Brutes in Suits

idiots. you all make it sound like johnstown, and district 12 is this,
haven of wonderful living, that has been showered with cash by murtha's copious 'stealing'.

if you don't live in johnstown, i'd advise you to shut up.
murtha did what he could to bring as many contracts to his district, because the district is, and has been suffering ever since the end of the steel era.

he took care of his district. he brought us jobs.
and we repaid him, by keeping him in office for 36 years.
end of story.

if you had a problem with his practices, you had 36 years to vote him out of office. now is the time to show him some due respect for his service.

Indeed. The critics here have never done anything for anybody; it would violate their laissez faire social darwinism.

But thank God they're so ineffectual, because otherwise they'd represent a threat to the republic.

Bless Murtha for his strong opposition to the Iraq war-of-choice. He gave great cover to the liberal Dems who were holding back going after Bush. That alone was worth the price of Murtha's pork-barrelling which was a pittance compared to the cost of that war.

I think we have two different issues here. Did Mr. Murtha vote yes for the actual spending? If so, then he certainly is guilty as charged. But if he voted no and then reasoned, well, I couldn't stop it, then at least I am going to try to get some money back to my people, I can't disagree much with that. It is not 100% idealism and more realism, but he took his stand to vote it down and lost. After that he has to try to minimize the money drain from his home district.

Is it ruthless behaviour? Probably, but it is also reasonable and not really a problem for ideologic consistancy. F.e. Ron Paul does the same thing (not as often, but sometimes). He is an adamant Mr. No when it comes to the proposal, but when the law gets passed, he sometimes earmarks as well.

After all, I don't think earmarks are the problem, it is the vote before that. Earmarks are a symptom, but the root of the problem is the way of laws/bills are passed or that they are passed at all..

A major re-synthesis of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century manhood, Brutes in Suits develops ambitious lines of research into the social science of sexual difference and professional history's celebration of rugged individualism; the hunting-and-killing genre of popular men's literature.

Right on, Don! "Brutes in Suits." I love it. I hated Murtha. Remember the unused airport? Good bye and good riddance.

"If Mr. Murtha on his own had traveled the country picking pockets, robbing banks, and burgling houses, only to bring the booty back to western PA and share it with his friends, he would have been rightly despised as a common criminal."
I never thought about it this way, but I think you are making a very good point which I tend to agree with. Moreover, I think the media likes to set the standard low, Especially because it's hard to make money selling newspapers. They have to please whomever is signing the paycheck and I am speaking from professional experience.

A modest proposal:

In the age of electronic connectivity, It is no longer necessary for lawmakers to congregate in great marble halls to redistribute the wealth of our nation.

Why not keep them in their home districts where they can better hear the complaints of their constituents? They can conduct the country's business via Facebook (full transparency), and we can better assess their competence and character. Nancy wouldn't need a 757. No risk of a terrorist bomb wiping out the government.

Definitely a greener plan.

I like.

Well you certainly go out to call a spade a spade... this is the type of products a society should expect from a tenured professor.

Anyone who lives in the DC area is sucking more from taxpayers and pork then ANYWHERE else in this nation.

I hope you don't mean that in a negative way.

Since you believe that only politicians can determine how much liberty a man needs in order to be free, what else would you expect of the DC area?

Have you thought to ask what kind of *system* allows for this to happen?

What "system" do you have in mind as a replacement?

Noooooooo. Tell us!

What no mention Abscam yet? How about the ethics probes and the liklihood of indictment? We have gotten so focused on all of the "legal" stealing; we forgot the illegal stuff.

Both CBS and the NYT prominently cited Murtha's role in Abcam. Others did as well.

If Murtha had been a Republican, Abscam would have been in the lead paragraph of the dominant liberal media's obituary.

Don,

Spooner-esque! I love it!

And let me just say that the splendor of public choice theory, which of course was very much developed and advocated by free market fiscal conservatives, is a wonderful tool to analyze not just the wasteful earmarking of John Murtha and his ilk, but also that of over-hyped free market fiscal conservatives like Ron Paul who earmarks away while running a hypocritical campaign of free market fiscal conservatism.

Oh the irony.

--Pingry

I'm sure we would all be quite happy if Murta, Ron Paul, or anyone had no opportunity to earmark spending bills.

Ron Paul himself answers....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoD5Yk1imBk

Don,

I'm glad that you denounce John Murtha and his wasteful earmarking.

Now perhaps you can denounce Ron Paul for doing the same, unless, of course, Rep. Paul practices the 'correct' ideology as you.

--Pingry

Excellent point, Pingry.

Another occasion, answer from Ron Paul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWTyHbGcUQY

Here is Ron Paul on the House Floor, talking about the importance of more earmarks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsRHougwe2g

Is it still an Irony to you?

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress."
-Mark Twain

Vidyohs-

You are such a one note ninny. Did you miss the part of this commentray that said it was a bipartisan delegation? Are you not aware that Rs are as guilty of this behavior as Ds?

Of course you do.

Then why reserve your outrage for Pelosi when it is more appropriately aimed at all actors who abuse this privilege, in both parties, or even more appropriately to the system of incentives for these actors, increasingly driven by huge sums of money in politics?

To make our dialog more entertaining, I'll just say I think I know the answer: you're an ideologue and it's more gratifying to focus on an enemy (and a woman?) than to think a little more and focus on some serious flaws in the system we should fix (by fix, I mean besides resorting to anti-democratic measures you seem to favor).

Weren't you, yesterday, worried that you would be responded to with vitriol? And yet, here you are posting ad hominems. Think about that for a moment.

While I don't always agree with Vidyohs, in principle or in tone (sorry vid, no offense intended), he clearly isn't a "one note ninny". I've seen him take Republicans to task numerous times before.

Amigo,

You think I am offended or could be that you don't always agree with me? You know better than that.

Don't worry about this Pubass_Texhole, he is just another version of muirduck, and that means an intellectual teacup Chihuahua presumably in human form, who can't read well or think any better. Like muirduck, he has the dogma and the tapedeck mentality, and he is becoming known for what he is.

I don't take him seriously, I certainly hope you don't.

You know me, I try to give everyone a fair chance.

He certainly doesn't seem to to want to be taken seriously...

Let's see now, MnM.

Here we have a single example of vitriol, ad hominem, profanity and vulgarities all in one paragraph.

Where is your condemnation for v? Talk about hypocracy. While V is a neanderthal, at least he doesn't appear to be a hypocrite.

I really don't care if you take me seriously, because you clearly don't take your own words seriously. Why should anyone else.

Everyone loves the positive trolls.

You're kidding, right? I've been posting here for several years. You've been posting for what? Four or five days?

There's a history here that you don't know anything about. On more than one occasion I've asked other people here to be more polite, Vid included. If you don't believe me, ask him. He refused, much like you refuse.

I seem to be all out of troll food now. Good-bye.

So you're not going to address the hypocracy of taking me to task here, while ignoring the more outragous and offsensive language Vid uses? That's your point?

Do you need me to go find some substantive contributions I've made when I'm not dealing (as I probably shouldn't) with the likes of Vid, and now you, who don't engage on the substance. I'm happy to do so, as you've seem to have missed those posts.

Sigh. Okay, last time. I have taken vidyohs to task in the past. Is there anything about that you don't understand?

It became an effort in futility (kind of like having a reasonable conversation with you), so I stopped. I had hopped you might be more sensible.

There,that seemed to emptied that last bit of crumbs from that bag of troll food.

HA! You enjoy, and don't, these snippy exchanges as much as I do.
We must have a sado-masochist streak. :)

I can indeed have a reasoned dialog with others on this site. In fact, I'm currently engaged in a good one with Sam Grove. Enlightened and increasingly devoid of any undercurrent of nastiness or snark.

You might take a look.

I'm open to doing the same with you.

Correct, though he is quite well-cast as DK’s lickspittle….

Just what we need. Another hair-splitting thread-hijacking troll that must always have the last word.

Let's ignore him.

Together We Can!

"one note ninny" is vitriol?

I don't know if you use dictionaries, eminem, but mine says "vitriol" means virulence in speech and "virulence" is defined as extemely infectious, malignant, or poisonous.

Do you think that applies to "ninny" (one note or many)?

How about "nanny"? Does that offend your sensibilities a little less?

But I do apologize. I didn't realize that vidyohs was a child and required someone to come to his rescue.

:)

Tex, you constantly complain about people using abusive language on this site. Yet when you use such language it is ok.

Your above response to MnM is filled with such.

Grow up. If you don't like it then why do it?

HU, now here's an example of abusive language from vidyohs. I don't come anywhere close to this:


"Don't worry about this Pubass_Texhole, he is just another version of muirduck, and that means an intellectual teacup Chihuahua presumably in human form, who can't read well or think any better. Like muirduck, he has the dogma and the tapedeck mentality, and he is becoming known for what he is. "

What do you think?

Thank you for your expressions of concern, HayU. Please see my response to MnM immediately above your post. I hope it makes you feel better and addresses your obviously heart-felt concerns.

[insert eye-roll here]

I must have been too subtle for you. By posting ad-hominems, (yes, "ninny" qualifies as an ad-hominem), you invite the vitriolic speech you bemoan. I don't know if you use the internet, but what you do is called "trolling ".

I also find you quip about dictionaries a bit odd as you misspell my screen-name. Was the irony intentional?

Sorry, HimNHim, I tried looking up you screem-name on my Webster but couldn't find it.

And I DO know what ad hominem means. Do YOU know what ad nauseum means?

By the way, I started receiving the vitriol well before I started dishing sarcasm (which is a notch or two below vitriol). You guys seem to be well equiped for dealing vitriol but have a wee problem taking sarcasm. Besides, there are many more of you than there are of me.

I'm not trolling any more than you trolls are. I don't just drop in for these ridiculus exchanges, and I post at least as much substance as you do. It's just a contrary opinion which some of you (vidyohs comes to mind) have a problem handling.

And BTW again, "Internet" is spelled with a capital "I". I used the Internet to look it up. :)

Damn, you guys are fun! But the quality of your rhetoric could be better and you all REALLY need to work on developing some wit. I know, it's a lot to ask, but try. For me. Please.

Publius Trollius,

It is difficult enough to find decent conversation here. You're part of the problem.

By the way, I don't care if you started receiving vitriol before or after you started dishing sarcasm; it has nothing to do with the point I made. Vidyohs' response to you was precisely the response I'm trying to avoid here.

By the way again, check you're spelling and grammar. Given that you've done it twice, I can only assume that the irony is intentional.

RE: I'm not trolling any more than you trolls are."

You're right. Your wit is outstanding. /sarcasm

It's funny. You complain about the quality of the posts here and contribute to their poor quality. You really need to work on that hypocrisy. I know, it's a lot to ask, but try. For me. Please.

Say, I like Publius Trollius. It got a chuckle from me. Thanks!

Well, MnM, all I can say about restraining myself from rising to the bait cast by v and others is: when provoked, the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.

I'll probably continue to give as good as I get, but without the obscenities and hopefully with some greater measure of wit than what I get from the dimwits.

BTW, if you don't like these exchanges with v, why are you reading them? I only receive email copies of posts from people who are responding to me. Are you going hunting for my responses to vidyohs in order to offend yourself?

I read all of the comments. Occasionally, Vid has some brilliant insights. I enjoy reading them, and I want to see more of them. That's why I discourage trolling.

Unlike some others here, I enjoy reading opinions contrary to mine and I enjoy the (good!) conversations that Don's and Russ' blog occasionally generate. Those occasions are becoming fewer and farther between, in my estimation. I'd like to see that trend reversed.

I need to go back and find some of Vid's brilliant insights. I haven't seen them yet. Just vitriol and abusive and dismissive language, but send me some examples if you will.

I've made some fairly detailed posts citing evidence and political theory and practice for my opinion, but I don't think I've seen any responses from you to those posts. Only my response in kind to vid. Maybe you have and I'm mistaken.

And what about the hypocracy I mentioned in my last post, MnM?

Dipstick,

Did you not note that Pelosi was in charge, did the inviting, the arranging, and is refusing to reveal the costs. Pelosi, not the bipartisan delegation, as the one in charge is refusing to reveal the costs? Did you not note my edit on the upcoming details of her having the military ferry around her kids in a routine abusive way? Do you note comprehend that that is not bipartisan?

And, you earn your dipstick title by your claim that all of them do it. No they didn't, Pelosi is the first to set herself up as royalty and use the military as her personal serfs.

She is enough to make one yearn for return of Tip O'Neil.

She is a royal bitch, and a horrible woman.

Absolutely I am an ideologue for freedom and escape from the abuses of those who believe that they are elite in this world. Proud to be one too. Pity you are such a suck-ass to the system.

Let's see now, MinM. Comparing the innocuous "ninny" to vidyohs' "royal bitch" and "horrible woman" (confirming, as I suspected, his misogyny), and "you are such a suck-ass".

I won't count "dipstick" because, like "ninny", it's not vitriolic, but we both know he meant it to translate as "dipshit".

But, HimnHim, I do owe v an apolopy. I didn't realize he was a child who required a guardian to fight his battles for him. I know better than to take on an angry mother protecting her cub.

Vidyohs, do I really need to go find a bunch of links that demonstrate how empty your claims are that Rs have not used military planes to ferry around family members and refused to disclose costs of trips? Are you really that much of an out-of-touch "dipstick"?

:)

JohnK-

And here's another quote from Jefferson:

" I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country." (1816)

Jefferson is great to quote because his words can be used to argue on either side of most political issues. Lots of fun.

I don't see how those quotes conflict with one another.

Both are arguments in favor of limiting power.

No, indeed, they don't conflict.

Take a closer look at your quote from Jefferson.

He is NOT saying that ALL governments are criminals. He is saying those that are not restrained by constitutions are criminal. That clearly doesn't apply to our government as you suggest.

Now look at my quote from Jefferson. He speaks of "our government" in defence of it against "moneyed corporate" power, which I can't tell whether you're defending or not.

These quotes make a case 180 degrees from the one you're making: that our government is criminal.

After reading your other posts on this thread I have come to the conclusion that you are a troll.
I don't feed trolls.

Have a good day!

Great. You've made no contribution to lift the debate anyway.

Go back under your bridge with your right-thinking buddies.

I think John is overreacting, though you have on occasion sounded a bit trollish. OTH, vidyohs, if he were visiting and started talking to regulars in his usual form would be called a troll.

Who knows the history of that term, but it seems to be applied to visitors that disagree with the residents, but I think it should be applied to those who make a habit of disrespectful discourse, or who engage in disingenuous dialog or misrepresentation.

Hear, here!

Cheers,

The Happy Warrior

While I agree with your basic point about the "evils" of pork barrel politics, you are skewering the wrong source of the problem (i.e., the morals of politicians). From the very beginning, representative democracy in the US (in state governments before the Constitution) has featured the equivalents of pork-barrelling.

The founders were appalled by what they saw in the states and sought to restrain what they considered to be abuses in how they structured the federal government under the Constitution (see the Federalist Papers). But these precautions soon deteriorated as the founders' "morality" was swept aside by the expansion of democratic and economic forces in the 1800s which redefined what is meant by "representative democracy". (I'm not making a case against democracy but describing one of the costs incurred. No system is perfect.)

In the 20th century and now, those forces have been put on steriods through the increased influence of money in politics. The removal of restraints on money in politics is why the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United promises to make matters worse.

Politics in Am has come to resemble a marketplace where money and votes in Congress/policy advocacy in the White House are exchanged for economic goods, achieving ideological goals and ensuring election/reelection. The problem is not (only) in the morality of actors in this market any more than market distortions are (only) related to the morality of economic actors in the market. It is embedded in the structure of incentives in the market, a very complex issue to address, in which the actors are driven to certain behaviors whether they restrain themselves through moral values or not. As in any intensively competitive market in which "abuses" give advantages to those who practice them, the moral politicians you wish for are driven out of the market through electoral defeat, leading to a race to the bottom. And we're getting there fast.

However, one thing is certain: increasing the power of money and the inequalities that spring from the power of money (a la Citizens United) will make matters worse.

In the 20th century and now, those forces have been put on steroids through the increased influence of money in politics.

Those forces are on steroids because government has been on steroids.

One of Hayek's (many) points is that the collectivists, in their attempt to achieve a social responsibility/morality, must sweep aside individual responsibility/morality. They must then forcibly apply a new moral code, their own subjective and necessarily dynamic code, which cannot be made real without draconian measures, and seldom even then. The natural result is an irresponsible/immoral society.

Its an interesting construct, but personally, I don't think the understanding needs to be that complicated. Simply, political behavior is a manifestetion of the natural human tendancy to exploit - politics being a subcategory, the exploitation of human beings. In other words, political behavior is inherently immoral, and we can and should expect the worst from those who practice it.

Yes, I can tell from your posts you think it's not very complicated. That's very clear.

Funny that so many other people who are pretty damn smart, on both sides of the question, DO think it's complicated and mount evidence and democratic theory to support their positions. But not you. It's simple.

And if politics is a "manifestation" of human nature, how do you propose changing human nature to eliminate politics?

"...how do you propose changing human nature to eliminate politics?"

Disrespect.

"Elimination" is not likely, but there have been periods in history that trended towards greater respect for individualism and less respect for those who exploit others. These periods have been marked by disrespect for those who had earlier commanded great respect, e.g., emperors, popes, divine kings, etc. But of course, the trend can just as easily swing the other way. The progressives are quite systematic in their campaign of disrespect for individualism. They haven't yet reached the level of Hitler, Stalin, or Mao, but they follow the same train of thought. They'll get there in time... if it isn't turned around.

I can answer for myself.

Human nature is fundamental, but people can learn to see further and make use of their rational faculties to temper their responses to emotional manipulations and start choosing out of a higher level than fear.

I say that last thinking about the frequent tendency of significant parts of the electorate to vote out of fear that the other side will win.

Agreed.

And in addition to fear, I'd add short-term, narrow economic self interest and ideology. Which is why I tell my friends, left and right, I think it's probable that Palin will get the GOP nomination and possible she could win in 2012, though that's a long shot.

I can't tell you how many times I would explain the libertarian position in encouraging people to vote for a libertarian candidate only to have them conclude with words to the effect of: 'I don't want to waste my vote." or "I don't want (R/D candidate) to win.

I have run for congress three times, by the way.

Really! From Sacamento, right?

You live (or lived) in a beautiful place. I lived in Palo Alto during my graduate school days and seriously considered finding work in Davis. (Davis; that really shows my political colors doesn't it.)

I love N CA. But too damned expensive.

You'd be a better congressman than our Texas crazy Ron Paul. ;)

I lived in San Francisco at the time. I ran in the special election that got Nancy Pelosi into congress.

Ouch. That's gotta hurt. :)

Ah,, she was a shoo in. Apparently, Pelosi became the heir designate after Sala Burton was felled by a stroke.

Politics in Am has come to resemble a marketplace

I quibble with the "has come to".
Politics is a part of the market.

OK. So address the basic argument.

"Corporate interests" is leftspeak for "moneyed interests". Even founders who expressed concern about this were rather well moneyed themselves.

All governments express as oligarchies. Having been the most successful form of rule after conquest, hierarchical structure is the dominant and ubiquitous meme of political organization.
Not knowing any other way, the founders consciously created such a structure with the constitution with the hope of defining government limited by the articles of incorporation. The divisions of power were created , not to prohibit external influence, but in hopes of retarding the accrual of absolute power in a unitary executive.

As you well know, the Bill of Rights were included to get the so-called "anti-federalists" to sign on.

Unfortunately, the incentives in political hierarchies attract interest.
The constitution did nothing about those incentives.

The recent court decision involved a case that involved, not a powerful moneyed interest, but an association of political advocates who wanted to shoot down what they thought would be the primary Democrat selection for the general election.

Why those individuals involved chose to organize as a corporation, I know not.

Those that believe the law constrained moneyed interests from influencing legislation, I believe, are barking up the wrong tree.

The elected offices of the Federal government are filled with quite a few millionaires with, no doubt multiple connections to other moneyed interests.

In any case, I am less concerned about the effects of corporate influence on the legislative process than I am about the influence of social engineers on the legislative process.

Corporations usually engage in such influence for reasons related to making money, while social engineers want to involve the government in the everyday lives of citizens who get to foot the bill.

I find the latter to be a much greater threat to individual liberty along with the creation of entitlement programs which were created in a era when socialism was explicitly popular.

Tocqueville warned the consequences of the citizens discovering they could access the treasury.

A good post, Sam. Thanks.

"Corporate interests" is leftspeak for "moneyed interests". Even founders who expressed concern about this were rather well moneyed themselves."

Yes, by US standards, it's true they had money, but when Jefferson referenced "money corporations" (not "money interests" (which the founders sought to protect from violations of propert rights), he meant something very specific. And it wasn't "leftspeak" he was engaging in; it was classic liberalism.

"All governments express as oligarchies. Having been the most successful form of rule after conquest, hierarchical structure is the dominant and ubiquitous meme of political organization. Not knowing any other way, the founders consciously created such a structure with the constitution with the hope of defining government limited by the articles of incorporation."

What are the "articles of incorporation"?

"The divisions of power were created , not to prohibit external influence, but in hopes of retarding the accrual of absolute power in a unitary executive."

This is inaccurate. Yes, they did seek to limit, not "prohibit", the power of interests (private and business), and they did not intend only to limit the power of a unity executive but to limit the power of Congress as well. And it's important to note that in moving from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution, they were designing (and intended to do so) a MORE powerful federal government, including a more power executive, through enumerated and implied powers but constrained by powers reserved to the people and the states.

"As you well know, the Bill of Rights were included to get the so-called "anti-federalists" to sign on."

There's truth to that, no doubt. But the Bill of Rights was written by the very people who wrote the Constituion itself (esp. Madison) and was overwhelmingly enacted with the support of both anti-federalists and federalists.

"Unfortunately, the incentives in political hierarchies attract interest.
The constitution did nothing about those incentives."

Sure it did. It sought to confine those intersts and redirect them while limiting the power of the government AND majorities to endanger the fundamental rights of the people, and the form of government they chose was enacted by the people through the ratification of the Constitution.

"The recent court decision involved a case that involved, not a powerful moneyed interest, but an association of political advocates who wanted to shoot down what they thought would be the primary Democrat selection for the general election."

OK, at the surface, that may be true. But in all ground-breaking SC decisions, like this one, the implications of a decision go way beyond the specific facts of the case brought before the Court by the appellants.

"Those that believe the law constrained moneyed interests from influencing legislation, I believe, are barking up the wrong tree."

Why do you believe that? I assume the law you refer to is McCain-Feingold.

"The elected offices of the Federal government are filled with quite a few millionaires with, no doubt multiple connections to other moneyed interests."

Sure. What's your point?

"In any case, I am less concerned about the effects of corporate influence on the legislative process than I am about the influence of social engineers on the legislative process."

By "social engineers" who are you refering to?

"Corporations usually engage in such influence for reasons related to making money, while social engineers want to involve the government in the everyday lives of citizens who get to foot the bill."

"Usually"? Maybe, but corporations also pursue social agendas and have great influence when they do, and they'll have even more influence under CU. And you don't think corporate tax break and their raids on the treasury represent "social engineering"?

"I find the latter to be a much greater threat to individual liberty along with the creation of entitlement programs which were created in a era when socialism was explicitly popular."

Great. I happen to disagree, but that's beside the point here. The point is that under the Constitution you have a means of changing those policies through the political process established by democratic means. Are you saying that you want some other means that are not democratic?

"Tocqueville warned the consequences of the citizens discovering they could access the treasury."

I'd have to go read up on T (it's been a while), but I'll take your word for it. He warned about other issues as well. But he was a great admirer of the Am experiment in democracy and was a great defender of it. I agree with him on both scores. What's your solution for this problem?

What are the "articles of incorporation"?

The Constitution of the U.S.

The constitution did nothing about those incentives."

Sorry, I was sloppy. I meant, the incentives persist and grow with the power and scope of the state.

And you don't think corporate tax break and their raids on the treasury represent "social engineering"?

I think they are directed more toward "market share protection", etc.

By "social engineers" who are you refering to?

Liberal and conservative promoted legislation directed toward personal behaviors. Religion in school (not so much anymore), trans-fat bans, indoctrination in the guise of education, recreational drug prohibition, compulsory attendance (school), prohibitions of gun ownership, etc.

Maybe, but corporations also pursue social agendas and have great influence when they do, and they'll have even more influence under CU.

Would you provide examples? I don't think CU will make any difference, it may make some aspects less visible.

The point is that under the Constitution you have a means of changing those policies through the political process established by democratic means. Are you saying that you want some other means that are not democratic?

I don't think the creation of entitlement programs is an enumerated power in the constitution, nor numerous other activities in which the Federal government has engaged, such as the Depts. of Education and Energy.

What's your solution for this problem?

Education of my fellow citizens about the consequences of attempting to bypass fundamental economic realities via political control of resources and credit.

What are the "articles of incorporation"?
The Constitution of the U.S.

OK.
--------
The constitution did nothing about those incentives."
Sorry, I was sloppy. I meant, the incentives persist and grow with the power and scope of the state.

Yes, they're deeply embedded in human nature and no government can change that. Any attempt to change that fact, or ignoring it, is highly dangerous.
--------
And you don't think corporate tax break and their raids on the treasury represent "social engineering"?
I think they are directed more toward "market share protection", etc.

Well, the definition of "social engineering" fits to a T what economists who are involved in policy making do. And when business attempt to reallocate resources in their own economic interest, that also qualifies under the definition.

I think what you're referencing is more appropriately termed "political engineering", but I could argue that that's what business does, too.
By "social engineers" who are you refering to?
-------------------
Liberal and conservative promoted legislation directed toward personal behaviors. Religion in school (not so much anymore), trans-fat bans, indoctrination in the guise of education, recreational drug prohibition, compulsory attendance (school), prohibitions of gun ownership, etc.

Right.
-------------
The point is that under the Constitution you have a means of changing those policies through the political process established by democratic means. Are you saying that you want some other means that are not democratic?

I don't think the creation of entitlement programs is an enumerated power in the constitution, nor numerous other activities in which the Federal government has engaged, such as the Depts. of Education and Energy.

Yes, Congress clearly has these powers under enumerated powers conferred by the General Welfare clause of Art 1 Sec 8 and implied powers conferred by the Necessary and Proper clause of Art 1 Sec 8
and the 14th Amendment, Sec 1.
---------
What's your solution for this problem?
Education of my fellow citizens about the consequences of attempting to bypass fundamental economic realities via political control of resources and credit.

I agree. I keep running into people on this cite who respond to that question with endorsements of overthrowing the government.

I don't think the creation of entitlement programs is an enumerated power in the constitution, nor numerous other activities in which the Federal government has engaged, such as the Depts. of Education and Energy.

Yes, Congress clearly has these powers under enumerated powers conferred by the General Welfare clause of Art 1 Sec 8 and implied powers conferred by the Necessary and Proper clause of Art 1 Sec 8
and the 14th Amendment, Sec 1.

That's a dangerous interpretation which opens the door for omnipresent government.

Well, my view of the matter is that FDR probably saved capitalism and democratic government in the US with this more expansive view of the Constitution, which has been upheld by the SC since the "switch in time that saved nine".

But perhaps we should agree to disagree on this one. :)

Oh yeah.
Saved them from what?

Well, the depression was worse here than anywhere in Europe, and both communism and fascism were running rampant over there. So much so that the British and French democracies were paralyzed into accommodating the Nazis at any cost (the French) or snuggling up to them (the Brits).

In 1932-34, after 4 years of depression with no end in sight, there was a great deal of anxiety among political and business elites about the threat the depression posed for Am democratic capitalism. Given what was happening in Europe and here, that does not strike me as an unreasonable fear.

depression with no end in sight, there was a great deal of anxiety among political and business elites about the threat the depression posed for Am democratic capitalism.

Really? Where does this analysis come from?

Democratic capitalism. I don't hear those two words put together very much.

(1) From "Dictators, Democracy, and American Political Culture" by Benjamin L. Alpers

"In the early years of the Great Depression, dictatorship was an important political fantasy for a heterogeneous group of Americans. Although most Americans were not attracted to dictatorship, for some it seemed necessary in light of the socioeconomic crisis, either as a permanent, more efficient solution to the problems of modern life or, in the classical sense, as a temporary measure to put democracy back on course. Barron's, the conservative business weekly, hoped in February 1933 that the newly elected and yet-to-be-inaugurated Franklin Delano Roosevelt might act as a "semi-dictator" to save America from social chaos. Liberal filmmaker Walter Wanger produced Gabriel over the White House (1933), a political fantasy in which a president solves the country's problems by becoming a divinely inspired dictator. The Communist Party (CP), in its ideologically militant "Third Period," declared that capitalist, bourgeois democracy was already doomed and that the only real political choice was between a communist dictatorship of the proletariat and a fascist dictatorship of the bourgeoisie."

From a listing of "very grave symptoms" of the Great Depression in Conservapedia:

"Politically there was a widespread loss of faith in democracy; many countries turned to authoritarian regimes or dictatorships."


(2) Some citations re: democratic capitalism:

Novak, Michael (1993), The Catholic Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, New York: The Free Press

Novak, Michael (1982), The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, New York: Simon

Benne, Robert (1981), The Ethic of Democratic Capitalism: A Moral Reassessment, Philadelphia: Fortress Press and Schuster

A useful quote from Wkipedia:

"The United States and Canada are notable in using democratic capitalism as their political-economic system. In the United States, both the Democratic and Republican Parties subscribe to this (little-"d" and "r") democratic-republican philosophy. In Canada, both the Liberal and Conservative Parties subscribe to a belief in the free market, free enterprise, private property, and democratic capitalism. The term is often used to contrast the United States' and Canada's political-economic system, with its emphasis on individual liberties, with that of the more democratic socialist or social democratic economies of other Western countries. Most liberals and conservatives generally support some form of democratic capitalism in their economic practices."

Socialism was more popular than a dictatorship.

Noted that a two term limit on the presidency was brought about because enough people were worried that FDR might become a virtual dictator.

I'm sure you mean democratic capitalism not socialism. :)

No, the 22nd Amendment didn't pass Congress until 2 years after FDR's death and wasn't ratified until 6 years after his death. Too late to prevent FDR from becoming either a dictator or a ...banana, for that matter.

I'm sure you mean democratic capitalism not socialism. :)

No, I meant Socialism. It had become very popular among the intelligentsia in the '30s and while socialist parties did not fare well in the polls, many of the programs they espoused became part of the New Deal, including Social Security.

He may have been dead, but the impetus came from those who feared his third term may have led to a fourth. Apparently the fear was widespread enough to gain enough support to pass the term limit.

At least that's my understanding of those times.

What is your level of familiarity with Austrian economics?

Liberal and conservative promoted legislation directed toward personal behaviors. Religion in school (not so much anymore), trans-fat bans, indoctrination in the guise of education, recreational drug prohibition, compulsory attendance (school), prohibitions of gun ownership, etc.

Right.

Also included is constraints on profit making by left oriented advocates.
Profit making has had a bum rap, thanks to Marx and the aristocracy of Europe who looked down on those who obtained wealth via commerce but lacked family connection.

I'm one of those progressives (not a "liberal" but, yes, a "classical liberal") that doesn't think profit is a four letter word.

I keep running into people on this cite who respond to that question with endorsements of overthrowing the government.

Can you cite?

I don't see how overthrow of the government to produce a libertarian society would happen. There are too many interests involved.

"However, one thing is certain: increasing the power of money and the inequalities that spring from the power of money (a la Citizens United) will make matters worse."

Even if your statement is 100% true, the court obviously got the ruling right. The first ammendment says quite clearly "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."

Congress had made a law that abridged freedom of speech. To grant Congress additional power to limit freedom of speech based on the way people assemble requires an ammendment to the constitution.

It's "obviously" not so "obvious" they got it right since four justices dissented and the court overturned precedent established by previous courts.

Moreover, it's not obvious because all the protections in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ALL apply to "the people" except where some other entity is specified, such as the states or the press.

I've heard the argument that because the press is mentioned in the 1st Amendment this implies that other "corporations" are also given free speech rights. There are four fatal problems with this argument:

One, press organizations were not corporations at the time the Constitution was written so the authors of the Constitution couldn't have meant to include them when protecting freedom of the press.

Two, by legal standards of constitutional interpretation, when an entity is specified in a law, all other entities not specified are judged to be excluded. Since "corporations" or any other amalgamation of individuals (except the press) are not specified, they are excluded.

Three, the word "corporations" appears nowhere in the Constitution, and nowhere in the definitive documentation explaining the meaning of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, is there any support for reading the 1st Amendment as applying to corporations.

Four, one of the founders' goals in replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution was to limit the power of "factions" (our "special interests") compared to their strong political power they exerted under the Articles and in the states. (See Federalist #10 among others.)

The founders were deeply concerned about the growing power of "moneyed corporations" and would have been appalled at the twisting of their language in the CU decision to greatly expand those powers. Here's one example of what I mean about the founders' perspective on corporations:

"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country." (1816)

Now, I'll give you a chance to go back and do your homework and then try to mount an argument based on something more substantial than your opinion.

Well, Tex, this is the first post from you I’ve seen with any content. That’s refreshing. You still need to work on the sneering derision that infests your writing, but this is a good start.
/snark

To your points (with apologies for the length):

“It's "obviously" not so "obvious" they got it right since four justices dissented and the court overturned precedent established by previous courts.”

You have a point, opinions do vary, but when precedent has strayed from the wording of the constitution (as is often the case) the court SHOULD overturn it. IOW, the constitution trumps precedent.

“Moreover, it's not obvious because all the protections in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ALL apply to "the people" except where some other entity is specified, such as the states or the press.”

This is a common mistake. The constitution is a limit on the power of government, not a grantor of protections to “the people” or any other entity. The wording of the first amendment is very simple: "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." This is clearly a restriction on the power of congress, and makes no exceptions or qualifications regarding the freedom of speech that shall not be abridged.

“I've heard the argument…”

I’m not making that argument, but your refutation is not a fatal as you think.

“One, press organizations were not corporations at the time the Constitution was written so the authors of the Constitution couldn't have meant to include them when protecting freedom of the press.”

This is speculation, but you may very well be correct. However, the plain wording of the amendment is unavoidable. Unanticipated situations like this are why we have an amendment process.

“Two, by legal standards of constitutional interpretation, when an entity is specified in a law, all other entities not specified are judged to be excluded. Since "corporations" or any other amalgamation of individuals (except the press) are not specified, they are excluded.”

This standard is particularly dangerous when people reverse the meaning of the constitution from a restriction on government to a grantor to the people, but you’re your logic is not sound anyway. “When an entity is specified all others are excluded” is a different standard than “when an entity is not specified it is excluded.” The restriction on congress wrt abridging freedom of speech does not specify any entity.

“Three, the word "corporations" appears nowhere in the Constitution, and nowhere in the definitive documentation explaining the meaning of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, is there any support for reading the 1st Amendment as applying to corporations.”

The first amendment does not apply to corporations, it applies to Congress.

“Four, one of the founders' goals in replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution was to limit the power of "factions" (our "special interests") compared to their strong political power they exerted under the Articles and in the states. (See Federalist #10 among others.)”

The plain wording of the amendment is unavoidable. Unanticipated situations like this are why we have an amendment process.

“The founders were deeply concerned about the growing power of "moneyed corporations" and would have been appalled at the twisting of their language in the CU decision to greatly expand those powers. Here's one example of what I mean about the founders' perspective on corporations:

"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country." (1816)”

It may surprise you, but I share your concern (and Tom’s) about the “aristocracy of our moneyed corporations” but I disagree with your conclusion. The CU decision was not about greatly expanding powers, that’s what the overturned legislation had done. The CU decision was about the limits on the power of congress. I think our founders would be appalled at the expansion of government well beyond the limits of the constitution without any amendments granting such authority.

“Now, I'll give you a chance to go back and do your homework and then try to mount an argument based on something more substantial than your opinion.”

You know, Tex, you spoiled your first decent post with this derisive closing. Are you this condescending in person or do you limit it to blogs?

"Well, Tex, this is the first post from you I’ve seen with any content."

Well then, here are four (there are more) I've written that you must have missed: :)

(1)

"I'll rephrase my question: Which came first, the increased influence of money in politics or the dramatically increased power and scope of the federal government?

In the US, where I know this history best, it is clear to me that the influence of money came first.

• The founders rebelled against the economic injustices of the Brits, committed by “moneyed” (Jefferson’s word) private interests both directly and indirectly through the crown’s govt in parliament. The slide toward rebellion arose and intensified as those interests imposed entirely new economic burdens on the colonies in the face of rising economic pressures in England to recover declining profits and shift economic burdens of the empire onto the colonies.

• 25 years later, the Jeffersonians (those of the “middling sort”) used the power of the fed. govt to oust the dominant political and economic interests of the day (the Federalists) and ultimately destroyed the party that represented those interests.

• 30 years later, the Jacksonians (again, those of modest economic means) ousted the established economic and political interests who founded the Second National Bank. Jackson himself, despite being a slave-holder, took on, with the threat of military force, the southern slave-holding economic elites who threatened succession. In doing so, Jackson significantly expanded the fed. govt.’s role in restraining the power of economic elites and expanding fed authority to expand economic opportunity in the country.

• 30 years later Lincoln and the Republicans greatly expanded the power of the fed. govt by using military force to crush the rebellion of slave-holding economic elites of the South and enforce the draft in the North, freeing the slaves without compensating their owners, ratifying the 14th amendment which imposes the requirements of the Bill of Rights on the states, ratifying the 15th Amendment which prohibits the states from discriminating against individuals on the basis of race, religion or creed, imposing reconstruction on the South, undertaking a massive investment in national infrastructure, and providing free land to encourage settlement in the West and broaden economic opportunity in the country. It has rightly been called the Second American Revolution.

• 30 years later, TR and the middle class Progressives used the power of the fed govt. in an assult on laissez faire economic policy by restraining the power of economic elites through anti-trust legislation, imposing fed. regulation on railroads, drugs, food, and commercial trade, preserving national resources from development through the national parks system as well as by creating the Federal Reserve, expanding the franchise to women, ratifying the 16th Amendment authorizing the income tax and the17th Amendment mandating the direct election of Senators, civil service reform to limit political patronage. As with the Jeffersonian, Jacksonian and Civil War era extensions of fed power, these reforms greatly expanded the fed. govt.’s power and was driven by democratic pressure to restrain the power of economic elites.

• I won’t do the same routine with the New Deal, Fair Deal and Great Society reforms of the 1930s, ‘40s and ‘60s.

I think the record is clear that in our history, the “abuse” of economic power has led to the expansion of fed govt. power to address those issues and expand or maintain the rights of individuals who are not among the economic elites.

So money comes first.

(2)

While I agree with your basic point about the "evils" of pork barrel politics, you are skewering the wrong source of the problem (i.e., the morals of politicians). From the very beginning, representative democracy in the US (in state governments before the Constitution) has featured the equivalents of pork-barrelling.

The founders were appalled by what they saw in the states and sought to restrain what they considered to be abuses in how they structured the federal government under the Constitution (see the Federalist Papers). But these precautions soon deteriorated as the founders' "morality" was swept aside by the expansion of democratic and economic forces in the 1800s which redefined what is meant by "representative democracy". (I'm not making a case against democracy but describing one of the costs incurred. No system is perfect.)

In the 20th century and now, those forces have been put on steriods through the increased influence of money in politics. The removal of restraints on money in politics is why the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United promises to make matters worse.

Politics in Am has come to resemble a marketplace where money and votes in Congress/policy advocacy in the White House are exchanged for economic goods, achieving ideological goals and ensuring election/reelection. The problem is not (only) in the morality of actors in this market any more than market distortions are (only) related to the morality of economic actors in the market. It is embedded in the structure of incentives in the market, a very complex issue to address, in which the actors are driven to certain behaviors whether they restrain themselves through moral values or not. As in any intensively competitive market in which "abuses" give advantages to those who practice them, the moral politicians you wish for are driven out of the market through electoral defeat, leading to a race to the bottom. And we're getting there fast.

However, one thing is certain: increasing the power of money and the inequalities that spring from the power of money (a la Citizens United) will make matters worse.

(3)

A good post, Sam. Thanks.

"Corporate interests" is leftspeak for "moneyed interests". Even founders who expressed concern about this were rather well moneyed themselves."

Yes, by US standards, it's true they had money, but when Jefferson referenced "money corporations" (not "money interests" (which the founders sought to protect from violations of propert rights), he meant something very specific. And it wasn't "leftspeak" he was engaging in; it was classic liberalism.

"All governments express as oligarchies. Having been the most successful form of rule after conquest, hierarchical structure is the dominant and ubiquitous meme of political organization. Not knowing any other way, the founders consciously created such a structure with the constitution with the hope of defining government limited by the articles of incorporation."

What are the "articles of incorporation"?

"The divisions of power were created , not to prohibit external influence, but in hopes of retarding the accrual of absolute power in a unitary executive."

This is inaccurate. Yes, they did seek to limit, not "prohibit", the power of interests (private and business), and they did not intend only to limit the power of a unity executive but to limit the power of Congress as well. And it's important to note that in moving from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution, they were designing (and intended to do so) a MORE powerful federal government, including a more power executive, through enumerated and implied powers but constrained by powers reserved to the people and the states.

"As you well know, the Bill of Rights were included to get the so-called "anti-federalists" to sign on."

There's truth to that, no doubt. But the Bill of Rights was written by the very people who wrote the Constituion itself (esp. Madison) and was overwhelmingly enacted with the support of both anti-federalists and federalists.

"Unfortunately, the incentives in political hierarchies attract interest.
The constitution did nothing about those incentives."

Sure it did. It sought to confine those intersts and redirect them while limiting the power of the government AND majorities to endanger the fundamental rights of the people, and the form of government they chose was enacted by the people through the ratification of the Constitution.

"The recent court decision involved a case that involved, not a powerful moneyed interest, but an association of political advocates who wanted to shoot down what they thought would be the primary Democrat selection for the general election."

OK, at the surface, that may be true. But in all ground-breaking SC decisions, like this one, the implications of a decision go way beyond the specific facts of the case brought before the Court by the appellants.

"Those that believe the law constrained moneyed interests from influencing legislation, I believe, are barking up the wrong tree."

Why do you believe that? I assume the law you refer to is McCain-Feingold.

"The elected offices of the Federal government are filled with quite a few millionaires with, no doubt multiple connections to other moneyed interests."

Sure. What's your point?

"In any case, I am less concerned about the effects of corporate influence on the legislative process than I am about the influence of social engineers on the legislative process."

By "social engineers" who are you refering to?

"Corporations usually engage in such influence for reasons related to making money, while social engineers want to involve the government in the everyday lives of citizens who get to foot the bill."

"Usually"? Maybe, but corporations also pursue social agendas and have great influence when they do, and they'll have even more influence under CU. And you don't think corporate tax break and their raids on the treasury represent "social engineering"?

"I find the latter to be a much greater threat to individual liberty along with the creation of entitlement programs which were created in a era when socialism was explicitly popular."

Great. I happen to disagree, but that's beside the point here. The point is that under the Constitution you have a means of changing those policies through the political process established by democratic means. Are you saying that you want some other means that are not democratic?

"Tocqueville warned the consequences of the citizens discovering they could access the treasury."

I'd have to go read up on T (it's been a while), but I'll take your word for it. He warned about other issues as well. But he was a great admirer of the Am experiment in democracy and was a great defender of it. I agree with him on both scores. What's your solution for this problem?

(4)

What are the "articles of incorporation"?
The Constitution of the U.S.

OK.
--------
The constitution did nothing about those incentives."
Sorry, I was sloppy. I meant, the incentives persist and grow with the power and scope of the state.

Yes, they're deeply embedded in human nature and no government can change that. Any attempt to change that fact, or ignoring it, is highly dangerous.
--------
And you don't think corporate tax break and their raids on the treasury represent "social engineering"?
I think they are directed more toward "market share protection", etc.

Well, the definition of "social engineering" fits to a T what economists who are involved in policy making do. And when business attempt to reallocate resources in their own economic interest, that also qualifies under the definition.

I think what you're referencing is more appropriately termed "political engineering", but I could argue that that's what business does, too.
By "social engineers" who are you refering to?
-------------------
Liberal and conservative promoted legislation directed toward personal behaviors. Religion in school (not so much anymore), trans-fat bans, indoctrination in the guise of education, recreational drug prohibition, compulsory attendance (school), prohibitions of gun ownership, etc.

Right.
-------------
The point is that under the Constitution you have a means of changing those policies through the political process established by democratic means. Are you saying that you want some other means that are not democratic?

I don't think the creation of entitlement programs is an enumerated power in the constitution, nor numerous other activities in which the Federal government has engaged, such as the Depts. of Education and Energy.

Yes, Congress clearly has these powers under enumerated powers conferred by the General Welfare clause of Art 1 Sec 8 and implied powers conferred by the Necessary and Proper clause of Art 1 Sec 8
and the 14th Amendment, Sec 1.
---------
What's your solution for this problem?
Education of my fellow citizens about the consequences of attempting to bypass fundamental economic realities via political control of resources and credit.

I agree. I keep running into people on this cite who respond to that question with endorsements of overthrowing the government.

Great! A real dialog.

"snark/"

Ha! I appreciate snark.

"You have a point, opinions do vary, but when precedent has strayed from the wording of the constitution (as is often the case) the court SHOULD overturn it. IOW, the constitution trumps precedent."

Ok, so we agree then that it's not "obvious". Good; and thank you.

Remember that under John Marshall's opinion in Marbury v Madison, it is through judicial review (ultimately by the SC ) in our democracy that we decide what the Const means. Everything else is opinion. IOW, it is precendent set be the SC that *defines* what the Const means, until the precedent is revised or overturned; the Constitution does not "trump" precedent. This is an important distinction and not just playing with words.

" This is a common mistake. The constitution is a limit on the power of government, not a grantor of protections to “the people” or any other entity."

This is incorrect. The Const is both an enpowerment of the fed govt as well as a limitor of it, which the later is accomplished by preserving the rights of the people and states. (On the later point, see Article 1 Sec. 9, Art. 2, Sec. 4, Art. 3, Sec. 3, Art 4 Sec 2 & 4, Art 5, and Art 6, and the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, , 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 18th, 19th 24th, and 26th Amendts.)

The wording of the first amendt is very simple: "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." This is clearly a restriction on the power of congress, and makes no exceptions or qualifications regarding the freedom of speech that shall not be abridged."

No, there ARE constitutionally permitted restrictions on speech by Congress (see the 14th Amendment's "due process of law" clause, the SC's Miller test on obscenity, pornography laws, commercial speech re advertising (a great example for our current discussion about the alleged free speech rights of corporations), copyright laws, hate speech, libel and slander, speech related to imminent unlawful action under the "clear and present danger" standard, limits on students' speech rights in schools, limits on military personnel, and granting schools and libraries authority to limit speech through filters installed on Internet content.

The clear language of the Constn isn't so clear now, I hope.

" I’m not making that argument, but your refutation is not a fatal as you think. “One, press organizations were not corporations at the time the Constitution was written so the authors of the Constitution couldn't have meant to include them when protecting freedom of the press.”

"This is speculation, but you may very well be correct."

OK.

"However, the plain wording of the amendment is unavoidable. Unanticipated situations like this are why we have an amendment process."

Se above re "plain wording".

“Two, by legal standards of constitutional interpretation, when an entity is specified in a law, all other entities not specified are judged to be excluded. Since "corporations" or any other amalgamation of individuals (except the press) are not specified, they are excluded.”

"This standard is particularly dangerous when people reverse the meaning of the constitution from a restriction on government to a grantor to the people, but you’re your logic is not sound anyway."
When an entity is specified all others are excluded” is a different standard than “when an entity is not specified it is excluded.”

Yes, you've offered a different standard but that's not the legal standard. The standard I refer to is "expressio unius est exclusion alterius". It's well established over hundreds of years of jurisprudence and recognized around the world.

“Three, the word "corporations" appears nowhere in the Constitution, and nowhere in the definitive documentation explaining the meaning of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, is there any support for reading the 1st Amendment as applying to corporations.”

"The first amendment does not apply to corporations, it applies to Congress."

No, it applies to both a subject and an object. Congress is the subject and "the people" are the object.

“Four, one of the founders' goals in replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution was to limit the power of "factions" (our "special interests") compared to their strong political power they exerted under the Articles and in the states. (See Federalist #10 among others.)”

"The plain wording of the amendment is unavoidable. Unanticipated situations like this are why we have an amendment process."

See plain language discussion above.

“The founders were deeply concerned about the growing power of "moneyed corporations" and would have been appalled at the twisting of their language in the CU decision to greatly expand those powers. Here's one example of what I mean about the founders' perspective on corporations: "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country." (1816)”

"It may surprise you, but I share your concern (and Tom’s) about the “aristocracy of our moneyed corporations”

Great! Another area of agreement.

"I think our founders would be appalled at the expansion of government well beyond the limits of the constitution without any amendments granting such authority."

Some would, some wouldn't. But I think they'd all concur with enthusiasm about the democratic, constitutional means by which "the people" have designed our govent through the processes they set out in the Const, including judicial review and the amendment process.

"You know, Tex, you spoiled your first decent post with this derisive closing. Are you this condescending in person or do you limit it to blogs?"

No, in person, I'm much more respectful. Blogging brings out my dark side, especially after dealing with abuse from the likes of vidyohs and others.

You have definitely earned the right to be treated differently and I'll try to mend my ways. So your response is justified.

As fascinating as the origins of judicial review in action are (and it is a fascinating slice of history) we are discussing a ruling by the Supreme Court (somewhat OT for this thread, but I think related). Their charter is to interpret the Constitution, so from the perspective of a Supreme Court justice, the Constitution itself is the ultimate authority, not precedent (otherwise precedent could never be overturned). Hopefully that’s not controversial. That’s what I meant by the Constitution trumps precedent.

Re the nature of the Constitution, I over-simplified. The more correct statement is: the Constitution is a definition of and limit to the power of the federal government, not a grantor of protections to “the people” or any other entity. It clearly states that the government can do ONLY what is explicitly enumerated and nothing else. I hope you agree that the rights specifically protected in the Bill of Rights are not a comprehensive list. Fear of that interpretation was part of the anti / federalist debate.

I don’t see how that changes my point. I also don’t see how other existing restrictions on free speech are relevant to the Supreme Court doing its job wrt the CU decision (ref C trumps P discussion). Those restrictions were not part of the case being reviewed (although the implications of the decision may extend to some of them). The SC has not only the freedom but the responsibility to disregard precedent when they believe it contradicts the Constitution.

So we’re back to the very clear and simple wording of the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law…” (As an aside, IMO many of the existing limits on speech should be struck sown as well. But I digress.)

When you said: ” Yes, you've offered a different standard but that's not the legal standard.” I think you missed my point. Saying “when an entity is specified all others are excluded” is logically different from saying “when an entity is not specified it is excluded.” In the case of the first amendment, an entity is not specified, so the standard you describe does not apply here. Obviously, I’m rejecting the interpretation that “the people” is the implied object wrt to the prohibition on abridging freedom of speech. In fact, that may be the crux of our disagreement.

That’s why I say (and still believe) that the first amendment does not apply to corporations, it applies to Congress.

I look forward to the “mended Tex” but I am perfectly OK with a little sarc’n’snark from time to time (after all I do both – I’m many things, but I’m not a hypocrite).

"Their charter is to interpret the Constitution, so from the perspective of a Supreme Court justice, the Constitution itself is the ultimate authority, not precedent (otherwise precedent could never be overturned). Hopefully that’s not controversial. That’s what I meant by the Constitution trumps precedent."

Yes, the Constitution is the ultimate authority, but in the vast majority of cases, decisions conform with precedent. Precedent is certainly extended, revised or narrowed in some cases, but it is a rare thing to overturn precedent. Justices typically give great deference to precedent.

"Re the nature of the Constitution, I over-simplified. The more correct statement is: the Constitution is a definition of and limit to the power of the federal government, not a grantor of protections to “the people” or any other entity."

Maybe we're quibbling over words here, but I'd say the Constitution is a guarantor (not grantor) of rights retained by the people and reserved to the states.

"It clearly states that the government can do ONLY what is explicitly enumerated and nothing else."

Here I strongly disagree with you and I'm confident I have 200 years of SC decisons to back me up. The Const clearly grants to the fed govt both enumerated powers and, through the Necessary and Proper clause and certain broadly specified enumerated powers (such as the General Welfare clause) a wide range of *implied* powers associated with those enumerated powers.

"I hope you agree that the rights specifically protected in the Bill of Rights are not a comprehensive list."

I agree. Like the right to privacy.

"I also don’t see how other existing restrictions on free speech are relevant to the Supreme Court doing its job wrt the CU decision (ref C trumps P discussion). "

Of course they are. Especially in the context of the claim I often see (as here) that the "plain language" of the 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." to buttress an argument for overturning Congress's power to regulate corporate campaign contributions. As my list amply demonstrate, the language of the 1st Amend is not categorical. There are many areas in which Congress has and does limit free speech, and has for 200 years.

When you said: ” Yes, you've offered a different standard but that's not the legal standard.” I think you missed my point. Saying “when an entity is specified all others are excluded” is logically different from saying “when an entity is not specified it is excluded.” In the case of the first amendment, an entity is not specified, so the standard you describe does not apply here.

But an entity IS specified in the 1st Amend: the press. Freedom of the press is meaningless outside of the context of the right to speech. (Otherwise, freedom of press for what?) oreover, the speech right MUST be someone's right (I say it has to be "the people"; what do you propose as an alternative?), and the "freedom of the press" language extends thr right of free speech to the press.

Therefore, expressio unius est...

I look forward to the “mended Tex” but I am perfectly OK with a little sarc’n’snark from time to time (after all I do both – I’m many things, but I’m not a hypocrite).

Great. How I'm doin' so far? ;)

Justices typically give great deference to precedent.

I think they give much too much deference to precedent considering how far from the Constitution some rulings have strayed.

I think we’re destined to strongly disagree (unless you change your mind :o). Your interpretation of the Necessary and Proper clause and the General Welfare clause is extremely different from and incompatible with mine. I read the Constitution from the perspective that is a strict limit on government and leaves everything not explicitly stated to the states and/or people. I maintain that the enumerated powers are a complete list (no additional powers are granted) and that court precedents to the contrary are incorrect interpretations of the Constitution.

As I see it, N-P is not an implication of any powers not specifically enumerated. It is a restriction on government to allow only actions that are necessary and proper for fulfilling the enumerated powers. In my reading, GW is a strict limitation that government action must benefit the general welfare of the entire nation (thus any activities with only local benefits violate the GW clause). Any other reading is both inconsistent with the rest of the Constitution and incompatible with the underlying principals – the founders wanted to preserve liberty by strictly limiting government.

But an entity IS specified…

The relevant text is: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” The only entity specified is Congress.

For me this one is just that simple. It makes no difference to me whether it is a good or bad thing that it is this way; it is simply what the Constitution says. As I’ve said before, to grant Congress additional power to abridge speech based on how the people speaking have chosen to assemble requires a Constitutional amendment.

Great. How I'm doin' so far? ;)

So far, so good, but there’s nothing like a philosophical impasses to get people butting heads, eh?

* Here's where I think the fatal weaknesses of your N-P argument lies:

(1) Your reading of the N-P clause was a central focus of the anti -federalist argument against ratification of the Constitution. My reading was a central focus of the Federalist position. The Federalists overwhemling won the argument when all 13 states ratified the Constitution. Patrick Henry (a true patriot) was on your side--but you guys lost. ;)

(2) The two primary public advocates for the Constitution were Madison and Hamilton who both strongly supported my reading of the N-P clause. Here's what Madison (a strong states rights proponent) said in Federalist No. 44:

"No axiom is more clearly established in law or in reason than wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power for doing it is included."

* Chief Justice John Marshall delivered the coup de grace in McCulloch v Maryland with these words establishing the precendent that still stands today:

"We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional."

I just don't think this is even a close call.
----------------------

* Re: your categorical interpretation of "no law" in the !st Amendment:

But you've got to admit that my list of all the laws Congress HAS passed limiting free speech which have never been found unconstitutional, casts great doubt on the merits of your argument.

Right?

I'll copy them here for your convenience: ;)

- the 14th Amendment's "due process of law" clause,
- the SC's Miller test on obscenity,
- pornography laws,
- commercial speech re advertising (a great example for our current discussion about the alleged free speech rights of corporations),
- copyright laws,
- hate speech,
- libel and slander,
- speech related to imminent unlawful action under the "clear and present danger" standard,
- limits on students' speech rights in schools,
- limits on military personnel, and
- granting schools and libraries authority to limit speech through filters installed on Internet content.

It's a long list and I've probably overlooked others.

Thanks for the reply. I don't see how the points you bring to the N-P are inconsistent with my interpretation. They seem to understand that N-P describes only what is directly necessary and proper wrt the enumerated powers, not an additional enumerated power. IOW, any power not directly related (n AND p) to the execution of an enumerated power is NOT granted to Congress.

Regarding the speech topic, I still think my argument has strong merit (otherwise I would have a different opinion). While I would quibble with some of your examples, I'm don't doubt a complete list of restrictions might be longer even with all my quibbles removed from it. I don't think that casts doubt on the merit, but it certainly shows that the chances of my argument prevailing any time soon are very slim.

Sorry about my slow response.

"I don't see how the points you bring to the N-P are inconsistent with my interpretation. They seem to understand that N-P describes only what is directly necessary and proper wrt the enumerated powers, not an additional enumerated power. IOW, any power not directly related (n AND p) to the execution of an enumerated power is NOT granted to Congress."

Exactly. With a quibble about "directly", we agree.

However, I think you underestimate the size of the territory for constitutionally-authorized federal action you've just conceded. The N&P clause greatly extends federal power "vertically" down the logic train from the enumerated powers (while not effecting federal power "horizontally" by expanding the range of enumerated powers).


"Regarding the speech topic, I still think my argument has strong merit (otherwise I would have a different opinion). While I would quibble with some of your examples, I'm don't doubt a complete list of restrictions might be longer even with all my quibbles removed from it. I don't think that casts doubt on the merit, but it certainly shows that the chances of my argument prevailing any time soon are very slim."

I look forward to our next exchange on another topic, Dave.

Cheers!

Corporations are but associations of individuals.

Somehow, I think there would have been less hue and cry had the case in question involved a liberal advocacy group making an attack documentary on John McCain.

"Corporations are but associations of individuals."

Yes, but associations of individuals are not necessarily corporations.
So your simplification is of no use, as are most of your terse comments. It's like saying "zero = zero." Why do you persist? Who supports you? Where do you get your free time from? Don't you work?

Yes, but associations of individuals are not necessarily corporations.

Obviously.

The rest of your post is irrelevant.

My observation is about the underlying reality of such legalisms as "corporations". I quite understand the nature of "corporations" as but one form of association of individuals.

Nonetheless, individuals supposedly enjoy freedom of association in the U.S. and how they choose to formalize such association is up to them. To grant to government the power to forbid political expression by particular associative arrangements is to concede that government has the authority to regulate expression by associations of individuals with particular exceptions at matter of arbitrary choice by someone.

Pragmatically, individuals in association via corporate formality, desiring to influence the political discourse and, upon finding themselves legally impeded from doing so via the corporate form, need merely take advantage of another channel which is not so impeded.

Money is like water and legal obstructions to its influence like boulders thrown into s stream.

There is no way the change the oligarchical nature of hierarchical power structures. Moneyed interests reside near, at, or even above the formal structure.

The idea that this can be altered by accruing more power toward the top of the structure seriously ignores the reality of political power.

No there would. The same actors would have ended up on the same sides with the same result in the court.

It is my impression that liberals are rather more keen to shut down conservatives in regard to political speech than vice versa.

On the other hand, conservatives seem rather more keen to censor sexuality and "bad" words out of public expression.

Just my impression.

The left generally favors freedom of speech unless it is against the left.

OK, I'm interested. What leads you to your impression about the left and expression?

The news accounts over the past few decades.
I know conservatives think liberal celebrities should shut up., but I recall more instances of liberals calling for some kind of government action to affect conservative expression in the media.

Anecdote: A friend had a booth at a rally in Dolores Park in San Francisco. They had posted a banner which called for free speech in Nicaragua. Some "types" came by and attempted to intimidate my friend and associates abut displaying the banner.

I don't relieve the right of guilt in this kind of thing, but it seems to me that the left in the U.S. has fewer Qualms about resorting to legislation to quell their opponents.

Of course many on the right support a prohibition on U.S. flag burning as protest.

"I recall more instances of liberals calling for some kind of government action to affect conservative expression in the media."

"I don't relieve the right of guilt in this kind of thing, but it seems to me that the left in the U.S. has fewer Qualms about resorting to legislation to quell their opponents."

Yeh, the left and right both share blame in this.

Can you give me some examples of the left's legislation you reference?

Back when Rush Limbaugh was at the top of talk radio, I recall certain prominent Democrats proposing re-instituting the 'fairness doctrine" to clamp down on his political advocacy.

disclaimer: I've never listened Rush Limbaugh's program.

I'll sometimes listen to Rush if my blood pressure has dropped too low.

I have to confess that I think eliminating the fairness doctrine was a mistake, not because it would muzzle those crazy cons but because it would help restore some civility on the air by requiring a more balanced presentation of opinion on multiple sides of issues.

But it'll never happen.

My experience with the fairness doctrine that it effectively favored incumbency.

No doubt true.

Associations of individuals. Exactly. If corporations are denied the right to speak, then political parties should be denied as well.

I know, Randy, you are beyond persuasion on the basis of logic, evidence or democratic and Constitutional theory.

"In the 20th century and now, those forces have been put on steriods through the increased influence of money in politics."

Which came first, the money or the power?

So, yad. Is see you haven't yet responded to my counter argument (below).

What do you think now? Did money or government power come first?

Well, let's see. I certainly know there was money in America before there was government, definitely before the revolution, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution and even before there were colonial "state" governments. And, going back to the beginning, I think the Pilgrims had some pocket change in there pants when they arrived, and of course the Indians had wampum.

I guess if you go back to the pre-historic foundations of human invention of media of exchange, say, to cowry shells, barley, and beads, I think it's pretty clear that money predates governmental power.

I hope that clear things up for you. Let me know if I can help some more.

Best

Nice form - a drippingly sarcastic response that no doubt you think makes you seem all smart to your smug self while completely missing the point.

I'm impressed!
/sarc

Yes, sarcastic, indeed. But a pretty thorough, and concise, response for being off the cuff. But then I have personal knowledge related to the history of money and early forms of media of exchange.

So, come on, respond to the substance I've offered addressing your original question. Whatya got? ;)

I'll rephrase my question: Which came first, the increased influence of money in politics or the dramatically increased power and scope of the federal government?

It's more clear, but clumsy. Oh well.

As you correctly state, the moneyed interests were always there. But it wasn't until the expansion of government power that their influence really took off. I don’t think that’s a coincidence. Of course, now it’s a death-spiral; a self reinforcing cycle of more money, more power ad infinitum.

Both R's and D's feed the problem (in moderately different ways) so changing the party in control won’t fix it. Divided government slows it down, but doesn’t fix it. Frankly I’m not optimistic, but I don't see granting more power to the politicians as a way to improve the situation - that just perpetuates the cycle.

"I'll rephrase my question: Which came first, the increased influence of money in politics or the dramatically increased power and scope of the federal government?

In the US, where I know this history best, it is clear to me that the influence of money came first.

• The founders rebelled against the economic injustices of the Brits, committed by “moneyed” (Jefferson’s word) private interests both directly and indirectly through the crown’s govt in parliament. The slide toward rebellion arose and intensified as those interests imposed entirely new economic burdens on the colonies in the face of rising economic pressures in England to recover declining profits and shift economic burdens of the empire onto the colonies.

• 25 years later, the Jeffersonians (those of the “middling sort”) used the power of the fed. govt to oust the dominant political and economic interests of the day (the Federalists) and ultimately destroyed the party that represented those interests.

• 30 years later, the Jacksonians (again, those of modest economic means) ousted the established economic and political interests who founded the Second National Bank. Jackson himself, despite being a slave-holder, took on, with the threat of military force, the southern slave-holding economic elites who threatened succession. In doing so, Jackson significantly expanded the fed. govt.’s role in restraining the power of economic elites and expanding fed authority to expand economic opportunity in the country.

• 30 years later Lincoln and the Republicans greatly expanded the power of the fed. govt by using military force to crush the rebellion of slave-holding economic elites of the South and enforce the draft in the North, freeing the slaves without compensating their owners, ratifying the 14th amendment which imposes the requirements of the Bill of Rights on the states, ratifying the 15th Amendment which prohibits the states from discriminating against individuals on the basis of race, religion or creed, imposing reconstruction on the South, undertaking a massive investment in national infrastructure, and providing free land to encourage settlement in the West and broaden economic opportunity in the country. It has rightly been called the Second American Revolution.

• 30 years later, TR and the middle class Progressives used the power of the fed govt. in an assult on laissez faire economic policy by restraining the power of economic elites through anti-trust legislation, imposing fed. regulation on railroads, drugs, food, and commercial trade, preserving national resources from development through the national parks system as well as by creating the Federal Reserve, expanding the franchise to women, ratifying the 16th Amendment authorizing the income tax and the17th Amendment mandating the direct election of Senators, civil service reform to limit political patronage. As with the Jeffersonian, Jacksonian and Civil War era extensions of fed power, these reforms greatly expanded the fed. govt.’s power and was driven by democratic pressure to restrain the power of economic elites.

• I won’t do the same routine with the New Deal, Fair Deal and Great Society reforms of the 1930s, ‘40s and ‘60s.

I think the record is clear that in our history, the “abuse” of economic power has led to the expansion of fed govt. power to address those issues and expand or maintain the rights of individuals who are not among the economic elites.

So money comes first.

I was not referring to the history of the influence of money in American politics. I was referring specifically to the increased influence of money in politics you described in this statement: "In the 20th century and now, those forces have been put on steroids through the increased influence of money in politics."

So what changed to put it on steroids?

I agree that government power has expanded to respond to perceived abuses. But is it not clear that the increased government power in itself invites more money and more abuses?

A general welfare distinction in a case against pork barrel spending! Nice! Usually that's glassed over or considered highly suspicious in libertarian treatment of appropriations (and now that I think about it... I don't even really know if you consider yourself a libertarian). Well written, Don. Murtha's principled and very reasonable stand on the war was admirable, but it's been more or less downhill from there.

Nailed it!

Exactly, Don. Well said.

To add to that take a look at this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=A6_xgKWzhRw

What a horrible woman.

BTW, this will be followed by further revelations about how she is abusing her position to have the military ferry her kids around.

What a horrible woman.

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
-Thomas Jefferson

Alas the second has indeed become a legalized version of the first.