$37.12 donated in past month
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay FeatureRelated Categories: U.S. | Global Justice and Anti-Capitalism
Their electoral system
Our brief argued that the Court should defer to the determination of Congress that limits on contributions to candidates can reduce corruption, and thus outweigh any perceived impact on free speech.The Court’s decision is another poison pill for our democracy that will undoubtedly increase the flood of money in our elections. Until Congress enacts and the people ratify a constitutional amendment to grant it full authority over campaign contributions and expenditures, the American people should at least be able to hold their electoral system accountable.
Anna G. Eshoo
Member of Congress
The President has to only control five men or women if he wants to be dictator. Those five men or women are five Supreme Court justices. He can then tell them what he wants and what he doesn't want. He can have them declare any law that he doesn't like unconstitutional, because it's purely a matter of opinion, judicial opinion.
Then the congress is totally hamstrung. They are absolutely ineffective because they cannot pass one single law against him. The Supreme Court will throw it out as unconstitutional. He can declare any law unconstitutional he doesn't like, so that they can't do anything unless they pass laws to suit him.
In other words, they just have to give up in disgust and go home, for he's got the whip hand: "Now you pass the law the way I want it or I'm going to veto it; if you pass it by a two-thirds majority I'll have the Supreme Court veto it." They can override his veto with a two-thirds majority, but if they do, he can have it thrown out by the Supreme Court. So, once he gets control of five men or women in the Supreme Court he has got it made, if he wants to be a dictator!
Ted Rudow III, MA