100% of Americans have been specifically lied to by the government about those issues.
The best thing about Snowden's leaks is how the release has continually shown the government to be lying, and lying in response to the last batch of lies.
As such, opinions based on those lies aren't really valid.
If they got to a voting booth and saw a General Alexander's taped confession for treason they'd (probably) rethink those opinions.
> Americans are divided in their opinions on NSA surveillance.
Again, only because the NSA has spent our tax dollars on specifically telling us things that they know to be untrue. These people don't support the NSA, they just don't want to die in terrorism and don't know enough to know how unlikely that is, or how useless the NSA is in that regard.
> You can go read the TPP for yourself.
Oh great, now that it's too late and it's technically impossible for it to change.
The people have nothing to do with that decision. It is just plain unconstitutional. The framers of the constitution never meant for personal rights to be applied to corporations.
Regardless, corporate personhood has existed since colonial times, and the framers didn't do anything to stop it. Meanwhile, the McCain-Feingold act that Citizens United overturned had only been on the books for 8 years before much of it was overturned.
I don't think lobbying is a problem because the government has too much power, but rather because of the electoral system.
When voting is voluntary elections are won by the party that is best able to get out the vote. In order to get out the vote huge sums of money must be spent on political advertising and organization. When political parties are desperate for money it requires them to devote a lot of their time to fundraising and it makes them vulnerable to special interest groups with deep pockets (aka lobbyists). Voluntary voting means more opportunity for money to buy influence.
Compulsory voting, in contrast, means that almost all eligible voters will vote. Political parties can spend less money on advertising, less time fundraising, and more time developing policy and doing the job. Because the electors have to vote they're more likely to take an interest in the election, more likely to listen to the ideas being presented and vote accordingly. The only downside of compulsory voting is that there are more votes to count, but that cost is worth paying.
Compulsory voting is a practical step towards getting the money out of politics and improving the quality of a democracy.
If the government has no authority over something, there is no value in lobbying the government for help with that something.
Example: The government has subsidizes and regulates farming. Therefore there is a powerful incentive for agricultural interests to buy special treatment. Add ethanol considerations, and you have oil interests at work too.
Australia has compulsory voting. It also has the donkey vote, estimated at 2% of votes. That is a downside.
http://australianpolitics.com/voting/electoral-system/donkey...
The Australian Electoral Commission has a page about it: http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/voting/index.ht...
I have the right to freedom of speech. You have the right to freedom of speech(assuming that you're an American citizen).
If you and I form a partnership with the express purpose of working together to combine our voices and speak together, we retain that right to freedom of speech.
That was what Citizens United held.
Beyond that, you're just plain wrong. Corporations are legal persons. Only persons can be parties to legal actions. If your neighbor's dog escapes and bites you, can you sue the dog? Of course not. You sue the neighbor, the person responsible. If your neighbor kills your dog, can your dog's puppies sue your neighbor? Of course not. Again, non-persons cannot be party to legal actions. A corporation can own property, pay taxes, sue, be sued and as a legal person, corporations have rights. They don't have all of the same rights as people, that's why I find it so frustrating when people conflate "people" with "persons". Legally, they are different concepts.
True, only due to bad precedent. "Should they be?" is a question we the people should have had a chance to argue and debate. Instead, it was by a judicial fiat that made a new type of citizenry. And honestly, they are pretty fucked up, with requiring their primary focus to be "Make money at all costs". A human with a similar 'ethics' would be called a sociopath.
Better yet, I'll believe corporations are legal people when Texas executes one.
Secondly, Patently false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...
United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film
United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency
United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins
United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls
United States v. Forty Barrels & Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola
You want more?
But it can't go to jail, and fines that are levied for wrongful behavior are often less than the profits obtained from said behavior and come about through settlements with no admission of wrongdoing, and without any executives being held responsible.
A person never lost their individual right to freedom of speech if they formed or became a member of a corporation.
That was precisely the issue before the court in this case. Did the individuals who formed the corporation Citizens United retain their right to freedom of speech as it related to releasing a documentary about Hillary Clinton near an election, in violation of McCain-Feingold?
The court ruled that they did not lose their right to freedom of speech.
They are virtually synonymous. People is a plural form of person. Most people don't speak legalese.
Not in the context of the Constitution. "The people" makes reference to American Citizens. "Person" makes reference to legal persons.
An alternate, legal definition is "a corporation."
Lets break down that definition and dive deeper into the abstraction.
A law is a piece of paper with words written on it that some people agree on.
A corporation is created by filing articles of incorporation. Again, this is a piece of paper with words written on it.
So, in reality using law to define a corporation as a person you have a piece of paper saying a piece of paper is a human being.
Legally, marijuana and cocaine are "narcotics" but pharmacologically they are not.
The law defines personhood for biological entities too.
One minute before birth, it's not a legal person. One second after birth, it is a legal person.
This is nothing new.
If you don't like the law, convince enough people that the law should be changed.
Is it your contention that we really should prevent this kind of thing from happening? Because to me, it seems like the very cornerstone of the democratic system. The minute such activity is illegal, the people have lost and we've become an oligarchy, unable to provide information to our fellow citizens necessary to cast informed votes.
In fact, your argument that the CU decision only benefits the wealthy is precisely the opposite of the reality. In fact, the wealthy don't need to cooperate in corporate bodies to finance public speech: folks like Donald Trump can get up on a pulpit with their own personal wealth. It's only us regular people who have the need to cooperate (i.e., to incorporate into a body to handle the demands of our effort).
Thus, CU is a benefit to the regular guy, without having much effect on the opportunities available to the rich who can go it alone.
'The people' aren't the ones 'providing information', campaigns full of biased individuals trying to beat a competitor are. The system and its 'elections' has nothing to do with the people, it has to do with a few powerful wealthy entities struggling for power.
Yes, we should definitely prevent a very small minority of political Übermenschen with more money than God from being able to control the system for their own aims.
As the parent said, how would you propose to limit political speech in a meaningful way without infringing on the free speech rights of the public at large?
There are already laws protecting freedom of expression, so I think it's disingenuous to suggest that CU is all about freedom of expression, and therefore good for democracy.
It doesn't really open the door to no-limit campaign financing. It says that the government can't put a limit on how much money a person or group of people (like the "Citizens United" nonprofit--hence the name) can spend to promote their OWN opinions.
There is a difference between 1) giving a political candidate $1 million, and 2) spending $1 million to shoot, print, and promote a documentary movie about a political candidate.
#1 is still illegal. And it's hard to imagine a way to limit #2 without giving someone the power to determine which movie (or website, or podcast) is "legal" and which is "illegal" speech about a candidate.
If we can't speak freely each other about candidates, how can we hope to have a valid political process at all?
As to what you assert their opinions would be, you'd have to look at their own writings and find something to the effect; noting what many of the constructs you described wern't even being considered during that time. But that evidence won't be in the Constitution.
The Constitution lays out who's responsible for what, and who can make what decisions. It is not a bible stating the mores of the nation.
Do you know why they didn't? Because it wasn't feasible to do so when information was traveling at the speed of the horse drawn carriage.
>In a large society, inhabiting an extensive country, it is impossible that the whole should assemble to make laws. The first necessary step, then, is to depute power from the many to a few of the most wise and good. But by what rules shall you choose your representatives? Agree upon the number and qualifications of persons who shall have the benefit of choosing, or annex this privilege to the inhabitants of a certain extent of ground.
-John Adams, Thoughts on Government
The limitation or assumption that "it is impossible that the whole should assemble" is no longer true.
I'm dubious that a country where most issues are voted on directly by the people could function with any significant amount of participation, mostly because people are not experts in most fields, and don't necessarily understand e.g. the macroeconomic effects of letting the largest banks in the world all go bankrupt. We elect representatives because there is a lot of work to do governing a country thousands of miles wide with over 300 million people, and I want people who can devote their profession to improving government in charge. Ones that we get to vote for regularly, of course.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
"Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. "
- James Madison, Federalist #51 : http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm
Tyranny of the majority and mob rule are just pejorative synonyms for democracy. Which would you rather have, tyranny by the majority or tyranny by a minority (i.e. monarchy/oligarchy/dictatorship)? Personally I'd argue for something else altogether.
At one end of the debate was the likes of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams who argued for the "tyranny of the majority" (democracy) and at the other was the likes of Alexander Hamilton, who wanted Oligarchy:
>I believe the British government forms the best model the world ever produced, and such has been its progress in the minds of the many, that this truth gradually gains ground. This government has for its object public strength and individual security. It is said with us to be unattainable. All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well born, the other the mass of the people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government.
-Alexander Hamilton, Farrand's Records of the Federal Convention, v. 1, p. 299.1787-06-19
It would indeed be nice to delegate to the experts (i.e. scientists, engineers, psychologists etc.) on relevant issues, rather than having climate change deniers[1] on the Environmental Committee and people who have never sent an email[2] in their life on the Committee for Privacy and Technology.
On the PATRIOT Act, the link you provided shows that 63% of Americans either want to keep the entire thing or make minor changes.
Citizens United came from the Supreme Court, an institution that is explicitly designed to be shielded from the will of the people as much as possible.
The 2000 election was a clusterfuck, but it has happened exactly once since 1888. Besides, if a few hundred votes go the other way in Florida then we wouldn't even be talking about it.
On bankers, 60% isn't overwhelming, and the government decided to go against the will of the people because they thought it was the best course of action. Most experts agree that it was the lesser of two evils.
You can go read the TPP for yourself. It's been out for three months. [1]
Americans are divided in their opinions on NSA surveillance. [2]
None of this matters though because the will of the people is not supposed to be the final say in government action. There founding fathers did not believe in direct democracy.
[1] https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/tran...
[2] http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-ph...