7 Wishes wrote:I remember a lot of people in here being emphatic in their support of the McCain - Feingold Act. Where are those voices now?
The Supreme Court's decision is atrocious and indefensible. The worst part was Knucklehead Roberts' defense of turning over the 1993 decision that went 7-2 against it...he said that because there was "dissent" (i.e. the support of ONLY Scalia and Thomas) that the verdict was not unanimous and therefore ambiguous.
I'm also puzzled that the GOP is claiming Obama is offering "more of the same" when his fiscal policies are Clintonesque in their moderate virtual conservatism.
Actually... in the eyes of US Law, a corporation has the same rights as an individual (see below). So denying them the same rights to donate to campaigns (as WRONG as that is) as an individual would be a violation of their rights...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_CodeThe United States Code (U.S.C.) is a compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal law of the United States. It contains 50 titles and is published every six years by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives.[1]
By law, those titles of the United States Code that have not been enacted into positive law are "prima facie evidence"[6] of the law in effect. The United States Statutes at Large remains the ultimate authority. If a dispute arises as to the accuracy or completeness of the codification of an unenacted title, the courts will turn to the language in the United States Statutes at Large.
Where a title has been enacted into positive law, however, a court may neither permit nor require proof of the underlying original statutes.[7] The distinction between enacted and unenacted titles is largely academic because the Code is nearly always accurate. The United States Code is routinely cited by the Supreme Court and other federal courts without mentioning this theoretical caveat. On a day-to-day basis, very few lawyers cross-reference the Code to the Statutes at Large.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_law"In the case of titles that are positive law (in the restricted sense), the text of the title itself, as published in the United States Code by the United States Government Printing Office, is conclusive evidence of the exact wording and punctuation of the statute. In litigation over a provision of the United States Code, this means that to determine the actual wording of the statute the court generally will not look beyond the text as printed in the Code itself. "
Title 1 of the US Code is considered "positive law"... which gives "corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies" the same rights as individuals.
U.S.C. § 1 : US Code - Section 1: Words denoting number, gender, and so forth
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the
context indicates otherwise -
words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things;
words importing the plural include the singular;
words importing the masculine gender include the feminine as well;
words used in the present tense include the future as well as the present;
the words "insane" and "insane person" and "lunatic" shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non
compos mentis;
the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and
joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
"officer" includes any person authorized by law to perform the duties of the office;
"signature" or "subscription" includes a mark when the person making the same intended it as such;
"oath" includes affirmation, and "sworn" includes affirmed;
"writing" includes printing and typewriting and reproductions of visual symbols by photographing, multigraphing, mimeographing,
manifolding, or otherwise.
So the SCOTUS decision was only to reaffirm what
is already law... Obama knows this as a lawyer.. and supposed Constitutional professor... but blaming the SCOTUS is good political theater... and the sheeple eat it up.
BLAME CONGRESS
straight down party lines.
