Hindus, Muslims, and Christians

[Josh]

Just because the SCOTUS thinks something doesn’t mean it agrees with God’s law or that I am duty bound to follow it. Indeed, often the opposite might be the case, such as the Dredd Scott decision.

[Ken]

Thank you for the history lesson. Now you understand why I say perhaps either the First Amendment or the interpretation might be wrong. Perhaps it was better understood for the first 100 years after it was written, and the relatively recent 62-year-old interpretation is faulty.

You wouldn't be the first person to think that current Supreme Court interpretations are wrong. Folks who want to see more gun control think that the current Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is utterly insane and ahistorical. That the founders had no intention of putting unregulated AR15s in the hand of psychotic 18 year-olds. But that is the world we live in unless or until the Supreme Court reverses course. Same thing goes for proselytizing in schools.

Yea, that's the second issue I think the current SCOTUS might have gotten wrong.

For me I would add the Supreme Court's interpretation in Citizens United that Money = Speech and therefore, we can't restrict money in politics. In my reading of the First Amendment it talks about freedom of speech and not freedom of money. I don't think billionaires should get 1 billion times more speech than the rest of us just because they have more money

[Josh]

I would prefer it if you didn’t get to decide how I can spend my money to speak. Speaking is often not free.

[Ken]

I would prefer it if you didn’t get to decide how I can spend my money to speak. Speaking is often not free.

You can spend your money however you want.

I simply disagree with the notion that when an out of state billionaire like George Soros drops hundreds of millions dollars into local races around the country, that is constitutionally protected free speech that we are absolutely helpless to do anything about. That is how hard drug legalization came to Oregon a few years ago. Out of state interests from NY like Soros and others dropped millions into the pro drug initiative which overwhelmed local opposition and it passed. Just this year the legislature finally repealed that bit of insanity.

But obviously opinions differ. The Supreme Court thinks that writing million dollar checks equals constitutionally protected free speech that we cannot regulate. So here we are.

[Josh]

I would prefer it if you didn’t get to decide how I can spend my money to speak. Speaking is often not free.

You can spend your money however you want.

I agree and that’s what Citizens United said.

I simply disagree with the notion that when an out of state billionaire like George Soros drops hundreds of millions dollars into local races around the country, that is constitutionally protected free speech that we are absolutely helpless to do anything about. That is how hard drug legalization came to Oregon a few years ago. Out of state interests from NY like Soros and others dropped millions into the pro drug initiative which overwhelmed local opposition and it passed. Just this year the legislature finally repealed that bit of insanity.

But obviously opinions differ. The Supreme Court thinks that writing million dollar checks equals constitutionally protected free speech that we cannot regulate. So here we are.

Yes. The first amendment says Congress can’t infringe on (political) speech. That includes spending your money to pay other people to speak, run ads, etc