| | |
|
CitizensUnitedVFederalElectionCommission 19 - 12 Feb 2010 - Main.ArtCavazosJr
|
| | I've rearranged this page so that our 100 word responses to the opinion are at the beginning. The conversation we had before reading the opinion is below. Art and Sam, when you guys add your responses, just put them under mine. I've also included the link that Glover posted in this section.
_________________________________ | | | -- NathanStopper - 06 Feb 2010 | |
<
< | In Citizens United, the Court answers a question no one asked. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce upheld federal law (2 U.S.C. §441b) banning corporate-funded expenditures on "electioneering communications." McConnell did pretty much the same, relying on the holding in Austin. Neither party to the immediate case brought up Austin or McConnell, yet the Court directed the parties to reframe their positions so that it could evaluate these two cases. | >
> | In Citizens United, the Court answers a question no one asked. The Court directed the parties to reframe their positions so that it could evaluate two previously unmentioned cases. | | | | |
<
< | After filing the briefs, both parties pointed out to the Court that it could easily avoid overturning these cases by applying a de minimus rule to the immediate case. This would exempt Citizens United from §441b because only a tiny fraction of its funding actually came from for-profit corporations. Justice Stevens, in his dissent, points out at least three additional ways in which the Court could have made a more narrow holding. However, the Court dismisses these arguments, blows past a century of precedent, and chooses to overrule the cases anyway. | >
> | After filing their revised briefs, both parties pointed out to the Court that it could easily avoid overturning those cases by applying a de minimus rule to the immediate case. This would exempt Citizens United from §441b because only a tiny fraction of its funding actually came from for-profit corporations. Justice Stevens, in his dissent, points out at least three additional ways in which the Court could have made a more narrow holding. However, the Court dismisses these arguments, blows past a century of precedent, and chooses to overrule the cases anyway. | | | | |
<
< | Central, of course, to their ruling is that corporations are protected under the First Amendment, and that they are no different from wealthy "natural persons" (except for limited liability, perpetual life, and favorable treatment under State law to the accumulation and distribution of assets; also they can't hold office or vote... yet). The Court obviously had an agenda with this case, and I think that is what upsets me most. Whether you agree or not with the outcome, that fact the Court essentially asked themselves a question (not to mention a controversial and weighty question with far-reaching consequences) and answered it by overruling the holdings of dozens of cases and Congressional Acts dating to 1907 should definitely raise some eyebrows. | >
> | Central, of course, to their ruling is that corporations are protected under the First Amendment, and that they are no different from wealthy "natural persons" (except for limited liability, perpetual life, etc; also they can't hold office or vote... yet). The Court obviously had an agenda with this case, and that is what upsets me most. Whether you agree or not with the outcome, the Court essentially asked themselves a question, and answered it by overruling the holdings of dozens of cases and Congressional Acts dating to 1907.
non-100 word version | | | -- ArtCavazosJr - 12 Feb 2010 |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |