How Would Jon Stewart Play This?

Jon Stewart might start with this quote:

"'We are locked in a struggle with powerful forces in this country who will do anything to destroy the Second Amendment,' said Richard Venola, a former editor of Guns & Ammo. 'The time for ceding some rational points is gone.'" [Quoted in NYT]

(Host looks into camera, with a "Here we go again" look)  I mean...that's just SUCH B.S.  They are trying to scare people.  The quote above comes from this story, where a guy got fired for even considering the possibility of regulating firearms ownership.  Nobody is "after" your gun rights, folks.

Then cut to:

"Movie producer Harvey Weinstein announced for the first time on Howard Stern’s radio show that he is making a full feature drama to try to destroy the National Rifle Association...'I shouldn’t say this, but I’ll tell it to you, Howard,' he said. 'I’m going to make a movie with Meryl Streep, and we’re going to take this head-on. And they’re going to wish they weren’t alive after I’m done with them.'" [Washington Times]

(Host stares into camera, struck dumb, mouth flapping...Big laughs all around!)

That actually sounds pretty rough.  Is ol' Harvey going to kill someone, or just make them want to kill themselves?

Two more points:

1.  The reason ol' Harvey W gets to make a "full feature" movie expressing his personal political views is that the "Citizens United" case was CORRECTLY DECIDED by the Supreme Court.  This is going to be a 2 hour political ad, one that costs millions of dollars to make.  And the money is going to come directly from corporate treasuries.  And none of it will have to be reported as a political contribution.  Because CU was CORRECTLY DECIDED.  I'm not sure why no one understands this.  The Citizens United movie about Hillary was protected political speech.  So is Harvey's piece of crap movie.  That's what the CU decision was about.

2.  My own view on guns are actually very close to those of Dick Metcalf.  The 2nd Amendment says "well-regulated," folks.  So, I may agree, on the merits, with a lot of what ol' Harvey W wants to say.  And I certainly want to defend his right to say it.

Diana Hsieh: Express Advocate?

This May, a [case] will be heard by the Colorado Supreme Court in Coalition for Secular Government v. Gessler. This case centers around a small nonprofit, run by Diana Hsieh, a doctor of philosophy, who wanted to discuss a secular understanding of the principles of life, liberty, and property. To do this, Dr. Hsieh formed a nonprofit corporation, which she named the Coalition for Secular Government (CSG). CSG commissioned a paper discussing its philosophy regarding human personhood, written by Dr. Hsieh and her friend Ari Armstrong. On behalf of CSG, Dr. Hsieh and Mr. Armstrong raised money from their friends to help pay for the costs of writing and publishing the paper. They also ran some Facebook ads and made flyers to let people know about the paper.

The paper is 32 pages long, with 176 endnotes. It makes philosophical arguments concerning the complex public policy debate surrounding the definition of personhood. The paper used a proposed Colorado ballot measure as a backdrop for its discussion on the issue. The paper concludes with a single sentence of express advocacy: “If you believe that ‘human life has value,’ the only moral choice is to vote against Amendment 62.”

This one sentence of express advocacy meant that CSG may be forced to register as a issue committee with the state of Colorado.  

Amendment 62, for non-Coloradans.

To summarize:  A philosopher argues, in an academic-style paper, for why calling a week old "fetus" a full legal person a bad idea.  Then she draws the conclusion that if you accept this argument then Amendment 62 should be voted down.  And for that she is forced to register, report all her donors and support, and pay significant regulatory costs.

Before "Citizens United," this case would have been a slam dunk for the nannies.  Now...interesting.  Thank goodness the Supreme Court decided Citizens United correctly!  Blog post.   

Phone call for Alex Rosenberg...

Debate on Citizens United

Here is a debate I did with Gene Nichol of UNC Law just after the Citizens United decision came down.  It's an hour, but the issues we raise as just as germane today.

I have not changed my mind.  Freedom of association is still the core issue.  And since under the old law, the Solicitor General explicitly said that a corporation publishing a book would be REGULATED BY THE FEC, that law was unconstitutional.  Full stop.

Whether the resulting unregulated system is ideal, I have conflicting opinions.  But you can't possibly think that Citizens United was wrongly decided, given those facts. 

The problem is that our friends on the left just ignore the facts of the case, for reasons I can't quite understand.  Non-profit corporations have to be able to make movies, and books, even ones that contain the phrase "Hilary Clinton would make a good (bad) President.  Vote for (against) her!"

Citizens United Stands

So, Citizens United was upheld against a truly nonsensical challenge from some idiots in Montana. The basis of the challenge was not the merits of Cit U, but rather the supremacy clause.

Some analysis of the case...

The decision, which came down today...  Amazing that those same folks who are going to whine about overturning precedent on HCR are willing to retry Cit U on the merits here, when the only question is actually the supremacy clause.  For the left, "judicial activism" is just when a judge does something they don't like, and they can't think of a real reason.

The Amicus Brief that I signed onto, regarding Cit U.

Interestingly, Chief Justice Roberts specifically referred to our Amicus Brief, BY NAME, in oral argument. (See p. 69, lines 19 and following). Winning!

And, since people seem to have forgotten it, the 1st Amendment. The most relevant part is highighted, for the willfully blind among us.

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.

That whole freedom of association thing, there.  It's not the key point that corporations are "persons."  The key point is that people can associate in any way they want, and that association can be active politically, without permission from haters of liberty like Justice Breyer and company.