Wonderful op-ed column out of Maurice Emmer today. Up on the Aspen Times.
"Do you understand federal election finance law? If so, you are ahead of most Americans. You are ahead of most news readers and commentators, and you are way ahead of President Obama. (See his distortion of the Citizens United decision in his January 2010 State of the Union address.)
Why is this relevant almost 30 months later? Because this year's important elections will be enlivened by outraged and mostly misinformed criticisms of big-money spending on political speech. However one feels about it, one ought to be informed about what the rules really are and why before deciding what should or shouldn't — or indeed can and cannot — be done about such spending.
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided cases dealing with campaign finance for more than 45 years, since Congress started passing restrictions on contributions and spending in the 1970s. The problem with the restrictions was that spreading a political message requires money, so limits on contributions and spending are limits on political speech. Courts analogize the level of political spending to the size of a person's megaphone (or loudspeaker). The First Amendment proclaims that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” This prohibits limits on the size of the megaphone. A law that limits contributions or spending does limit the size of the megaphone, abridging the freedom of speech.
Given the fundamental importance of free political speech, the Supreme Court has struck down many campaign finance and spending-law restrictions that it found abridged the freedom of political speech....."
(Read more? You should. Click title)
"Unapologetic pursuit and tracking of patterns within the news others make since 2010."
Showing posts with label SCOTUS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SCOTUS. Show all posts
May 12, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: Union Leader "A constitutional amendment worth everyone's support"
Charles Arlinghaus:
"An amendment on education funding in New Hampshire is long overdue and is only common sense. The only thing stopping the Legislature from putting one on the ballot are the misconceptions of one group of people and the tax fantasies of another. Both groups should be overlooked and an amendment adopted.
The source of the conflict is a series of state Supreme Court rulings called the Claremont decisions. They basically said that the way we had funded education — largely through local property taxes with a small amount of state aid — was unconstitutional.
They interpreted the phrase “cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries and public schools,” to mean that the state can't delegate its authority and has to use a state, not a local, tax to pay for a basic portion of the funding. The inherent ambiguity of the phrase is what led many people to think of the decision as a bit of an overreach.
Some of the more liberal-leaning legislators hoped the decision would force an income tax or at least a transfer of education to the state, creating one big school district, if you will. But that was always a fantasy, and there has never been much support for a state school district (nor should there be)....."
(Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
"An amendment on education funding in New Hampshire is long overdue and is only common sense. The only thing stopping the Legislature from putting one on the ballot are the misconceptions of one group of people and the tax fantasies of another. Both groups should be overlooked and an amendment adopted.
The source of the conflict is a series of state Supreme Court rulings called the Claremont decisions. They basically said that the way we had funded education — largely through local property taxes with a small amount of state aid — was unconstitutional.
They interpreted the phrase “cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries and public schools,” to mean that the state can't delegate its authority and has to use a state, not a local, tax to pay for a basic portion of the funding. The inherent ambiguity of the phrase is what led many people to think of the decision as a bit of an overreach.
Some of the more liberal-leaning legislators hoped the decision would force an income tax or at least a transfer of education to the state, creating one big school district, if you will. But that was always a fantasy, and there has never been much support for a state school district (nor should there be)....."
(Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
May 6, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: Right Scoop "Obama warns SCOTUS that Medicare payments might stop if Obamacare is overturned"
Dan Cleary:
"The Obama Administration has filed papers with the Supreme Court warning them that Medicare payments are in danger of “freezing up” if Obamacare is overturned.
How low can this President sink? He knows full well that if Obamacare is upheld, Medicare will be gutted to the tune of at least $500 billion. So his signature “achievement” actually accelerates Medicare’s path to bankruptcy. There’s simply no question about it. For Obama to arbitrarily threaten to withhold Medicare payments unless the Supreme Court justices grant him a favorable ruling is despicable – especially since Obamacare’s impact on Medicare has nothing to do with the law’s constitutional merits, or lack thereof. ..."
(Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
"The Obama Administration has filed papers with the Supreme Court warning them that Medicare payments are in danger of “freezing up” if Obamacare is overturned.
How low can this President sink? He knows full well that if Obamacare is upheld, Medicare will be gutted to the tune of at least $500 billion. So his signature “achievement” actually accelerates Medicare’s path to bankruptcy. There’s simply no question about it. For Obama to arbitrarily threaten to withhold Medicare payments unless the Supreme Court justices grant him a favorable ruling is despicable – especially since Obamacare’s impact on Medicare has nothing to do with the law’s constitutional merits, or lack thereof. ..."
(Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
April 26, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: Bloomberg "High Court Skeptical of Obama’s Use of Power as Campaign Starts"
Greg Stohr:
"President Barack Obama faces the specter of twin setbacks at the U.S. Supreme Court in the middle of his re-election campaign with justices questioning his assertion of federal power on both health care and immigration.
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
"President Barack Obama faces the specter of twin setbacks at the U.S. Supreme Court in the middle of his re-election campaign with justices questioning his assertion of federal power on both health care and immigration.
U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, the president’s top courtroom lawyer, met resistance across ideological lines yesterday as he called on the court to strike down Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigrants. Even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s only Hispanic and an Obama appointee, told Verrilli his argument is “not selling very well.” ...." (Read more? Click title)
SandBoxBlogs: Pueblo Chieftain "Ariz. migrant case could lead to sweeping changes"
What is this (mostly conservative based) concept of "humane immigration reform"?
Are you aware of the high fatality rates there are in the cess pool that is human trafficking and smuggling? Do some research, set up regular bulletin notifications from ICE, Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection and DEA. Get informed.
Are you aware of the estimated crime that is committed, yet unreported and failed to prosecute against illegal foreign nationals, especially children, because they cannot come in from the shadows for fear of deportation? Do some digging for your locale and surrounding area. Get informed.
Are you aware that the vast majority of conservative politicians, conservative voters, various stages of law enforcement and homeland military are not "evil monsters who want no immigration and want only closed borders"? If you're not, you are not paying close enough attention to direct source information and listening to media that wishes to drown out the facts.
One of the very best GOP debate exchanges was made by Texas Governor Rick Perry up against the determined liberal heart of Diane Sawyer.
He absolutely refused to engage with her repeated baiting and taunting of him to give her a firm answer on exactly "how" he would reform immigration policies.
His point (which clearly won the exchange) was that it was a pointless, fruitless and damaging to all parties conversation until the borders are secured. First, secure the borders. Then reform. It is the only way for humane immigration reform to have a chance.
Think about the concept.
Stop the horrific cost to human life by stopping the human smuggling. Secure the border so that everyone can be accounted for on both sides. Amnesty is not an option, but consideration for individual circumstances is. But first, everyone must come in from the shadows and be accounted for.
How 'humane' is the belief that a porous, highly dangerous to human life border is the best option for illegals?
This news over the past few days that SCOTUS is showing strong favor to upholding Arizona's original immigration law that would allow for law enforcement to prove legal citizenship is one of the most humane efforts toward illegal immigrants to date.
Congratulations to the State of Arizona for staying the course and at least getting to this point. We'll keep our fingers crossed on this end.
JACQUES BILLEAUD
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
Are you aware of the high fatality rates there are in the cess pool that is human trafficking and smuggling? Do some research, set up regular bulletin notifications from ICE, Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection and DEA. Get informed.
Are you aware of the estimated crime that is committed, yet unreported and failed to prosecute against illegal foreign nationals, especially children, because they cannot come in from the shadows for fear of deportation? Do some digging for your locale and surrounding area. Get informed.
Are you aware that the vast majority of conservative politicians, conservative voters, various stages of law enforcement and homeland military are not "evil monsters who want no immigration and want only closed borders"? If you're not, you are not paying close enough attention to direct source information and listening to media that wishes to drown out the facts.
One of the very best GOP debate exchanges was made by Texas Governor Rick Perry up against the determined liberal heart of Diane Sawyer.
He absolutely refused to engage with her repeated baiting and taunting of him to give her a firm answer on exactly "how" he would reform immigration policies.
His point (which clearly won the exchange) was that it was a pointless, fruitless and damaging to all parties conversation until the borders are secured. First, secure the borders. Then reform. It is the only way for humane immigration reform to have a chance.
Think about the concept.
Stop the horrific cost to human life by stopping the human smuggling. Secure the border so that everyone can be accounted for on both sides. Amnesty is not an option, but consideration for individual circumstances is. But first, everyone must come in from the shadows and be accounted for.
How 'humane' is the belief that a porous, highly dangerous to human life border is the best option for illegals?
This news over the past few days that SCOTUS is showing strong favor to upholding Arizona's original immigration law that would allow for law enforcement to prove legal citizenship is one of the most humane efforts toward illegal immigrants to date.
Congratulations to the State of Arizona for staying the course and at least getting to this point. We'll keep our fingers crossed on this end.
JACQUES BILLEAUD
"PHOENIX (AP) — The United States could see an official about-face in the coming months in how it confronts illegal immigration if the Supreme Court follows through on its suggestion that it would let local police enforce the most controversial part of Arizona's immigration law.
Over the last several years, states frustrated with America's porous borders, have rejected the long held notion that Washington is responsible for confronting illegal immigration and have passed a flurry of laws to let local police confront illegal immigration. The Supreme Court is poised in the coming months to let the states know whether they haven't crossed the line.
The justices strongly suggested Wednesday that they are ready to let Arizona enforce the most controversial part of its law, a requirement that police officers check the immigration status of people they suspect are in the country illegally. Such a ruling could codify the type of local enforcement that some local authorities in Arizona have carried out over the last six years and open the door to such enforcement in states with similar laws, such as Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah.
"I think you'll see more involvement by local police in immigration enforcement, an involvement that hadn't previously been seen," Kevin Johnson, law school dean at the University of California-Davis and an expert in immigration law, said of the possibility of Arizona's law being upheld.
The most controversial parts of the Arizona law were put on hold by a federal judge shortly before they were to take effect in late July 2010, but the statute has encouraged other states to take up similar legislation and — combined with other state immigration laws and an ailing economy — played a part in 170,000 illegal immigrants leaving Arizona since 2007....." (Read more? Click title)
April 8, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: Glenwood Springs Post Independent/Charles Krauthammer "
Charles Krauthammer:
"Having lost the argument, what to do? Bully. The New York Times loftily warned the Supreme Court that it would forfeit its legitimacy if it ruled against Obamacare because with the “five Republican-appointed justices supporting the challenge led by 26 Republican governors, the court will mark itself as driven by politics.”
Really? The administration's case for the constitutionality of Obamacare was so thoroughly demolished in oral argument that one liberal observer called it “a train wreck.”
It is perfectly natural, therefore, that a majority of the court should side with the argument that had so clearly prevailed on its merits. That's not partisanship. That's logic. Partisanship is four Democrat-appointed justices giving lockstep support to a law passed by a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president — after the case for its constitutionality had been reduced to rubble.
Democrats are reeling. Obama was so taken aback, he hasn't even drawn up contingency plans should his cherished reform be struck down. Liberals still cannot grasp what's happened — the mild revival of constitutionalism in a country they've grown so used to ordering about regardless. When asked about Obamacare's constitutionality, Nancy Pelosi famously replied: “Are you serious?” She was genuinely puzzled.
As was Rep. Phil Hare, D-Ill. As Michael Barone notes, when Hare was similarly challenged at a 2010 town hall, he replied: “I don't worry about the Constitution.” Hare is now retired, having been shortly thereafter defeated for re-election by the more constitutionally attuned owner of an East Moline pizza shop...." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
"Having lost the argument, what to do? Bully. The New York Times loftily warned the Supreme Court that it would forfeit its legitimacy if it ruled against Obamacare because with the “five Republican-appointed justices supporting the challenge led by 26 Republican governors, the court will mark itself as driven by politics.”
Really? The administration's case for the constitutionality of Obamacare was so thoroughly demolished in oral argument that one liberal observer called it “a train wreck.”
It is perfectly natural, therefore, that a majority of the court should side with the argument that had so clearly prevailed on its merits. That's not partisanship. That's logic. Partisanship is four Democrat-appointed justices giving lockstep support to a law passed by a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president — after the case for its constitutionality had been reduced to rubble.
Democrats are reeling. Obama was so taken aback, he hasn't even drawn up contingency plans should his cherished reform be struck down. Liberals still cannot grasp what's happened — the mild revival of constitutionalism in a country they've grown so used to ordering about regardless. When asked about Obamacare's constitutionality, Nancy Pelosi famously replied: “Are you serious?” She was genuinely puzzled.
As was Rep. Phil Hare, D-Ill. As Michael Barone notes, when Hare was similarly challenged at a 2010 town hall, he replied: “I don't worry about the Constitution.” Hare is now retired, having been shortly thereafter defeated for re-election by the more constitutionally attuned owner of an East Moline pizza shop...." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)