In Roe V. Wade, the Court ruled that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment provides a right to privacy that protects a woman's right to choose. This is was a huge stretch, IMO, and led to a flawed decision.
In Citizens United V. FEC in 2010, the Court ruled that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations. IMO, this was also a huge stretch. The First Amendment states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Right now in our country, incumbent politicians especially, are bought and paid for. HeII, citizens serving in the House have to run every two years and most of their times is spent trying to raise money.
When the court made their ruling, it pretty much made bribery legal, and made it impossible to prove quid pro quo when private citizens or corporations give money to politicians illegally.
Could the Court maybe revisit this one day and come up with a different ruling which could lead to campaign finance reform?
You learned me something. I thought it would be obvious that you'd have to amend the Constitution, but thanks to your post, I found through Google that at least one state had tried it on their on representatives.
You're saying a conservative court that was almost certainly bought - I have no proof whatsoever of this, but does anybody think a bunch of multi-billionaires megacorp moguls would just sit passively on their hands when arguably the biggest Supreme Court decision in 100+ years - and maybe American history - was being decided?
Of course they didn't, IMHO...because the decision immediately transferred the real power in elections from We The People (what there was left of that, anyhow, thanks to the two-party stranglehold, see dawghater's "Red Ants" and "Blue Ants" comments), to We Billionaires Who Control The Dark Money.
We're a sham democracy at the moment, and until Citizens United gets knocked down, this two-party monstrosity is blown apart, and the dark money gets kicked out of the system we aren't living in an actual democracy anymore, and haven't for quite awhile.
But I'd like to. I really would.
In the meantime, Blackrock and Vanguard control twenty trillion dollars between them...of the world's total worth of $418 trillion.
Sure, they kept their hands in their pockets and just passively abided by the Court's ruling. Of course they did.
Nice post with a clear reference to the (judicially 'creative') link between a woman's right to privacy and a woman's right to terminate the life of another human being. A stretch, to say the least. But there is a remote logical component in the judgement.
You've lost me (which isn't hard to do, but thanks in advance for working with me) on the Citizens United vs. FEC.
How did the outcome of Citizens United v. FEC go out of bounds vs. the 1st Amendment? Gov't cannot restrict free speech of corporations / entities which choose to exercise their free speech via political donations & contributions-in-kind [media blasts which speak to political issues and don't specifically endorse 'vote for ###'] PACs. Wouldn't the Gov'ts prohibition of this 'freedom of speech' directly go against the 1st Amendment?
Same situation would apply for pornographic political ads (which may be coming) ... how can the Gov't restrain such 'expressions of free speech' without running afoul of the 1st amendment?
No argument from me that the PACs and special interests (with the rich special interests being the most dangerous) have corrupted the USA's political (and judicial) system. Our country is on the He77 bound train.
Other than a new constitutional amendment (of which chances of passing are worse than the snowball's chance in He77), how do these distortions get legally fixed?