Obama taught constitutional law, and is against the SC ruling?

He cites his emotional rationale, that corporations will more effectively control the election process. What about his constitutional rationale? What do you think Obama thinks about this ruling in terms of the constitution?

I agree w/ Obama’s feelings and the SC’s decision, despite that both reach different conclusions, because from the perspective of how they lay out their arguments, I feel both are right. The SC wins, because the constitution is the law of the land, but this victory of the constitution seems sour.

It sure does seem sour. It would have been one thing if they had put a cap on expenditures similar to those of individuals ($2500). But in all actuality, a corporation (or union) really doesn’t have a voice… or a hand to cast a ballot. They should find a way to make sure that 100% of all corp/union members agree with ad before it is legally allowed to air, since they are being represented by said corp/union. But something is missing here…
______________________________
"Who better than corporations to get things done and why shouldn’t they have political power?"

– I at least have the opportunity to vote for my representatives (even if it doesn’t go my way). I have no vote with other organizations. Plus I don’t have time to sit around creating a list of what companies I want to support/not support (simply because of politics). Their job is to produce something and make adjustments as needed, according to the laws, in order to make a profit. I see this as giving them too much influence in creating laws that benefit them.

Post Author: mark

6 thoughts on “Obama taught constitutional law, and is against the SC ruling?

    Socialist_Green_Moron

    (January 26, 2010 - 12:43 pm)

    What’s wrong with corporations controlling the election process?

    Corporations are owned by the citizens of the USA. They provide jobs, goods, services, nearly 100% of the tax base and investment opportunity.

    Who better than corporations to get things done and why shouldn’t they have political power?
    References :

    natural-born AMERICAN

    (January 26, 2010 - 1:00 pm)

    He was never a constitutional law professor, only a lecturer.

    He has stated that he believes the Constitution is fundamentally flawed.

    I do not believe he is working to preserve, protect and defend it from all enemies, foreign or domestic.
    References :

    Hambone

    (January 26, 2010 - 1:32 pm)

    It sure does seem sour. It would have been one thing if they had put a cap on expenditures similar to those of individuals ($2500). But in all actuality, a corporation (or union) really doesn’t have a voice… or a hand to cast a ballot. They should find a way to make sure that 100% of all corp/union members agree with ad before it is legally allowed to air, since they are being represented by said corp/union. But something is missing here…
    ______________________________
    "Who better than corporations to get things done and why shouldn’t they have political power?"

    – I at least have the opportunity to vote for my representatives (even if it doesn’t go my way). I have no vote with other organizations. Plus I don’t have time to sit around creating a list of what companies I want to support/not support (simply because of politics). Their job is to produce something and make adjustments as needed, according to the laws, in order to make a profit. I see this as giving them too much influence in creating laws that benefit them.
    References :

    Howard L

    (January 26, 2010 - 1:42 pm)

    He doesn’t like the ruling but he’s not against it in that he doesn’t intend to not obey it. The Supreme Court ruled that law unconstitutional so now that he knows what the grounds for their objection were. He will try to get Congress to pass another law that is within the grounds. Most Supreme Court decisions are very narrowly construed. There might be only one sentence in a ten thousand word law that they ruled unconstitutional. Remove that sentence and the law stands.

    I don’t know the details of this particular ruling but the law certainly needs to be changed. It is unfair to the citizens to allow a company or an industry to spend unlimited amounts of money to "buy" politicians who will do whatever they want.

    At the very least the stockholders should have a voice in how the corporation spends the money. It rightfully belongs to them the owners of the company.
    References :

    Ghost of Tom Joad

    (January 26, 2010 - 2:05 pm)

    The part that I don’t understand is why is giving money for government favor constitutional protected free speech, but giving money for sex, aka prostitution, still illegal?

    Anyway, this is really bad news in bringing politics back to popular control, but I suppose in a way this is what the founding fathers intended. After all, voting rights were originally restricted to just those white men who owned property, I think there was a fear of mob rule originally, and the constitution did want to protect money interests as well.

    Anyway, I’m sure nobody back then envisioned what would happen if that idea was taken to the extreme in a global marketplace, and now we are a stuck with a system that can pretty much only change if we convince people with money it is in their interests to support such change.
    References :

    Bug

    (January 26, 2010 - 2:25 pm)

    Corporations are not people. They should not have individual civil rights.

    They are "for profit" entities, and should be regulated as such.
    References :

Leave a Reply