4 ms·
I would still put Citizens up there. We have rules around elections in the same way that we have some limits on individual speech (yelling fire, and all that) t
by tyre 6y ago
I would still put Citizens up there. We have rules around elections in the same way that we have some limits on individual speech (yelling fire, and all that) to effect the fundamental right that the First Amendment is meant to protect. Similarly, PACs were an unforeseen (and in some ways unforeseeable to eighteenth century framers) exploit of a well functioning democracy as it relates to people.
Kucho vs. Common Cause as well. Gerrymandering is a clear abuse of the system. Kagan’s dissent is heartbreaking.
- apexalpha 6y agoYeah, but updating the constitution and election laws are congress' job, not the courts.
- mschuster91 6y agoThat would assume that there is a working Congress (for the laws) and working intra-state coordination (for constitutional amendments). The reality is that Congress has been locked up ever since the third year of Obama, and since 1971 (26th) there only got one constitutional amendment passed (27th, in 1992). That is the reason why the courts have gotten so important, and why the Supreme Court and other federal justice nominations and their confirmation by the Trump administration will have such long lasting impact - given that there is no input from the legislative, governing has fallen to the executive and judiciary.
- apexalpha 6y agoI understand that, but I disagree you should 'force' the SCOTUS to pick up where Congress stops. Scotus is not where laws or society should be progressing; that should be congress. And of course the founding fathers didn't foresee today's' society, so they included ways to upgrade and amend the constitution and election laws. That congress isn't doing its job is a different debate entirely, but not Scotus' fault.
- pyronik19 6y agoThe fact you can't move your agenda forward in the legislature because its "locked up" is a feature not a bug. To then think its appropriate to use the judicial branch to bludgeon your agenda through is an abuse of its intended purpose in our system of checks and balances.
- mschuster91 6y agoSo ten years of standstill, even a government shutdown (which is a word only heard in third world countries), because of one political party being utterly unwilling to participate in normal democratic process, that is a feature to you? > an abuse of its intended purpose in our system of checks and balances The intention was to stop a dictator from rising, not that the country would be essentially governed by executive degree for a decade.
- rayiner 6y agoCitizens United doesn’t have anything to do with PACs. I’m amenable to the idea there is a core of campaign finance law that’s non-objectionable. But prosecuting a 501(c)(4) non-profit corporation for making a political movie about a candidate isn’t in the scope of that. That’s what the government chose to prosecute in that case. The “slippery slope” outcome—using a law ostensibly meant to keep Exxon from speaking to bludgeon a little non-profit—happened within a decade of the campaign finance law being enacted.
- danaris 6y agoWhile your statement is strictly true, Citizens United is one of the two (very close together) decisions that enabled the creation of SuperPACs.