intro to law prog

Introduction- the Supreme Court decision to allow cap less donations to congressional campaigns by corporate businesses is an insult to the checks and balance system of the United States. The very idea of this decision defended by those who define political donations as an extension of the first amendment, more specifically the freedom of political expression is trudging very dangerous waters. If this sort of judicial philosophy continues to resonate as the ethical guiding compass of the Supreme Court, the future for both the sovereignty of the nation and true representative democracy will be highly in question.

Constitutionality/consistency- Constitutionality, as we all know, is highly subjective to interpretation, interpretation guided by partisan politics rather than a veil of ignorance that defines and separates the American Justice system from other corrupt systems around the world. Allowing faceless corporations to donate large sums of money to congressional campaigns destroys the representative stratification of the common American citizen in elections.

Justice- A partisan justice system by definition is not only unjust but intolerable. The notion that political agendas, either liberal or conservative, conservative in this instance, furthermore big business conservative agenda, may be the deciding factor in senatorial elections is frightening to the power of the democratic voice in America.

Expediency- This decision is an issue that must be tended to immediately with either strong legislation or an amendment to the constitution overriding the Supreme Court’s decision. The main idea behind the decision of the court is that share holders in corporations deserve to have their voices heard in the election process, just like all Americans are entitled to; however, many of these corporations in question are multi-national corporations whose largest share holders are foreign. This means that some of the biggest campaign contributions in American elections could be coming from Chinese or Middle Eastern share holders who would in essence be buying American politicians. Now is the time to suffocate the flames of this misled decision before the sanctity of the sovereignty of the United States is put into jeopardy.

Practicability- It is not practical for the first amendment to be interpreted in such an ambiguous manner. By allowing interpretations of the constitution such as the recent Supreme Court decision to go uncontested will only open a can of worms where the constitution can be extrapolated in illogical manners to suit special interests.
Conclusion- To extrapolate ludicrous partisan interpretations of constitutional amendments from concrete ideas regarding the inalienateable freedoms of Americans like the Supreme Court decision to allow corporate companies to donate uncapped amounts of money to congressional elections under the first amendment is a tragedy for democracy.