing to intervene in a presidential election? Given DC v. Heller in 2008, what does the word "militia" mean now? Why, to everyone's surprise, did maritime law suddenly limit punitive damages with Exxon vs Baker (2008)? Why did the court narrowly reverse 200 years of convention and the near universal understating of speech with Citizens United?

fennecfoxen 7y ago
Please. Citizen's United was not a reversal of the understanding of speech. Efforts to convince you of that were propaganda. The Courts detailed the corporate personhood doctrine in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819, discussing how corporations have rights because their owners have rights and the corporation is a way for these owners to get together and exercise these rights as a group. These rights include freedom of speech and of the press. Moreover, allow me to remind you that Citizens United is actually a nonprofit group+ and the thing this case was actually about was making an anti-Hilary movie, and being barred from distributing it. Anyone who has glanced at the Bill of Rights, and the history of this nation and its jurisprudence in the area of free speech, could have seen this result coming. (Somehow there are many people not aware of this fact.) (+ not a charity, contributions aren't tax deductible; just a standard 504 not-for-profit.) This may or may not be good policy. It's eminently open to debate. But hewing to precedent like this is supposed to be your evidence of the Court acting on a whim?!?

fennecfoxen 7y ago

Please. Citizen's United was not a reversal of the understanding of speech. Efforts to convince you of that were propaganda. The Courts detailed the corporate personhood doctrine in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819, discussing how corporations have rights because their owners have rights and the corporation is a way for these owners to get together and exercise these rights as a group. These rights include freedom of speech and of the press. Moreover, allow me to remind you that Citizens United is actually a nonprofit group+ and the thing this case was actually about was making an anti-Hilary movie, and being barred from distributing it. Anyone who has glanced at the Bill of Rights, and the history of this nation and its jurisprudence in the area of free speech, could have seen this result coming. (Somehow there are many people not aware of this fact.) (+ not a charity, contributions aren't tax deductible; just a standard 504 not-for-profit.) This may or may not be good policy. It's eminently open to debate. But hewing to precedent like this is supposed to be your evidence of the Court acting on a whim?!?