So here's a question about if something is explicitly detailed in Constitution

[Beatlelvr]

I'm wondering about Freedom of Speech. Isn't your "right" to donate a boatload of money with no limit to a candidate held under the freedom of speech concept? Unlimited donations are not explicitly mentioned in Constitution but it's been interpreted that way, right? (Also Hustler Magazine for that matter, but that's another situation.)

[keithbvadu2]

1. When discussing the Constitution in a blog or chat room...

When discussing the Constitution in a blog or chat room...

All things not specifically forbidden must be allowed, IF that supports your premise.

All things not specifically allowed must be forbidden, IF that supports your premise.

???

[dpibel]

6. You seem to find this so hilarious

Right down to the treble question marks after the sarcasm tag.

And you've posted it again and again.

As I understand it (and I realize you've built plausible deniability into your presentation) you find this a trenchant critique of online argumentation.

I'd submit that you could, with perfect accuracy, replace your subject line with "When discussing the Constitution as a member of the Roberts Court majority."

Do I have this right?

[keithbvadu2]

9. If you don't like it, that's OK.

[dpibel]

11. It's not so much whether I like it

I honestly don't get it.

You post it over and over.

I just finally decided to see if I could get you to tell me what you mean by it.

[roamer65]

2. Secession is not in the Constitution.

Seems to me it’s now legal, applying their ideology used to overturn Roe.

[Me.]

3. Here's What Is Not Explicitly Mentioned In The Original Constitiution

women's vote, end to slavery, assault guns, rights regarding internet

[Effete Snob]

4. No, you do not have the right to make unlimited donations to a candidate

I get that people have weird beliefs about what Citizens United was about, but that was not the outcome.

[Beatlelvr]

5. Okay

Thanks for info.

[dpibel]

7. Clever drafting!

The OP didn't say "unlimited donations to a candidate," did it?

You can donate all the speech...errr...money you want to Super PACs.

[Effete Snob]

8. Yes, the OP said exactly that

"The OP didn't say "unlimited donations to a candidate," did it?"

"Isn't your "right" to donate a boatload of money with no limit to a candidate.."

That is, in fact, exactly what the OP said.

And, yes, Michael Moore or anyone else can fund the production of movies during an election year.

[dpibel]

10. My bad

Hung up on the second iteration.

Michael Moore has what to do with this? You are saying Michael Moore making a film is equivalent to a Super PAC?

[Effete Snob]

12. Do you know what the Citizens United case was about?

Or even what Citizens United - the corporation - was doing?


Michael Moore has what to do with this?

Sigh.... Citizen's United was making a movie. Michael Moore makes movies. Michael Moore can make movies about political subjects and exhibit those movies during an election year, and his company could pay for advertisements promoting his movie. Citizen's United could not...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_(organization)

Citizens United campaigned against Michael Moore's 2004 film Fahrenheit 9/11, advocating for government limits on how much advertising the film received. It also made advertisements attacking the film, and when the Federal Election Commission held that Moore's film was not a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act, produced its own rebuttal film called Celsius 41.11. However, the FEC held that paying to air Celsius 41.11 would constitute an illegal corporate campaign expenditure.

So Michael Moore has quite a bit to do with it, since their first production was a rebuttal to Moore.

Michael Moore was the POINT. He (and others investing in his production company) can spend their money to make political films and show them and advertise them during an election year.

The ACLU explains this "some people can pay to produce movies while other people cannot" principle as follows:

https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-and-citizens-united

Any rule that requires the government to determine what political speech is legitimate and how much political speech is appropriate is difficult to reconcile with the First Amendment. Our system of free expression is built on the premise that the people get to decide what speech they want to hear; it is not the role of the government to make that decision for them.

[dpibel]

13. No sale

You apparently are hoping I, and whoever else is your audience, do not know the difference between the underlying facts and the holding in the case.

Your implication that Citizens United extends no further than the financing, production, and advertising of movies is patent nonsense.

The holding of the case was that states could place no limitations on independent political expenditures.

But you knew that.