ITT: Citizens United Get's a Devil's Advocate

[Doktor Howl]

Loose as the articles are, the bill of rights has to be more explicit in enumerating rights.

Patrick Henry had argued against the Bill of Rights in the first place, because people would assume that's all the rights they had.  The only two things that need to be enumerated are amendments IX and X.  Everything else was a mistake to put down on paper.

[Doktor Howl]

Looks more like it defines "citizen" in terms of "person". I don't see any definition of "person".

Neither do I.

When the term "person" is used, it means any person in American custody or jurisdiction.  When the term "The People" is used, it means the citizenry of the United States.  For example, amendment V states that, for example, a Canadian accused of a crime in America is guaranteed a proper trial, whereas amendment II guarantees the citizen's right to keep & bear arms.

It doesn't look like the Constitution defines "personhood". Most likely because the framers never thought that would be necessary, I'm guessing.

I would argue that the dictionary definition would stand.  Even if it doesn't, becoming a "person" means that a corporation would have to be eligible for the draft and jury duty.  It also means they'd have to pay income tax, per amendment XVI.  Most corporations don't want that, as they'd pay out the fucking nose.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'd like it if Dok weighed in on this shit, because he knows hisself some Constitution.

I am finding myself very skeptical of almost everything you have to say about it, NoLoDeMiel. I am not well enough versed in Constitutional Law to actually call out most of it, but there are enough areas of what you say that don't ring true that I have a hard time trusting your judgement on any of it.

If you see something that looks bullshit, hit me on it. It may well be bullshit and I got some bad info or did some bad reading, and got some bullshit stuck in my teeth. Be doing me a favor. My judgement on most of it is straight opinion. I like it, I don't like it. Seems to me, doesn't seem. My judgement is something that I refine through exercise, not something that I hold as authoritative.

If I can follow the reasoning in a decision (and there's whole areas where even the vocabulary is prohibitive to me in that regard), or trace the evolution of a law or whatever, that still doesn't mean anything beyond the fact that I see how A to B was traversed. Read one of the dissenting opinions in Citizen's United and a bit of one of the majority opinions, and you'll see just how very wildly the reasoning can vary even amongst our top dogs. There is always bullshit to call in law, my main aim is to be able to pick out what's "not the sorta bullshit one would expect in a place like this," and what's "bullshit that's hip, hot and happenin."

What I would really appreciate, for clarity, is that you are clear about when you are stating facts, and when you are stating personal conjecture that is not based on research or training. You state much of your conjecture as if you are a trained expert and they are authoritative facts, and that makes the whole discussion messy.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Looks more like it defines "citizen" in terms of "person". I don't see any definition of "person".

Neither do I.

When the term "person" is used, it means any person in American custody or jurisdiction.  When the term "The People" is used, it means the citizenry of the United States.  For example, amendment V states that, for example, a Canadian accused of a crime in America is guaranteed a proper trial, whereas amendment II guarantees the citizen's right to keep & bear arms.

It doesn't look like the Constitution defines "personhood". Most likely because the framers never thought that would be necessary, I'm guessing.

I would argue that the dictionary definition would stand.  Even if it doesn't, becoming a "person" means that a corporation would have to be eligible for the draft and jury duty.  It also means they'd have to pay income tax, per amendment XVI.  Most corporations don't want that, as they'd pay out the fucking nose.

Right... they want selective personhood. All the rights with none of the responsibilities.

[Doktor Howl]

Looks more like it defines "citizen" in terms of "person". I don't see any definition of "person".

Neither do I.

When the term "person" is used, it means any person in American custody or jurisdiction.  When the term "The People" is used, it means the citizenry of the United States.  For example, amendment V states that, for example, a Canadian accused of a crime in America is guaranteed a proper trial, whereas amendment II guarantees the citizen's right to keep & bear arms.

It doesn't look like the Constitution defines "personhood". Most likely because the framers never thought that would be necessary, I'm guessing.

I would argue that the dictionary definition would stand.  Even if it doesn't, becoming a "person" means that a corporation would have to be eligible for the draft and jury duty.  It also means they'd have to pay income tax, per amendment XVI.  Most corporations don't want that, as they'd pay out the fucking nose.

Right... they want selective personhood. All the rights with none of the responsibilities.

We Doktors refer to this condition as "Aristocracy".  It's one of the reasons we rebelled against the British.

[Cain]

Alternatively it could be argued that, like the American colonists, corporations simply want to avoid the financial costs of a system they benefit from, and so are acting within the finest of American traditions.

Note: Americans who wish to repay their Seven Wars debt, plus interest, need only PM me for the details needed for the bank transaction.

[Doktor Howl]

Alternatively it could be argued that, like the American colonists, corporations simply want to avoid the financial costs of a system they benefit from, and so are acting within the finest of American traditions.

While I'd like to argue that the Americans mostly objected to not getting a say in those things, it wouldn't be precisely accurate.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

Alternatively it could be argued that, like the American colonists, corporations simply want to avoid the financial costs of a system they benefit from, and so are acting within the finest of American traditions.

While I'd like to argue that the Americans mostly objected to not getting a say in those things, it wouldn't be precisely accurate.

The Whiskey Rebellion would be my favorite damn thing in all damn U.S. America ever. Drunk guys what are pissed that after all that they gotta pay some gotdamn taxes again! Oh, America, I love the way you've been America for so damn long.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

I'd like it if Dok weighed in on this shit, because he knows hisself some Constitution.

I am finding myself very skeptical of almost everything you have to say about it, NoLoDeMiel. I am not well enough versed in Constitutional Law to actually call out most of it, but there are enough areas of what you say that don't ring true that I have a hard time trusting your judgement on any of it.

If you see something that looks bullshit, hit me on it. It may well be bullshit and I got some bad info or did some bad reading, and got some bullshit stuck in my teeth. Be doing me a favor. My judgement on most of it is straight opinion. I like it, I don't like it. Seems to me, doesn't seem. My judgement is something that I refine through exercise, not something that I hold as authoritative.

If I can follow the reasoning in a decision (and there's whole areas where even the vocabulary is prohibitive to me in that regard), or trace the evolution of a law or whatever, that still doesn't mean anything beyond the fact that I see how A to B was traversed. Read one of the dissenting opinions in Citizen's United and a bit of one of the majority opinions, and you'll see just how very wildly the reasoning can vary even amongst our top dogs. There is always bullshit to call in law, my main aim is to be able to pick out what's "not the sorta bullshit one would expect in a place like this," and what's "bullshit that's hip, hot and happenin."

What I would really appreciate, for clarity, is that you are clear about when you are stating facts, and when you are stating personal conjecture that is not based on research or training. You state much of your conjecture as if you are a trained expert and they are authoritative facts, and that makes the whole discussion messy.

I'll give it a shot. Don't have many voices on call for the purpose of spouting my damned fool head off. Pretty much all everything is, "as I have read, or as I understand," thrown out there for consideration and reconsideration if it's wrong. I'll qualify an opinion or conjecture that I'm feeling a good high degree of certainty on more often than I'll qualify the durr that is the norm--an "I shit you not" for emphasis and what not.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Faith in American supremacy has always been founded in the American Dream; the belief that the system that benefits the rich will benefit YOU some day, because in America, anyone can get rich enough to own a house and a nice car. The American Dream has been largely mythical from the beginning, but since the 1970's it's been a lie which is getting harder and harder to maintain. The people are becoming aware, and aren't as dully complacent as the media wants us to continue thinking they are.

We have these various lunatic fringe groups who are absolutely convinced that they represent the majority, because that's what the media has told us all. But their numbers don't back it up. The real Average American is not a complacent sow parked in front of American Idol; the real Average American is working too many hours for not enough pay, is upside-down on a mortgage that he's not sure he's going to be able to pay  this month, has inadequate health insurance, is in favor of universal health care, eats poorly and is overweight and feels bad but is too damn tired all the time to do anything about it, does not give a shit whether his gay neighbors can get married, is afraid his job (which he hates) is going to be lost due to offshoring, and is helplessly outraged at the influence corporations have over the government.

The only thing keeping them in check is the carefully media-fostered belief that the rest of America consists of fat, happy, bigoted consumers who support the status quo, and that there are so many of them that we can't do anything to change things. When something big like Occupy comes along, the media does its level best to make sure the people involved are portrayed as radicals, hippies, spoiled trust-fund kids, anything but regular people you can identify with, because if you can see yourself in a movement you might join it.

Truth is, the them we're so afraid of is us.

[Telarus]

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'd like it if Dok weighed in on this shit, because he knows hisself some Constitution.

I am finding myself very skeptical of almost everything you have to say about it, NoLoDeMiel. I am not well enough versed in Constitutional Law to actually call out most of it, but there are enough areas of what you say that don't ring true that I have a hard time trusting your judgement on any of it.

If you see something that looks bullshit, hit me on it. It may well be bullshit and I got some bad info or did some bad reading, and got some bullshit stuck in my teeth. Be doing me a favor. My judgement on most of it is straight opinion. I like it, I don't like it. Seems to me, doesn't seem. My judgement is something that I refine through exercise, not something that I hold as authoritative.

If I can follow the reasoning in a decision (and there's whole areas where even the vocabulary is prohibitive to me in that regard), or trace the evolution of a law or whatever, that still doesn't mean anything beyond the fact that I see how A to B was traversed. Read one of the dissenting opinions in Citizen's United and a bit of one of the majority opinions, and you'll see just how very wildly the reasoning can vary even amongst our top dogs. There is always bullshit to call in law, my main aim is to be able to pick out what's "not the sorta bullshit one would expect in a place like this," and what's "bullshit that's hip, hot and happenin."

What I would really appreciate, for clarity, is that you are clear about when you are stating facts, and when you are stating personal conjecture that is not based on research or training. You state much of your conjecture as if you are a trained expert and they are authoritative facts, and that makes the whole discussion messy.

I'll give it a shot. Don't have many voices on call for the purpose of spouting my damned fool head off. Pretty much all everything is, "as I have read, or as I understand," thrown out there for consideration and reconsideration if it's wrong. I'll qualify an opinion or conjecture that I'm feeling a good high degree of certainty on more often than I'll qualify the durr that is the norm--an "I shit you not" for emphasis and what not.

I just want to know to what degree I should be taking your word for things... that's the reason I asked about your level of expertise. We actually do have people on the board who are very highly trained in certain fields, so when someone presents something as fact it's usually because they have a significant amount of formal study on it under their belts.

I don't necessarily need you to cite sources every time, but I now at least have a better handle on the angle you are coming from.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

Loose as the articles are, the bill of rights has to be more explicit in enumerating rights.

Patrick Henry had argued against the Bill of Rights in the first place, because people would assume that's all the rights they had.  The only two things that need to be enumerated are amendments IX and X.  Everything else was a mistake to put down on paper.

I can definitely get behind that line of reasoning in general. But me and a whole bunch of dudes who called it 200 years ago, wouldn't look at the basket clause and not start putting rights on paper, real quick. No matter how many we could get tied down in the Constitution, congress was gonna be grabbing authorities even quicker. Hell, didn't even have to listen to the words of those who warned against that clause, just give a read to how dickish Hamilton got defending it. He knew what was up...and he liked it!

I am, definitely, gonna get the NDAA breakdown up at some point here, but it's easily got the most evil application of listing something as a way of not listing something that I've ever seen. Actually, even better, it lists something, meaninglessly, in a place where it will say to the citizen "it's all good" and say to the court "..."

Think Obama can now execute corporations?

[Triple Zero]

I'll give it a shot. Don't have many voices on call for the purpose of spouting my damned fool head off. Pretty much all everything is, "as I have read, or as I understand," thrown out there for consideration and reconsideration if it's wrong. I'll qualify an opinion or conjecture that I'm feeling a good high degree of certainty on more often than I'll qualify the durr that is the norm--an "I shit you not" for emphasis and what not.

Tip: You can easily just throw a few "I think" or "IMO" and "According to X" into it. Doesn't need to be a fully qualified qualifier every time and if you miss one it's no big deal people will ask or assume from context. I find it works wonders. ("I find" is another good one btw)

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

I'd like it if Dok weighed in on this shit, because he knows hisself some Constitution.

I am finding myself very skeptical of almost everything you have to say about it, NoLoDeMiel. I am not well enough versed in Constitutional Law to actually call out most of it, but there are enough areas of what you say that don't ring true that I have a hard time trusting your judgement on any of it.

If you see something that looks bullshit, hit me on it. It may well be bullshit and I got some bad info or did some bad reading, and got some bullshit stuck in my teeth. Be doing me a favor. My judgement on most of it is straight opinion. I like it, I don't like it. Seems to me, doesn't seem. My judgement is something that I refine through exercise, not something that I hold as authoritative.

If I can follow the reasoning in a decision (and there's whole areas where even the vocabulary is prohibitive to me in that regard), or trace the evolution of a law or whatever, that still doesn't mean anything beyond the fact that I see how A to B was traversed. Read one of the dissenting opinions in Citizen's United and a bit of one of the majority opinions, and you'll see just how very wildly the reasoning can vary even amongst our top dogs. There is always bullshit to call in law, my main aim is to be able to pick out what's "not the sorta bullshit one would expect in a place like this," and what's "bullshit that's hip, hot and happenin."

What I would really appreciate, for clarity, is that you are clear about when you are stating facts, and when you are stating personal conjecture that is not based on research or training. You state much of your conjecture as if you are a trained expert and they are authoritative facts, and that makes the whole discussion messy.

I'll give it a shot. Don't have many voices on call for the purpose of spouting my damned fool head off. Pretty much all everything is, "as I have read, or as I understand," thrown out there for consideration and reconsideration if it's wrong. I'll qualify an opinion or conjecture that I'm feeling a good high degree of certainty on more often than I'll qualify the durr that is the norm--an "I shit you not" for emphasis and what not.

I just want to know to what degree I should be taking your word for things... that's the reason I asked about your level of expertise. We actually do have people on the board who are very highly trained in certain fields, so when someone presents something as fact it's usually because they have a significant amount of formal study on it under their belts.

I don't necessarily need you to cite sources every time, but I now at least have a better handle on the angle you are coming from.

Yeah, unqualified, if it's a case or a point I break down in some detail, that's because I can...which means it's good and swallowed. If I'd wager, dollars, donuts, etc, fairly sure of it (I play poker, but I ain't gambled in years). If it's "well this is all bullshit and malarkey and pisses me off right good and well" even if I'm saying it from an informed position, I'm addressing reasoning, so I'm just waiting for some new perspective on the same exact information to come to mind.

On Citizen's United, I broke it down here after a couple of reads. Have read some background since. Pretty simple decision on points of fact, but the background is immense. I say with all honesty and earnestness that as a judicial practice in general, and much, much more so for this court, answering a question of facial constitutionality on a piece of legislation is black swan rare, doing so when the question wasn't asked, exists only in the mythical land of the unicorn, Michael Jackson's original nose and my virginity. Not sure what to make of it, but it's screaming pretty fucking loud. In my deepest, wildest dreams I like to imagine they were trying to provide a new facial basis for giving some old questions a new look...but then again, maybe she's just smiling and not at all interested in marrying me

--Also as to the things this opinion is not saying in the manner purported, money = speech (to the extent that any limitations on campaign spending, other than those enacted with McCain-Feingold, are facially unconstitutional. No reason, implication, or assertion is provided that an appropriately structured campaign finance limit would fail constitutionality), corporations is people too (which it is, but it is saying it standing on top of a gaudy list of precedent, not establishing it), I say that after reading, re-reading, and re-re-re-reading those points. It ain't there...which, in terms of how the presence or absence of those opinions effects the ability of any future decision to cite them as though they were, means exactly dick. If there's anything I'd say with full certainty about constitutional jurisprudence, it's that not being there is no reason for it not to be found (or conversely, that being there only means getting the hell around it, or ignoring it, in a pinch).