NP - Philadelphia Daily News Editortial

[Paul Mackin]

On 6/26/2012 1:23 PM, Matthew Cissell wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Take the Carl Schmitt factor out of this court and we wouldn't be 
> having this discussion. To say that campiagn limits is equal to 
> censorship is daft. Using the EPC (Equal prot. clause) was a good move 
> by the CitUN but it just gave a chance to the controlling element to 
> push its own ideological rulings.

It used to be said that the Catholic Church is not a democracy.

This was before it started down the  road to becoming a little more of 
one. Even the Good Sisters are going their own way.

Anxiety reigns in the highest echelons.  Is what we are seeing here a 
reaction to a slippage in a former vaunted moral authority? Are the 
conservative justices coming to the rescue of something they are true 
believers in? Will huge quantities of unrestricted money be needed to 
turn things around?

I really can she why the court majority should be overly concerned about 
the mere ability of Big Business to prosper.  (if that is their 
perceived game) Money is made under Democrats as well as under 
Republicans.  But the moral issue, disobedience to Rome, may be a 
different matter for these conservative, in some cases ultra 
conservative, Catholic layman.  I'm not suggesting a Papal States of 
America is  on their minds.  I'm not THAT paranoid. Not yet anyway.




"all significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are 
secularized theological concepts" ---in other words, that political 
theory <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_theory> addresses the 
state (and sovereignty) in much the same manner as theology 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology> does God.
> ciao
> mc
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net>
> *To:* pynchon-l at waste.org
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 26, 2012 6:28 PM
> *Subject:* Re: NP - Philadelphia Daily News Editortial
>
> On 6/26/2012 11:57 AM, Matthew Cissell wrote:
>> I'm behind that. Right on, Dave.
>
> Me too, but the Citizen's United ruling didn't really depend on 
> corporation personhood. It was a First Amendment based decision, 
> regardless of how misguided. Corporationhood is a fourteenth amendment 
> equal protection under the law thing.
>
>
> P
>>
>> otis
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> <mailto:fqmorris at gmail.com>
>> *To:* P-list <pynchon-l at waste.org> <mailto:pynchon-l at waste.org>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 26, 2012 5:34 PM
>> *Subject:* NP - Philadelphia Daily News Editortial
>>
>> http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20120626_Supreme_Court_makes_two_good_decisions__and_one_bad_one_.html
>>
>> The court declined to reconsider its decision in Citizens United v.
>> Federal Election Commission, which granted corporations personhood,
>> with First Amendment rights. We're stealing from a site called "Create
>> Real Democracy" to sum up our disdain for this decision. Here's an
>> excerpt:
>>
>> "We'll believe a corporation is a person when:
>>
>> Arizona deports one.
>>
>> Texas executes one.
>>
>> Massachusetts marries two of them.
>>
>> The U.S. government issues one a Social Security number.
>>
>> The CIA extradites one to Guantanamo.
>>
>> One sacrifices its life in military service."
>>
>>
>
>
>
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20120626/51e18a88/attachment.html>