Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A new "constitutional right"
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in message ... Cliff wrote in : On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:09:54 -0600, (Gray Ghost) wrote: "RD (The Sandman)" wrote in : Cliff wrote in : Unlimited funding for office from unions. Buy your rethugs now !!! Excuse me, but unions support the Dems and the decision was about corporations and the last 60 days prior to an election. Do you expect Cliff to get anything right? The decision applied to unions. The decision applied to unions *AND* corporations. There was no decision regarding unions. It would require another case to decide it, and speculation is all over the map. The Democrats, of course, are more concerned about the corporations getting their voice back after losing it in McCain-Feingold than they are about the unions getting theirs back. Ever wonder why? No question. The corporations are interested in things that will improve their bottom line, like having the ability to move all their manufacturing operations to China. Republicans are very GDP-centered and have favored corporate interests since before the turn of the last century. Democrats tend to look more at improving the incomes of people at the bottom, which makes them a natural match for industrial unions and the interests of their members. We all learned this in grade school. It was one of the few things about government and economics that our teachers got right. Get YOUR facts right now & then at least. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010...ives-corporati o.html "Supreme Court Gives .... Unions Power to Spend Unlimited Sums on Political Messaging" " .. the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such groups may now spend unlimited amounts of money advocating for or against politicians." They did not. Somebody didn't read the decision. "Perhaps the most important question that one might ask in the wake of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is: are labor unions as free as corporations to spend as much as they wish -- independently of candidates -- to influence elections to Congress and the White House? The likely answer is: Probably, but check back later." http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/01/an...pen-questions/ Like the Heller decision, this one leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Expect a *lot* more litigation, in the lower federal courts, that will keep the issues boiling for a long time. What better way to control things than to buy some rethugs? You think Dems aren't for sale? Ask Landrieu and Nelson. Found those "WMDs" yet? I'm not looking for them....are you? -- Sleep well tonight, RD (The Sandman) Some points to ponder: Why is it good if a vacuum cleaner really sucks? Why is the third hand on a clock called the "second hand"? Why did Kamikaze pilots wear helmets? Why do we sing "Take me out to the ballgame" when we are already there? |
#2
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A new "constitutional right"
On Jan 30, 5:59*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Perhaps the most important question that one might ask in the wake of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is: are labor unions as free as corporations to spend as much as they wish -- independently of candidates -- to influence elections to Congress and the White House? *The likely answer is: Probably, but check back later." As I read the decision it struck down the limits on both Corporations and Unions. Since the decision was made on a case involving a corporation, corporations are mentioned more than Unions. But it seems pretty clear to me that it affects both unions and corporations. Excerpt from Wiki follows: The decision is too long to post here. Dan The Court's decision struck down a provision of the McCain-Feingold Act that banned for-profit and not-for-profit corporations and unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications” in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general elections.[2] The decision completely overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[4] The decision upheld the requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of advertisements, and the ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidates, in part IV.[5] |
#3
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A new "constitutional right"
wrote in message ... On Jan 30, 5:59 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Perhaps the most important question that one might ask in the wake of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is: are labor unions as free as corporations to spend as much as they wish -- independently of candidates -- to influence elections to Congress and the White House? The likely answer is: Probably, but check back later." As I read the decision it struck down the limits on both Corporations and Unions. Since the decision was made on a case involving a corporation, corporations are mentioned more than Unions. But it seems pretty clear to me that it affects both unions and corporations. Excerpt from Wiki follows: The decision is too long to post here. Dan The Court's decision struck down a provision of the McCain-Feingold Act that banned for-profit and not-for-profit corporations and unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications” in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general elections.[2] The decision completely overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[4] The decision upheld the requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of advertisements, and the ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidates, in part IV.[5] You can read it any way you like, but, even though the Court treated the case as a facial confrontation with the 1st Amendment, and it was a sweeping decision, the actual decision was that the part of McCain-Feingold that applies to corporations was overturned. As the ScotusBlog entry says, it's likely that the courts will apply the principle to unions, as well. But the decision did not overturn McCain-Feingold; it only overturned the application of it to corporations. This may seem like threading a needle but that's precisely what you have to do with Supreme Court decisions. Don't make assumptions. -- Ed Huntress |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
A new "constitutional right" | Metalworking | |||
A new "constitutional right" | Metalworking |