{"id":17048,"date":"2014-05-03T21:13:39","date_gmt":"2014-05-04T01:13:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/?p=17048"},"modified":"2014-05-03T21:19:46","modified_gmt":"2014-05-04T01:19:46","slug":"signature-needed-senate-will-vote-on-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/2014\/05\/03\/signature-needed-senate-will-vote-on-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united\/","title":{"rendered":"Signature needed: Senate will vote on Constitutional Amendment to overturn Citizens United"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Daily Kos<\/em> has a petition discussed in the post  Signature needed: Senate will vote on Constitutional Amendment to overturn Citizens United<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s Citizens United<\/i> and McCutcheon<\/i> decisions opened the floodgates of unlimited campaign spending by the 1%, which threatens our democracy.<\/p>\n

And the Court will keep ruling this way, as long as we subscribe to the absurd notion that money is \u201cspeech.\u201d<\/p>\n

However, Senator Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) has sponsored a constitutional amendment to give Congress the power to pass campaign contribution limits and spending limits. A vote is expected in the coming months.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I signed the petition, and added the comment:<\/p>\n

We should have a constitutional amendment banning the use of invalid syllogisms<\/a> as a justification for any ruling.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The link above shows that Google has the definition of syllogism as “a formal argument in logic that is formed by two statements and a conclusion which must be true if the two statements are true.”<\/p>\n

Note that is is very important that the two initial statements must be true for the conclusion to be true. If either of the two initial statements are “money is speech” or “corporations are people”, then you know that the logic does not validate that conclusion that corporations are allowed to make unlimited political contributions.<\/p>\n

Maybe I ought to be referring to WikiPedia<\/em>‘s explanation of the actual meaning of begging the question<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\nBegging the question<\/b> means “assuming the conclusion (of an argument)”, a type of circular reasoning<\/a>. This is an informal fallacy<\/a> where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact.[<\/span>1]<\/span>
\n<\/a><\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Maybe the footnote 1 above is even a better definition of the problem.<\/p>\n

\nGarner, B.A. (1995). Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage<\/i><\/a>. Oxford Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. Oxford University Press. p. 101. ISBN<\/a> 9780195142365<\/a>. LCCN<\/a> 95003863<\/a>. “begging the question<\/b> does not mean \u201cevading the issue\u201d or \u201cinviting the obvious questions,\u201d as some mistakenly believe. The proper meaning of begging the question is \u201cbasing a conclusion on an assumption that is as much in need of proof or demonstration as the conclusion itself.\u201d The formal name for this logical fallacy is petitio principii<\/a><\/span><\/i>. Following are two classic examples: \u201cReasonable men are those who think and reason intelligently.\u201d Patterson v. Nutter,<\/i> 7 A. 273, 275 (Me. 1886). (This statement begs the question, \u201cWhat does it mean to think and reason intelligently?\u201d)\/ \u201cLife begins at conception! [Fn.: \u2018Conception is defined as the beginning of life.\u2019]\u201d Davis v. Davis,<\/i> unreported opinion (Cir. Tenn. Eq. 1989). (The \u201cproof\u201d\u2014or the definition\u2014is circular.)”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\r\n<\/pre><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Daily Kos has a petition discussed in the post  Signature needed: Senate will vote on Constitutional Amendment to overturn Citizens United. The Supreme Court\u2019s Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions opened the floodgates of unlimited campaign spending by the 1%, which threatens our democracy. And the Court will keep ruling this way, as long as […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[166],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-17048","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-stevegsposts","7":"czr-hentry"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17048","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17048"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17048\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17050,"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17048\/revisions\/17050"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17048"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17048"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17048"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}