Well said. I agree with your sentiments about eliminating political parties and rampant donations. We can start by reversing the Citizens United decision as a starting point. Carry on, Geoff.
Well said. I agree with your sentiments about eliminating political parties and rampant donations. We can start by reversing the Citizens United decision as a starting point. Carry on, Geoff.
Indeed. Citizen's United would be a huge first step. I think the Supreme Court failed to consider that when the 1st Amendment was written, the Founding Fathers could not have imagined the power to influence so many would be in the hands of so few. Of course the Founding Fathers wished anyone to be able to speak their minds. However given the time, they were imaging a person standing in front of a group of people or writing an article for a newspaper. If the Supreme Court had considered that, they would have better understood what the Founding Fathers intent was in writing the 1st Amendment. Sadly, we have four justices that are originalists meaning that they interpret the Constitution based upon what they believe was the original meaning was. They don't attempt to understand the intent. That's an extremely shortsighted position IMHO.
Well said. I agree with your sentiments about eliminating political parties and rampant donations. We can start by reversing the Citizens United decision as a starting point. Carry on, Geoff.
Well said. I agree with your sentiments about eliminating political parties and rampant donations. We can start by reversing the Citizens United decision as a starting point. Carry on, Geoff.
Indeed. Citizen's United would be a huge first step. I think the Supreme Court failed to consider that when the 1st Amendment was written, the Founding Fathers could not have imagined the power to influence so many would be in the hands of so few. Of course the Founding Fathers wished anyone to be able to speak their minds. However given the time, they were imaging a person standing in front of a group of people or writing an article for a newspaper. If the Supreme Court had considered that, they would have better understood what the Founding Fathers intent was in writing the 1st Amendment. Sadly, we have four justices that are originalists meaning that they interpret the Constitution based upon what they believe was the original meaning was. They don't attempt to understand the intent. That's an extremely shortsighted position IMHO.