The table is useless.

More brilliance.

It's a good argument, but I don't buy it. It might be an unintended consequence, but Citizens United proves the fallacy. Individuals who run Corporations can have all the first amendment rights they want, whether it is with money or a soap box on the street. This has always been true and always will be. Rules of disclosure and accountability are in effect there.

Actually I disagree, money is not the only means of expression.

Money is not speech. Money is merely a means to fascilitate speech. speech can't be regulated, but money can be. Money is regulated in all kinds of ways in all kinds of transactions. Speech is free.

The courts have said otherwise. Donations to campaigns are political speech.

Some people have much more speech than others.

If the interests of the wealthy are perceived to be conflicting with the interests of the poor....

The Renquist and Roberts Courts (corrupt, fringe activist politicians in robes) have said lots of amazing things, notwithstanding that the original Constitution that these "originalists" love so much does not even give the Supreme Court the authority to over-rule either of the other two branches of Government.

Are you sure about that?

The wealthiest corporations/groups have been given free reign. Will there be any accountability for spreading falsehood?

so your saying that voting works and who the people vote for wins.

so basically your saying this problem is the peoples fault.

because thats who the people picked to lead them into this mess.

because the people wanted this to happen.

and you learned this in 4th grade and it still holds true today.

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

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

i wonder if you could ask Santa Claus and maybe the easter bunny to

help us out of this mess.

That's true, but they have to work with what they have. The idea is out there that the Supreme Court can strike down laws, I don't think anything is going to change that.

The 1st Amendment protects someone from that. Unless they care committing libel or slander, they are pretty much protected.

Yup! The Supreme Court had no pre-eminent authority until 1803, when it usurped it for itself in the Marbury v Madison case. (This isn't my discovery. It is recorded history).

He's correct, I was taught that in my 11th grade civics class.

Interesting.

This presents another issue altogether.

How it was supposed to work is that the Congress would use the Constitution as their guideline when drafting legislation. If their law was unconstitutional, a future Congress could repeal it or the sitting President could Veto it. Now, a small group of Judges make a decision and we are stuck with it forever.

We are on the same page here, Spidercomb.
Jefferson had an apoplectic fit with this decision. The American Government was supposed to consist of three co-equal branches. That's how democracy was really supposed to work. The three branches check eachother. The Congress favors the Fed, the Senate favors the States, the judiciary offers scholarly opinions and adjudicates according to what the other branches have determined. Hasn't worked that way since 1803.

Which case again?