Quote:
Danielpalos
I am pretty sure most Federalists were not media moguls. It is my opinion, that Ben Franklin didn't run for public office in much the same manner that Madison and Jefferson did not have controlling interest in media moguldom.
|
So fucking what? Those were personal choices, not constitutional distinctions under the first amendment. The first amendment proscribes the types of things youa re discussing.
Quote:
Danielpalos
It is my contention, that the current candidate nomination process is Party specific. There is nothing preventing the Reform party, or a "Capitalism" party from nominating a candidate based on party specific criteria. One such criteria could be that of being the wealthiest person in the republic or having received the largest bonus.
|
Fine, you go form your Daniel's fantasyland party and see how much support you get, but you cannot make any of your criteria or restrictions LAW.
Quote:
Danielpalos
I think these are credible criteria for any market friendly candidate in much the same manner as adherence to Party dogma is a credible criteria for nomination of a candidate by, and for, the Party.
|
If you think that, then you are so utterly friggin' clueless as to what constitutes "market friendly" you are not worth having a reasoned discussion with.
Quote:
Danielpalos
Where is there any denial or disparagement of their Constitutionally enumerated right to redress of government?
|
Get your head out of your ass and read what I fucking wrote. Why do you keep asking me to defend a position I never fucking took.. What I said was it violates their FIRST AMENDMENTR RIGHTS and if would do as I suggested and READ THE FUCKING FIRST AMENDMENT you might notice that right to redress of government is not the only thing in the first amendment. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Press, try those (they aren't hard to find since the actually come BEFORE the redress clause you are irrelevantly fixated on.
Quote:
Danielpalos
No one is advocating that any individual citizen of the republic not be eligible to run for public office.
|
No, you are suggesting that restrictions are higher qualifications (in violation of the constitution) be placed on people for exercising their first amendment rights:
Quote:
danielpalos
I am not implying that media moguls should be prohibited from being selected for glorious patriotic duty in the Congressional senate, but only that they be selected by a higher majority than non-media moguls. An example would be four-fifths of the state legislature versus a simple majority or three-fourths.
|
You are punishing people for, in effect, exercising freedom of speech and press.