Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 02:07pm PT
|
I don't see what the beef is.
A lot of the Americans I know weren't born in America.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 02:09pm PT
|
Lolli, half the country IS that stupid.
But thanks for pointing it out.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 02:09pm PT
|
"This was sort of answered, but to reiterate: The first admendment specifically grants freedom of the press. So that right is protected independent of corporations."
So is freedom of speech. How, then, is Citizens United a dangerous conservative adventure in judicial activism? The activism -- and intellectual dishonesty -- is in trying to portray that decision as fundamentally different from centuries of jurisprudence. If there was anything unprecedented about that decision, it was the President's deliberate, cowardly mischaracterization of it in the State of the Union speech.
Fair enough point about freedom of speech, but I think you can also flip that one around. Freedom of religion clearly included organized groups, since that was the dominant form of religion at the time (and they didn't feel a need to spell that out). Freedom of press would clearly include organized newspapers. Sure, an individual could pass out a pamplete, but multi-employee newspapers were the dominant form, again this was probably so self-evident they didn't need to spell it out.
So, if freedom of speech applied to organized, economic groups (read corporations), why would you even need a freedom of press clause? Would freedom of speech suffice? Or is it because they thought it was self-evident that freedom of speech only applied to individuals, in which case newspapers were still left needing protection?
I'm not a big fan of the term judicial activism. However, for all the republican wailing about judicial activism, the current, conservative court has been overturning precedent and/or carvng exceptions and/or narrowing prior precedent, etc at a large rate.
Yes, corporations have been persons under the first admendment. But political donation laws have also withstood prior judicial scrutiny. The current court has expanded the power of companies by giving less deference to the public interest when weighing the interest of society versus corporate, bill of rights. That is an activist court. It is actively changing the rules of the game. The limiting factor on the 5-4 decisions used to be O'connor and now it is Kennedy, who is generally further to the right. The Roberts court has been busily taking advantage of that by activily changing prior rulings. For instance, they have largely gutted (without explicitly overturning) the Miranda precedent. What is not activist about that? After decades of the supreme court being relatively quiet on the 2 admendment, it looks like the court is going to actively create do and don't, national laws, on gun ownership...
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 02:18pm PT
|
most Swedes are monarchists
HAHAHAHA! I love your sense of humor, Lolli!
I guess I was hangin' with the wrong crowd.
Oh, right, they were climbers. I don't think any of 'em
would have given the King bus fare if he asked them for it.
Actually, I'd say most Swedes are just plain practical folk.
|
|
krahmes
Social climber
LP
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 02:20pm PT
|
So, what has changed since the 1860s when the 14th Amendment was passed that is reason to deny citizenship to people born here?
World Population 1860 = 1.25 billion
World Population 2010 = 7.00 billion
USA Population 1860 = 31 million
USA Population 2010 = 306 million
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 02:24pm PT
|
So, what has changed since the 1860s when the 14th Amendment was passed that is reason to deny citizenship to people born here?
Slavery was abolished. (The primary reason for the 14th)
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 03:18pm PT
|
So, the 14th Amendment should be changed because the United States has
more people now?
Are we running out of room? Shortage of housing out west here?
Don't believe free enterprise and free markets can sustain any more people here?
Maybe get a refund on your income taxes if we cut down on food stamps and
welfare payments to those illegal immigrant children who we all know will
never amount to anything and spend their lives living off us tax payers?
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 03:53pm PT
|
So, the 14th Amendment should be changed because the United States has
more people now?
No. It's because we have no more slaves who were brought here against their will.
Are you paying attention? Or just ignoring facts?
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 03:59pm PT
|
Blue, since you seem to have an opinion about the 14th, have you heard of any reason why all the other countries of North and South America have the same rule (even Cuba!!) and, except for some charming exceptions, no other country does?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 04:08pm PT
|
It was presented that population increases here in the US over the past
150 years is a reason for amending the 14th.
Again, since no one has answered it, how exactly has the population increase
become a reason for nowadays denying citizenship to babies born to an illegally immigrated mother?
Most people would understand that this question has nothing to do with slavery.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 04:33pm PT
|
have you heard of any reason why all the other countries of North and South America have the same rule (even Cuba!!)
Simple. Nobody wants to go there (and live there). We have to get a grip on immigration to this country. We cannot handle everybody.
Instead, we should be encouraging them to develop systems of governance and economies like ours. In other words, make them want to live in their country.
I know. Call me a xenophobe, but I just think our current immigration system (legal and illegal) is unsustainable.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 04:36pm PT
|
Slavery was abolished. (The primary reason for the 14th)
So basically the idea was the children born here to humans beings we import for labor should get citizenship. Sounds like a good reason to me not to tamper with the 14th.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 04:46pm PT
|
So basically the idea was the children born here to humans beings we import for labor should get citizenship. Sounds like a good reason to me not to tamper with the 14th.
Don't be disingenuous, you know the differences.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 04:57pm PT
|
John wrote a while back:
//How do we have effective freedom of the press if corporations are not "persons" under the Constitution? Virtually every media outlet is a corporation, yet longstanding jurisprudence (predating New York Times v. Sullivan) recognized that the corporate status of a publisher did not abridge that First Amendment right.
The same is true of the takings clause under the Fifth Amendment. The hysteria over Citizens United simply shows the extent to which the opponents of the majority's decision are willing to sacrifice intellectual honesty for political expediency -- and economic catastrophe.//
Puleeze. The SCOTUS majority sacrificed intellectual honesty in reaching their holding. That's pretty evidence from a review of not only Citizens United but also a majority of the decisions written by Robert, Scalia, Thomas and "Scalito" (a nickname that preceded him before his admission to the Court).
Also, it's pretty well established that corporations haven't have unfettered 1st A rights. Probably a more accurate paradigm of the issue is the type of speech restricted. If the belief was that corporations were always "persons" and always had absolute 1st A. rights, then there would not have been a whole line of decisions restricting corporations' use of commerical speech. If cigarette companies, which are corporations, have unlimited 1st A rights, then how can restrictions on smoking advertising be legal?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 05:10pm PT
|
Don't be disingenuous, you know the differences.
You don't apparently.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 05:33pm PT
|
Healy, one group was brought here against their will as slaves. The other group voluntarily CHOSE to break our laws and enter the country illegally.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 05:33pm PT
|
Bluering, you responded to my inclusion of Cuba, the only statist country in the world with you-are-a-citizen-by-birth citizenship rule.
I cannot believe that you think that North and South American consist of only the US and Cube.
Here are some other pretty nice 'New World' countries that are good choices: Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Belize, Jamaica, St. Kitts and Nevis,...but I am only naming places that I think are inviting.
The connection seems to be settled-by-immigrants.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 05:42pm PT
|
Roger, I'm a proponent of at least one parent being a citizen to grant a child citizenship.
It makes no sense to allow illegal immigrants to have citizenship granted to their kids. It's abused too much. There needs to be a deterrent IMO.
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 05:50pm PT
|
Is this even a real problem? All of the $ supposedly spent on "anchor babies" is spent regardless of citizenship (school/hospitals/social services/etc).
Ever notice how immigration always flares up as we ease into an election cycle? As always, nothing will be done. It's a pain in the a$$ to amend the constitution and there is no way it's happening for right wing radio's latest latest emergency.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 06:12pm PT
|
first, "conservatives" do not question barry's birth (though some of us are curious why he doesn't simply show his original birth certificate...like kerry still hasn't opened his personal file from the vietnam war despite promising to do so over three years ago); that would be like me saying, "liberals question who really is responsible for 9/11"
now, guess who authored a bill in 1993 to deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants?
HARRY REID!!!
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:s1351:
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!