2010 State of the Union Address
-
fish82
Does he have the "right" to do it? Yeah, I guess.derek bomar wrote:
Umm...anyone else find it funny you're arguing to limit the rights of the President to voice his grievances when the ruling of the SCOTUS was to protect said right...jmog wrote:
He has zero right to call out the SC on a decision.derek bomar wrote:
lol...so ever President prior to Obama was a commie for supporting the laws that were on the books?jmog wrote: I loved two parts...
The "overwhelming evidence of GW" and when he attacked the Supreme Court for protecting the 1st Amendment.
Its amazing how close that resembles the 1st stages of a LOT of old communist regimes...take away free speech.
Typically immature move lacking in class. Par for the course. -
majorspark
Justice Kennedyderek bomar wrote:
I don't really agree - what you have in bold is "and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"...I still say they could have done this prior to the SCOTUS ruling. It doesn't say anywhere in the constitution how those grievances should be heard, just that Congress can't pass laws restricting someones ability to present them. They could still present them (albeit you have to jump through the extra hoop of a PAC) prior to the ruling. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that we need to provide the "easiest way for corporations or individuals to have their grievances heard"...only that laws can't be passed restricting ones ability to do so...it's up to interpretation as to whether the PAC process actually restricted anyone from lobbying their case...which seems to be fairly obvious it hasn't, seeing as how lobbyists spending has been through the roof this past year. Now I don't know a ton about PAC's, but were corporations limited to how much they could contribute to them, or when they could contribute to them, prior to this ruling?majorspark wrote: Yes. But congress passing a law forcing them to use a PAC to do it, so limited their rights to redress the government for their grievences against it. Basically the PAC process is so restrictive and laborious it indirectly takes the right away.
To think that congress could pass a law, that orders groups like the Sierra Club/NRA from running ads 60 days prior to an election (the critcal stage). Can be interpretted no other way than political censorship by congress.
Since the constitution protects individuals as well as groups/corperations equally, it is wrong for congress to force groups to be subject to a different set of rules. (In bold) I would say that I agree that to subjuct one group of people to this laborius process, in effect deny's them their right to redress the government.Section 441b is a ban on corporate speech notwithstanding the fact that a PAC [Political Action Committee] created by a corporation can still speak. See McConnell, 540 U.S.,at 330–333 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.). A PAC is a separate association from the corporation. So the PAC exemption from §441b’s expenditure ban, §441b(b)(2), does not allow corporations to speak. Even if a PAC could somehow allow a corporation to speak – and it does not – the option to form PACs does not alleviate the First Amendment problems with §441b. PACs are burdensome alternatives; they are expensive to administer and subject to extensive regulations. For example, every PAC must appoint a treasurer, forward donations to the treasurer promptly, keep detailed records of the identities of the persons making donations, preserve receipts for three years, and file an organization statement and report changes to this information within 10 days. See id., at 330–332 (quoting MCFL, 479 U.S., at 253– 254).
What if congress passed similar legislation that governed the press in a similar manner? Lets say the press would have to join a Press Action Committee in order to enjoy their freedom of the press. After all "big press" can heavily influence an election. They would have to give detailed records of the identities of their journalists to a fedral regulatory agency. They would be limited to how many journalist they could employ by the federal government. They would also be limited to how many papers/magazines they could print. Or how many hours per week they could broadcast. Also no press outlet could broadcast any political material/editorials 60 days prior to an election.
As to your question on limits on contributions.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/aboutpacs.htmUnder federal election laws, PACs can legally contribute only $5,000 to a candidate committee per election (primary, general or special). They can also give up to $15,000 annually to any national party committee, and $5,000 annually to any other PAC. However, there is no limit to how much PACs can spend on advertising in support of candidates or in promotion of their agendas or beliefs. PACs must register with and file detailed financial reports of monies raised and spent to the Federal Election Commission. -
Little Danny
The President certainly has a right to speak his mind; I just think the forum is poor form. Obama used the State of the Union as a bully pulpit to call out the Supremes, the Military, Republicans, Banks, Health Insurance Companies and anyone else he had a problem with. While I understand others have done so in the past, I think he has taken it to a new level. If he keeps calling people out he is only inviting responses such as those from Joe Wilson and Scalia. How soon until he gets much more confrontational? Will the State of the Union become a shouting match between the President and his targets? -
chs71
Not really funny at all.derek bomar wrote: Umm...anyone else find it funny you're arguing to limit the rights of the President to voice his grievances when the ruling of the SCOTUS was to protect said right...
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I ... will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
And then he rips the Supreme Court because they disagree with his opinion. -
LJ
Hey guys, move the discussion about the supreme court ruling to that thread please.
http://www.freehuddle.com/Thread-Supreme-Court-Strikes-Down-Limits-on-Corporate-Labor-Donations -
jmog
Not when you consider the President's job and his oath, no, not at all.derek bomar wrote:
Umm...anyone else find it funny you're arguing to limit the rights of the President to voice his grievances when the ruling of the SCOTUS was to protect said right...
If I disagreed with the SC and voiced that opinion and bashed them, thats one thing. The President's job description allows him near zero right to bash the SC on their constitutionality arguments.
Just like most high level jobs require a confidentiality agreement meaning you can't sell the companies secrets, the President has an oath to protect the constitution, and has a job description that does NOT include the cases in front of the SC court.
If you want to go as far as you are saying, then me having to sign a confidentiality agreement at work impedes my free speech rights since I can't freely tell someone else about our trade secrets. -
wkfanLittle Danny wrote: The President certainly has a right to speak his mind; I just think the forum is poor form. Obama used the State of the Union as a bully pulpit to call out the Supremes, the Military, Republicans, Banks, Health Insurance Companies and anyone else he had a problem with. While I understand others have done so in the past, I think he has taken it to a new level. If he keeps calling people out he is only inviting responses such as those from Joe Wilson and Scalia. How soon until he gets much more confrontational? Will the State of the Union become a shouting match between the President and his targets?
Even further proof....not that any more was necessary...the our President is a narcissist.chs71 wrote:
Not really funny at all.derek bomar wrote: Umm...anyone else find it funny you're arguing to limit the rights of the President to voice his grievances when the ruling of the SCOTUS was to protect said right...
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I ... will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
And then he rips the Supreme Court because they disagree with his opinion. -
derek bomar
What's wrong with using it to call out people you have a problem with? There are real problems and he shouldn't pussyfoot around them...to hell with peoples feelingsLittle Danny wrote: The President certainly has a right to speak his mind; I just think the forum is poor form. Obama used the State of the Union as a bully pulpit to call out the Supremes, the Military, Republicans, Banks, Health Insurance Companies and anyone else he had a problem with. While I understand others have done so in the past, I think he has taken it to a new level. If he keeps calling people out he is only inviting responses such as those from Joe Wilson and Scalia. How soon until he gets much more confrontational? Will the State of the Union become a shouting match between the President and his targets? -
majorspark
Nothing other than it breeches political etiquette. Just like there was nothing wrong with Joe Wilson shouting "You Lie", but it was considered a breech of political etiquette. The house censured Wilson.derek bomar wrote: What's wrong with using it to call out people you have a problem with? There are real problems and he shouldn't pussyfoot around them...to hell with peoples feelings -
derek bomar
What etiquette did Obama breach? I know there was a written rule concerning what Wilson did...majorspark wrote:
Nothing other than it breeches political etiquette. Just like there was nothing wrong with Joe Wilson shouting "You Lie", but it was considered a breech of political etiquette. The house censured Wilson.derek bomar wrote: What's wrong with using it to call out people you have a problem with? There are real problems and he shouldn't pussyfoot around them...to hell with peoples feelings -
wkfan
I'd love for you to show us where this 'rule' is written.....derek bomar wrote:
What etiquette did Obama breach? I know there was a written rule concerning what Wilson did... -
derek bomar
okwkfan wrote:
I'd love for you to show us where this 'rule' is written.....derek bomar wrote:
What etiquette did Obama breach? I know there was a written rule concerning what Wilson did...
http://www.atlargely.com/atlargely/2009/09/did-rep-joe-wilson-break-house-rules.html
Until the 109th Congress, it was not in order to make certain references to the Senate or individual senators. However, at the beginning of that Congress, the House removed the prohibition on making references to the Senate, leaving only the requirement that debate be confined to the question under debate and avoid “personality.” The precedents of the House allow a wide latitude in criticism of the President, other executive officials, and the government itself. However, it is not permissible to use language that is personally offensive to the President, such as referring to him as a “hypocrite” or a “liar.” Similarly, it is not in order to refer to the President as “intellectually dishonest” or an action taken by the President as “cowardly.” References to the Vice President, in spite of his role as President of the Senate, are measured against the standard used for the President rather than prior standards used to govern the Senate. -
derek bomar
and more...
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2009/09/did_joe_wilson_violate_house_r.html
While Senate rules on decorum do not prohibit personal references to the president, House rules do. According to section 370 of the House rules manual, members may not:
* call the President a "liar."
* call the President a "hypocrite."
* describe the President's veto of a bill as "cowardly."
* charge that the President has been "intellectually dishonest."
* refer to the President as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy."
* refer to alleged "sexual misconduct on the President's part." -
derek bomar
that enough for you wk?
-
jmogNoticed you skipped right over my point about his oath and job description not allowing for his remarks about the SC.
-
PrescottWhy do you people analyze what Obama says?? Haven't you learned that what he says is not what he does.
-
majorspark
Political etiquette are just unwritten rules of civility and respect between the branches at the state of union. Many consider it innapropriate to call them out when they are sitting their in front of him in that format. Can you imagine if one of the supreme court justitice stood up and applauded during the speech. There is no rule against it that I know of. But it would be considered a breach of etiquette for the event.derek bomar wrote:
What etiquette did Obama breach? I know there was a written rule concerning what Wilson did...majorspark wrote:
Nothing other than it breeches political etiquette. Just like there was nothing wrong with Joe Wilson shouting "You Lie", but it was considered a breech of political etiquette. The house censured Wilson.derek bomar wrote: What's wrong with using it to call out people you have a problem with? There are real problems and he shouldn't pussyfoot around them...to hell with peoples feelings
The rule concerning Wilson was a set of house rules guiding debate in the house while it is in secession. So it could not be directly applied to Wilson. -
majorspark
That refers to house rules of debate. Can't be directly applied to the State of the Union. As open debate is not expected to happen.derek bomar wrote: and more...
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2009/09/did_joe_wilson_violate_house_r.html
While Senate rules on decorum do not prohibit personal references to the president, House rules do. According to section 370 of the House rules manual, members may not:
* call the President a "liar."
* call the President a "hypocrite."
* describe the President's veto of a bill as "cowardly."
* charge that the President has been "intellectually dishonest."
* refer to the President as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy."
* refer to alleged "sexual misconduct on the President's part." -
derek bomar
because the point doesn't hold water...enforcing/carrying out the laws of the land doesn't mean you can't disagree with one. He can voice his opinion but as long as doesn't say "and I won't follow the ruling, and I am enforcing the old laws" he hasn't broken his job description...at least not from my POV.jmog wrote: Noticed you skipped right over my point about his oath and job description not allowing for his remarks about the SC. -
derek bomar
Joe Wilson didn't say "you lie" during the state of the union addressmajorspark wrote:
That refers to house rules of debate. Can't be directly applied to the State of the Union. As open debate is not expected to happen.derek bomar wrote: and more...
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2009/09/did_joe_wilson_violate_house_r.html
While Senate rules on decorum do not prohibit personal references to the president, House rules do. According to section 370 of the House rules manual, members may not:
* call the President a "liar."
* call the President a "hypocrite."
* describe the President's veto of a bill as "cowardly."
* charge that the President has been "intellectually dishonest."
* refer to the President as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy."
* refer to alleged "sexual misconduct on the President's part." -
jmog
Your listing of the "rule" on Joe Wilson doesn't hold water as already pointed out as it wasn't in a debate.derek bomar wrote:
because the point doesn't hold water...enforcing/carrying out the laws of the land doesn't mean you can't disagree with one. He can voice his opinion but as long as doesn't say "and I won't follow the ruling, and I am enforcing the old laws" he hasn't broken his job description...at least not from my POV.jmog wrote: Noticed you skipped right over my point about his oath and job description not allowing for his remarks about the SC.
So you think it at least wasn't a break in etiquette/protocol for the POTUS to derade a SC ruling during the State of the Union?
You can't be seriously that drunk on the kool aid.
Reminder, I said I disagreed with the way Joe Wilson went about his displeasure with what Obama was saying, so I'm not being "partisan" here. -
majorspark
I agree with derek on this one. The Supremes are not gods. They are co-equal branches of the Federal Government. One branch is not greater than the other. The POTUS does not swear his oath to the SCOTUS. They can be wrong and should be called out if they are. I would point out that the State of the Union would not be the respectful place politically to do it.derek bomar wrote:
because the point doesn't hold water...enforcing/carrying out the laws of the land doesn't mean you can't disagree with one. He can voice his opinion but as long as doesn't say "and I won't follow the ruling, and I am enforcing the old laws" he hasn't broken his job description...at least not from my POV.jmog wrote: Noticed you skipped right over my point about his oath and job description not allowing for his remarks about the SC. -
jmogNobody said they were "gods", just said that its not his place to do it, especially in the State of the Union.
If he doesn't like their rulings, he can nominate someone else when 1 of them dies or retires, that's his right. -
Captain Cavalier
I thought he came across as defiant and arrogant. Just the way way he carried himself. The whole time I felt I was being talked and stared down to...like "Look, whether you like it or not, this is the way it's gonna be" or sitting in the bosses office and getting a discipline speech type feeling. And while I'm sure there are those that would vote no just to vote no, did it ever occur to Obama that maybe they voted no because they felt it was not right for the US? His attempts at humor, IMO, was not what I was wanting to hear. Not during the State of the Union Address. Nuclear power, clean coal and offshore gas & oil, fine, but I'll believe it when I see it. -
Writerbuckeye
For a guy who preaches working together and an end to partisanship, he sure calls out a lot of people -- and does it in a forum not typically used as a bully pulpit. Especially in a day and technological age when such confrontational statements could easily be confined to other forums or venues.
Then again, I guess it matters WHICH version of Obama you want to believe at that point in time. The man has switched gears and blatantly lied about so many things in only one year -- it's hard to believe which Obama you're referring to.
I'd say it's comical, but I don't find an inept President funny; and this guy has proven totally inept when it comes to showing any kind of management skills.