I wrote a bit about what I thought may be the positive implications for such an effort — mostly, that it could potentially unleash a classically liberal counter-offensive whereby the amendment process is used to, eg., potentially constrain Roe v Wade, or Wickard — even though it’s clear that the idea behind the effort is to gut the First Amendment and give government near universal control over speech, a direct affront to what has long been considered an inviolable individual right.
But then, I’m not a law professor. Whereas Eugene Volokh is — and he offers his reaction to the proposed Amendment, given the rather Orwellian (and yet perfectly predictable) name “The People’s Rights Amendment”. Writes Volokh:
[…] just as Congress could therefore ban the speech of nonmedia business corporations, it could ban publications by corporate-run newspapers and magazines — which I think includes nearly all such newspapers and magazines in the country (and for good reason, since organizing a major publications as a partnership or sole proprietorship would make it much harder for it to get investors and to operate). Nor does this proposal leave room for the possibility, in my view dubious, that the Free Press Clause would protect newspapers organized by corporations but not other corporations that want to use mass communications technology. Section 3 makes clear that the preservation of the “freedom of the press” applies only to “the people,” and section 2 expressly provides that corporations aren’t protected as “the people.”
Congress could also ban the speech and religious practice of most churches, which are generally organized as corporation. It could ban the speech of nonprofit organizations that are organized as corporations. (Congressman McGovern confirms this: “My ‘People’s Rights Amendment’ is simple and straightforward. It would make clear that all corporate entities — for-profit and non-profit alike — are not people with constitutional rights. It treats all corporations, including incorporated unions and non-profits, in the same way: as artificial creatures of the state that we the people govern, not the other way around.”) Congress could ban speech about elections and any other speech, whether about religion, politics, or anything else. It could also ban speech in viewpoint-based ways.
State legislatures and local governments could do the same. All of them could seize corporate property without providing compensation, and without providing due process. All corporate entities would be stripped of all constitutional rights. Quite a proposal; I blogged more generally about this issue here, but it seems to me that simply listing the consequences of Congressman McGovern’s proposal largely suffices to explain its flaws.
Clearly, Mr Volokh is among those who still believes that, to the people proposing such an amendment, the flaws are bugs and not features.
Which I suppose prevents him from being dismissed as a Visigoth by the more “sane” “conservatives” who don’t share Hobbity fears that the contemporary Democrat Party, being run by the erstwhile New Left, is seeking to carry out an ideological soft coup against the country as founded.
So he’s got that going for him.
(thanks to sdferr)
The answer then becomes simple: all large corporations automatically go into the printing business and conduct all efforts through their new press arm. Because that’s better than where we are today.
Note Congressworm McGovern’s not very clever rhetorical twist:
It treats all corporations, including incorporated unions and non-profits, in the same way: as artificial creatures of the state that we the people govern, not the other way around.
So, permitting free speech expressed by organizations of individuals in a legal body called a “corporation” is equivalent to permitting corporations to “govern us?”
Um, fuck you. You’re gonna need a bigger shovel, needledick.
Completely OT but in honor of 420 here’s how to make a shooter sandwich.
On topic, I suppose the one bright spot here is that this explicitly acknowledges it would require an amendment to the constitution.
One more try on that sandwich link.
It only does that for show, bh. This is a political ploy to play to the larger narrative of “Big Corporations” and “the rich” controlling us. And it will be aided by the planned OWS rallies this summer.
It’s political theater for the underinformed and the intellectually lazy. Who just so happens to be whom Obama needs for re-election.
I hear you. It’s just sorta shocking to hear them even mention the proper way to go about such things.
The US Constitution is not a suicide pact. Hence the need for death panels.
And our side is supposed to rely on champions like Marco Rubio who can stage their own version of the show —for the underinformed and intellectually lazy.
They must be easier to please or something.
Good God, they are really getting desperate to get as much done to cave in the Republic before they lose power. The lazy and uniformed aside, this is a bridge too far, and I am glad they decided to do this. Keep taking that mask off, lefties.
So, Jeff – how does one attire ones self as a Visigothy Hobbit (or is it a Hobbity Visigoth)? I might need to change my wardrobe to join you…
Okay, this is OT but it goes with yesterday’s Lugar piece. Apparently Daniels is making noises about Romney running a negative campaign (no, not the primaries, the general).
Half of that argument is pure shit. If there is anything positive about Romney lately it’s that he’s taking a sharp jab at Obama here and there. Want to beat Obama? Deny him the respect he’s been granted against all evidence.
The other half of the argument, paraphrasing, “make a case for what you want to do so that you earn a mandate”, ignores a fundamental problem with Romney. Maybe he simply isn’t committed to a drastic overhaul of our fiscal situation. There’s nothing in his political history that would lead us to believe he does. So, maybe he doesn’t want to make that affirmative case in the election because then he’d be on the hook to take real actions in office.
Anyways, Blech II: The Blechening.
Daniels thinks conservatives are the problem.
Like many others similar to him.
2008 redux. Here we come.
Only this time, we don’t have the excuse that we don’t really know Obama. Which will make it all the more perverse.
This is a political ploy to play to the larger narrative of “Big Corporations” and “the rich” controlling us. And it will be aided by the planned OWS rallies this summer.
Look, since pragmatic Republicans consider people posting here to be a bunch of Chicken Littles with barbarian face paint, seeing leftist conspiracies under every toadstool, let’s actually see how our prognostications run this year, and whether or not we are hysterics. Jeff and Derb were right to be leery of Rubio, who is slowly repackaging the DREAM Act as some kind of “conservative” alternative that would please John McCain. Anyone think the Occutards are done? Even though Obama’s fundraising isn’t going so well, he’s going to have his crew dream up something this summer, whether it’s OWS or not. I only wonder how late they will put this off. Perhaps now is too early to start, as the precious independent voter is not paying attention.
Also, the political pro’s from
DRover will tell you that publically committing yourself to the steps you’re going to take opens you up to attacks like ends Medicare as we know it.Choice is risky, the idiot voters might not choose you. Best give ’em an echo
because they’re idiots.
Daniels believes in talking to the voters as though they are responsible adults, spelling out in detail what the candidate believes the problems needing address are and what the candidate believes his solution to those problems will be. It’s the “responsible adults” part where he goes off the rails. There simply aren’t enough of them anymore.
As best I can tell, he believes he should speak to voters as responsible adults but then he supports people who don’t like Lugar and Romney, sdferr.
That’s a mistake and I can’t put it on anyone but Daniels.
Funny. I’d consider myself an informed, politically active, responsible adult, and yet when I hear Daniels speak, I get the sense he’s lecturing me about how to behave with a modicum of dignity when someone is bending me over a chair, sodomizing me with a government strap-on.
Apparently fighting back violently really isn’t done.
I gotta get on the road in a minute here if I miss anything directed my way.
Lugar is one thing (a nearly entirely emotional thing I’m prepared to acknowledge and dismiss as practically inconsequential to Daniels’ own political policy preferences), in my view, a different type of support than the support Daniels offers Romney (which appears now to be highly qualified, yes?). Perhaps letting his emotional investment in Lugar hold the better of him is a fault, but it’s not one I’m going to harp on. His support for Romney, on the other hand, appears to be a de-fault, due to events outside Daniels’ own making.
“The other half of the argument, paraphrasing, “make a case for what you want to do so that you earn a mandate”, ignores a fundamental problem with Romney. Maybe he simply isn’t committed to a drastic overhaul of our fiscal situation. There’s nothing in his political history that would lead us to believe he does. So, maybe he doesn’t want to make that affirmative case in the election because then he’d be on the hook to take real actions in office.”
Maybe Daniels is ignoring something, or in the alternative, is just too dumb to notice. Maybe, on the other hand, he thinks he sees something (precisely as you’ve outlined about Romney bh) he’d like to persuade Romney to change?
So, Jeff – how does one attire ones self as a Visigothy Hobbit (or is it a Hobbity Visigoth)? I might need to change my wardrobe to join you…
Presented without comment.
The left is always about The Group and collective action, whether that Group is a labor union, an ag commune, a racial bloc, or whatever. One would think that a people, acting collectively through a corporation, would be right up their alley. Yet the left has a hate-boner for corporations. Serious question – why is this?
The left is always and only about power. The collectives you name are only supported by the Left because they lend muscle to the Left. Corporations are only hated by the Left to the extent that they don’t play along. I mean, Buffet? Soros? Goldman Sachs? Nothing wrong with their corporations!
I don’t know. I guess I’m not willing to give much of a pass in either instance, sdferr. Towards Lugar, it might not be consequential to Daniels policy preferences but it does make a difference with the Senate’s actual policy outcomes. This matters a great deal.
Towards Romney I don’t think that outside events created an endorsement default because he didn’t have to endorse anyone. Is he doing this (“hey, I’m endorsing you but elucidate and run on a consequential platform”) to influence Romney? Maybe. But why give an endorsement first? How about you tell the guy privately that you’ll consider an endorsement if he earns one much as he’ll get a mandate only if he earns one.
This cheap date endorsing is a problem greater than Daniels, of course. It bugged the shit out of me when Palin did it with McCain and it more recently bugged the shit out of me when Ryan did it with Romney.
I don’t see why it should bother you so much bh. I mean everybody knows that loyalty in the GOP is unidirectional.
It could easily be the case that Daniels would have done better to bargain with Romney and moved him in ways this broadcast (but consistent message) won’t bh, I don’t know. I don’t imagine Daniels could remain silent on the question whether he’s nominally backing Romney though. And the timing of the thing is simply beyond my ken.
I fully agree with regard to the wrong-headedness of Lugar for the likes of you and I, for anyone who wants to see the Senate begin to return to sanity. I’ve never liked Lugar, ever. Despise him and right about everything he stands for. And that goes back a long long way now, decades. But, on the other hand I’ve seen Daniels’ emoting over Lugar’s backing on his first election night and have no doubt how irrationally taken he is by the man. People (all people) are jumbles of self-contradictory shit. What can I say?
That’s exactly right (after reversing the meaning for sarcasm). It doesn’t work. It’s not functional. It’s not actually pragmatic even though it’s the very definition of pw ironic pragmatism. Specter didn’t cover Santorum’s credit. Same same with McCain and Palin. Same same with Romney and everyone.
I take that as a nearly perfect explanation but it’s still no excuse. We have to grade harder if we’re to start reforming. This isn’t a rarefied experience that only politicians experience. In my line of work it’s called anything from fiduciary responsibility to executive culpability. No one would accept that I let a guy bankrupt the firm because he helped me when I was younger. They might understand it but they wouldn’t accept it.
Another everyday experience is when you basically vouch for someone when they’re looking for work. I take that extremely seriously. I don’t recommend losers. I’m putting my own reputation on the table right next to theirs. Even when I do recommend a good person to another good person I take a moment and remind them that I vouched for them. I do it with my serious face.
Is Daniels any more jumbled with self-contradictory bullshit than I am? Than anyone in these more common but directly analogous situations? I’m guessing not. No, he’s just fucking up. (And, again, he’s not alone with this.)
Sorry for the delay, btw. I had to put my finger on what irked me a bit more precisely before I blathered on any further.
I don’t think I’ve denied that I think Daniels is fucking up vis a vis Lugar, but wouldn’t be vis a vis a Scott Walker, say.
I guess I may make too many allowances for the messiness of trench politics as my own contribution to the pile of self-contradictory shit. But it seems to me that living up to Aristotle’s severe standard regarding the treatment of a beloved mentor is easier said than done, particularly when the field of endeavor isn’t simply theoretical, as Aristotle’s was, but is the rough and tumble world of practical politics, which is always and everywhere based on wild-assed guesses about the future, gritty elbow rubbing and corrupted palm greasing.
Which is why, as Madison was good enough to point out, we want hard boundaries to keep the necessarily less than angelic figures conducting our politics well shackled. Daniels, I think, especially among practicing politicians today, understands Madison’s vision of that condition better than most, even as he (and as Madison in his own day) fails to live up to it, or succeeds in living down to it.
First off, if I came off otherwise, I don’t think you were saying he wasn’t fucking up. That might have been a case of comment drift where I started with your comment and ended with an imaginary conversation between someone in my head and another person in my head. If I had to characterize it I guess I’d say that I felt you were too dismissive though. (Dismissive being my best read on your first comment.)
To be quarrelsome though, I find Aristotle’s standard to be something I expect a plumber in a land of civic-minded folk to pass more often than not when I’m asking for a referral. It can’t be that challenging. People constantly pass this test day in and day out.
As an aside, I think I’m missing something with the Madison reference there. Nah, I’m pretty sure of it. I’m missing what you’re saying on the Madison tie-in.
It’s a thing he wrote in the Federalist. brb
Federalist 51: [. . .] The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
Thanks, sdferr.
I should probably smoke a cigarette and pace around a bit here. And also have a beer. And listen to some music.
And reflect on Madison. All at once.
Go!
I’d say we’ve pretty effectively disabled those “auxilliary precautions.” Largely because the progressives managed to convince the populace that Madison wasn’t looking out for the folks, as they say.