tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4413935813892441553.post6061579068609688370..comments2024-03-20T02:13:42.947-05:00Comments on real economics: Citizens United – The Sedition of the Roberts 5Jonathan Larsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05217670446743983955noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4413935813892441553.post-17832755049725933842012-01-31T21:11:50.112-06:002012-01-31T21:11:50.112-06:00Fractional voting has long been the system by whic...Fractional voting has long been the system by which elections were decided; hence, the idiom, "mother's milk of politics as campaign cash."<br /><br />In recognizing the freedom to spend, the Roberts Court merely instituted the fractional formula by which corporate shares are voted, by whomever has the most invested in the company, or in this case, the country. <br /><br />America already had proxy voting by virtue of delegates but did not have the means to measure the motivation of delegates to vote a certain way. The Robert's Court gave definition to that process by favoring corporate cash in elections as the preferred method of determining those votes. Money talks has long been a saying that people understand, and the Roberts Court simply affirmed that premise by allowing corporate dollars to outweigh public voting interests, to displace the illusion of one man, one vote that was made possible in the Constitution (except for Negro fractional voting of 3/5 of 1 vote). But, aren't we back to a similar thing under Citizens United?Pathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00863234038530540216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4413935813892441553.post-6251014109719774732012-01-21T19:12:53.384-06:002012-01-21T19:12:53.384-06:00"Instead, it applied novel interpretations of..."Instead, it applied novel interpretations of the First Amendment that were independent of the identity of the speaker..."<br /><br />I can understand their argument as the line quoted sets up, however theirs is an argument from a reductionish approach. It is this reductionist approach in law at the point of ideology implimentation and/or interpretation that is wrong. <br /><br />A reductionish approach works when applying a defined law to a case. It fail completely when interpreting a law prior to application.<br /><br />Thus, they are in error in that the "free speech" aspect of our Constitution is solely based on one voice, one vote. This is the human only connection. It is the essence of republican governance. <br /><br />That the two attornies note a perversion of the 1st admendment means we are talking personhood. That they do not want to back up in the chain of reason to the prime objective of one voice one vote is the failure of our legal system that has produced the 5 judges who reasoned the Citizens case. The cases they site are specific extensions of the original decision (though as I understand it was not actually a court decision for a clerical error) that corporations are people.<br /><br />The only way the two attornies are correct is if they choose to interpret the first admendment as being born of no particular concept of association. That is the admendment is a statement of fact: there is free speech. This statement of fact has no associative quality.<br /><br />To interpret the admendment as such is as much a bastardization of our constitution and it's attempt as producing a republic as is the 2 reasons they give for the courts error.<br /><br />These 2 reason the attornies note are procedural and stand apart from the chain of reason that leads back to personhood. The 2 procedural errors are what allow the court to make the personhood application error. They are not the error of reason to the subject of free speech. This does not make them less of an issue. If anything they have pointed out the other half of the ruling that is wrong.<br /><br />All judgements have a procedural reasoning such that the court can get to the ideological reasoning leading to the statement of application.<br /><br />In this Citizens case we now know, thanks to these 2 attornies that both aspects of the decision are corrupted and thus allows us to appreciate exactly how pissed of Justice Stevens was. <br /><br />As to 1 person spending millions, it still comes down to 1 voice, one vote. Any activity that reduces this power is unconstitutional.<br /><br />Yes, we need to relearn what a republic is. We also need to relearn that the only power a republican government has is solely do to the fact that the people have shaken hands in agreement that we will abide by the constitution. Once one side decides not to, there is no longer any power to the constitution and thus no republican government.<br /><br />Our government, its power and existance boils down to the simple jesture of two people agreeing to say yes.<br /><br />This is why they "nuclear option" during the Bush era was such a danger. It was signaling the end of our government.Daniel Beckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04991608905195883037noreply@blogger.com