Where does it say Exxon has the same constitutional right to free speech as I do ? Where is the constitutional amendment that extends our bill of rights to a state created/protected entity ?
I agree that we take the menaing of the words at face value but there application are not always so clear. If they were the founding fathers would not have created a SC to intepret them.
I am applying interpretation which is much more justified when deciphering political speak than it is in determining the meaning of the first amendment.
You are again using the "I said so" form of support for your arguments. If you want to hang Bush with his own words, shouldn't you be requird to give him the benefit of the doubt absent anything else ?
I don't think it is entirely clear that the purpose of the court was to interpret laws however I think even in the case of say exxon it is clear. The first amendment makes no exception for money that is funneled through a corporation. If the law is designed to abridge speech by a group or individual it is by definition unconstitutional otherwise the exception would have been made as it was in regards to other constitutional provisions ie "In times of rebellion".
You are again using the "I said so" form of support for your arguments. If you want to hang Bush with his own words, shouldn't you be requird to give him the benefit of the doubt absent anything else ?
I think interpretation of laws has to be literalist while the words of politicians clearly can be read into. If you want to be literalist however he did state he had serious questions about the bill. Given that his job is to protect the constitution those questions alone should have been enough to veto it.
I realize I am providing a paraphrase of his comment but do you honestly come to a different conclusion of his meaning than I do?