McCutcheon v. FEC

[Ivytalk]

Lessig is always interesting, even when I don't agree with him. He makes the sound point that liberal jurists and advocates avoid originalist thinking even where, as in McCutcheon, it may have helped their case. Instead, we were stuck with Breyer's "classically geeky dissent."

Lessig also has novel theories about copyright and trademark law, and seems to favor a "democratization of creativity." Harvard Law School is fortunate to have him on staff. His youthful conservative/libertarian views (as well as having clerked for Posner and Scalia) give him a unique vantage point.

[kalm]

Lessig is always interesting, even when I don't agree with him. He makes the sound point that liberal jurists and advocates avoid originalist thinking even where, as in McCutcheon, it may have helped their case. Instead, we were stuck with Breyer's "classically geeky dissent."

Lessig also has novel theories about copyright and trademark law, and seems to favor a "democratization of creativity." Harvard Law School is fortunate to have him on staff. His youthful conservative/libertarian views (as well as having clerked for Posner and Scalia) give him a unique vantage point.

I thought you might like that.

But I have to say, this kinder, gentler, open minded side of IT is scaring me a little. Can I get a little Edmund Burke classism thrown at me please.

[Ivytalk]

Lessig is always interesting, even when I don't agree with him. He makes the sound point that liberal jurists and advocates avoid originalist thinking even where, as in McCutcheon, it may have helped their case. Instead, we were stuck with Breyer's "classically geeky dissent."

Lessig also has novel theories about copyright and trademark law, and seems to favor a "democratization of creativity." Harvard Law School is fortunate to have him on staff. His youthful conservative/libertarian views (as well as having clerked for Posner and Scalia) give him a unique vantage point.

I thought you might like that.

But I have to say, this kinder, gentler, open minded side of IT is scaring me a little. Can I get a little Edmund Burke classism thrown at me please.

Oh , all right. Let me give it a shot. Isn't it good for the Great Unwashed to be "dependent" on their more successful and better-connected social superiors for the seamy task of buying off politicians? We wouldn't want to bother their feeble little brains with that job, since half of them probably can't identify the VPOTUS!

Seriously, Lessig assumes that, with the abolition of overall contribution limits, the number of big-bucks contributors will fall. Why wouldn't it rise? The 150,000 (he says) current big donors can now spread their largesse more widely, leaving room for others to enter the field. The only barrier to entry is money. If the individual limits in Buckley were abolished -- the logical next step -- it seems even more likely that the number of big givers will increase rather than decrease, as at least some of the current 150,000 will focus on bigger donations to a smaller number of candidates. Where am I wrong?

[kalm]

Dens prove Alito and Roberts wrong.



Couple of dopes...

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/hillary- ... 58f65a9501" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dbackjon]

Dens prove Alito and Roberts wrong.



Couple of dopes...

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/hillary- ... 58f65a9501" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

LOL - Citizen's United was a horrid decision.

[JohnStOnge]

This is an old one but before I comment:

What is the language in the Constitution cited as giving the Federal government the power to limit how much an individual can contribute to a political candidate they support for election?

[kalm]

This is an old one but before I comment:

What is the language in the Constitution cited as giving the Federal government the power to limit how much an individual can contribute to a political candidate they support for election?

I'm guessing it's similar to the one that says it can't.

[JohnStOnge]

I'm guessing it's similar to the one that says it can't.

As you know the idea is supposed to be that the Federal government can do only what the Constitution says it CAN do. When in doubt, the answer should be "no." That's the way it is SUPPOSED to work.

I think we would have a better country if the people would always ask the question I asked. Ask for the specific language from the Constitution that says the Federal government has the power to do that. Then also ask themselves honestly how the people who crafted and ratified the language construed it. For instance, ask themselves if those people would've construed the Commerce Clause to mean the Federal government could not grow wheat on his on land to feed his own animals because that might "affect" interstate commerce.

Just quit lying down and taking this crap of allowing the Federal Government including the Supreme Court get away with ridiculous "interpretations" of the Constitution. The Constitution belongs to the People, not the Supreme Court. And it in and of itself, not the obviously intellectually dishonest pronouncements of the Judiciary, is the supreme law of the land.

[JohnStOnge]

And BTW I think that anybody involved in crafting and/or ratifying any language they might used to claim the Constitution gives the Federal government the power to limit what a private citizen can give to a candidate would have been horrified if they knew that anybody would ever make the claim that any language in the Constitution bestows that power. It's a crock. It's just one more example of the "ends justify means" mentality that's led to a situation where the Federal government isn't really limited by the Constitution at all. The whole point of having a Constitution has been lost because we just come up with intellectually dishonest "interpretations" that allow the Federal government to do things if certain people think it's a good idea to do them.