11 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderOf course it's based on natural rights, but there are obviously competing natural rights at play here; between the fetus' natural right to life and the mother's natural right to privacy.
Roe was a fine decision based on Natural Law principles which were at the core of the Founder's philosophy. The idea that the Constitution is at war with such principles is absurd; the 14th Amendment was meant to end the States' asserted power to ignore basic liberty rights.
11 Aug 11
Originally posted by wittywonkaActually, and this may surprise you, I'd reverse Citizens United but not Roe, both for practical reasons. Too much corporate influence on elections is probably a bad thing and, though I don't think Roe was a particularly great decision, now that it's done just leave it be. My abortion position a a weak pro-choice position anyway and whether that comes from the state or the Supreme Court doesn't really matter that much in the long run.
So you would... reverse them both?
As far as your OP question, I would reverse them both given that choice. In general, McCain-Feingold was pretty reasonable and though I completely disagree with the idea that corporations don't have freedom of speech, the restrictions in this case are reasonable based on competing interests. Citizens United was too dogmatic a decision. I also trust the states to come to reasonable positions on abortion over the long term and so I won't shed too many tears of Roe were overturned.
11 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirRoe: Right to abortion without "undue burdens" pre-viability (a little more complex, but that's the gist of it; and it's not just Roe, abortion has been clarified in many cases since)
Could you please explain both cases? I mean, we're not all Americans you know..
Citizens United: Reversed certain restrictions on corporations financing election campaigns and campaign ads on freedom of speech grounds.
11 Aug 11
Originally posted by wittywonkaI should have known the question seemed too easy. Either way, there was never a doubt that this thread would turn into a debates about merits of each case independent of each other. I guess I was too eager to jump ahead.
You completely missed the point of my exercise. (Half credit for at least attempting to answer the question, though.)
Conservatives will typically express dissatisfaction with the decision in Roe v. Wade, and liberals will typically express dissatisfaction with the decision in Citizens United v. FEC--that much is obvious. The more inter ...[text shortened]... that you'd be willing to reverse decision B in order to reverse decision A in the first place?
For now, I'd probably overturn them both if it were all or nothing.
As far as citizens versus FEC, amazingly people seem to forget that the NY Times is a corporation that enjoyed (before the decision) freedom to influence elections as much as it wants. You don't want Exxon speaking up about elections, what if they opened up their own newspaper and become "Exxon oil and news agency". Would you then rule that they can't publish opinion because they're not an approved "news agency"? Are we really so short sighted to think the first amendment giving "freedom of press" has any teeth once we allow the government to decide who is and is not an approved "news agency" on which the founders bequeathed the right to free press.
11 Aug 11
Originally posted by techsouthGood point; but I see no impediment to Exxon doing what you suggest... starting a newspaper or TV station... There's no government regulation that prevents them from doing so.
I should have known the question seemed too easy. Either way, there was never a doubt that this thread would turn into a debates about merits of each case independent of each other. I guess I was too eager to jump ahead.
For now, I'd probably overturn them both if it were all or nothing.
As far as citizens versus FEC, amazingly people seem to forge ...[text shortened]... an approved "news agency" on which the founders bequeathed the right to free press.
11 Aug 11
Originally posted by sh76What if instead of printing their own paper, they bought space in another paper to print their "news" stories? And they had almost no "news" stories other than those covering the petroleum industry and their op-ed articles endorsing certain candidates? Would that pass Constitutional muster?
Good point; but I see no impediment to Exxon doing what you suggest... starting a newspaper or TV station... There's no government regulation that prevents them from doing so.
If you say yes, then I have to wonder what the fuss was all about. Corporations could have easily just changed the name of their PR department to their "news" department and not needed Citizens vs. FEC. But if you say no, what exact part of the Constitution bequeaths freedom of press on the NY Times (operating it's own paper) but does not bequeath the same freedom on Exxon (subleasing pages in another paper)?
Or, some may say the Constitution didn't do this, but the FEC had just granted exemptions for NY Times and similarly organized business plans that they didn't grant to corporations that produced a product other than news. If that is the case, then what exactly does "freedom of press" defend?
11 Aug 11
Originally posted by techsouthMcCain-Feingold was about participation in political campaigns and elections. Nothing in the FEC regulations at issue in Citizens United prevented or prevents a corporation from purchasing advertisements in newspapers or TV ads to hawk their products or to convey a political message that is not a campaign ad.
What if instead of printing their own paper, they bought space in another paper to print their "news" stories? And they had almost no "news" stories other than those covering the petroleum industry and their op-ed articles endorsing certain candidates? Would that pass Constitutional muster?
If you say yes, then I have to wonder what the fuss was all a ...[text shortened]... er than news. If that is the case, then what exactly does "freedom of press" defend?
11 Aug 11
Originally posted by sh76A political message that is not a campaign ad?
McCain-Feingold was about participation in political campaigns and elections. Nothing in the FEC regulations at issue in Citizens United prevented or prevents a corporation from purchasing advertisements in newspapers or TV ads to hawk their products or to convey a political message that is not a campaign ad.
So we're free to say anything we want, as long as it doesn't attempt to change anything? That's how you define freedom of press?
Or, I suppose some view freedom of press and speech as the freedom for individuals to try to shout over 300 million other individuals. But as soon as 2 or more pool their resources to figuratively get a megaphone, the government has the right to silence them.
11 Aug 11
Originally posted by techsouthNearly a good point.
I should have known the question seemed too easy. Either way, there was never a doubt that this thread would turn into a debates about merits of each case independent of each other. I guess I was too eager to jump ahead.
For now, I'd probably overturn them both if it were all or nothing.
As far as citizens versus FEC, amazingly people seem to forge ...[text shortened]... an approved "news agency" on which the founders bequeathed the right to free press.
The NY Times is not a faceless/nameless entity: their editorial board is exposed daily to the general public in the same manner that all publications hold. Likewise, their opinions are not formed and broadcast only during elections. Whether someone reads them daily, over the weekend, Sunday, or only occasionally, they occupy an obtainable location and have established a reputation as an organization open for dialogue--- even if they stick to their original sentiment.
In short, they cannot possibly be construed as carpet-baggers.
As Soothfast accurately describes, CU v FEC elevated those mo-fo PAC's above reproach or, at minimum, political restraint.
11 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirSure. Sorry about that.
Could you please explain both cases? I mean, we're not all Americans you know..
___
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._wade
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark controversial decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. The Court decided that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests for regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting the mother's health. Saying that these state interests become stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the mother's current trimester of pregnancy.
The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion up until viability. The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid," adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."
___
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited—because of the First Amendment.
[...]
The Court struck down a provision of the McCain–Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications.” An "electioneering communication" was defined in McCain–Feingold as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or thirty days of a primary.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199264
11 Aug 11
Originally posted by quackquackWell, it's significant in that it pretty much turns the whole political process over to money. Grassroots politics at the national level may be dead.
It is hard for me to believe that many people feel Citizens United v. FEC is nearly as significant as Roe v. Wade.
I actually think the court ended up with the correct result (even if I have a problem with penumberal rights) in both cases.