Lawrence Lessig: The Man You Have Never Heard Of Who Should Be Running In 2016

Hello again ATS!

In my nightly reading I came across a small snippet - a quote that I had never read before from a man I do not think I have heard of before. The quote happened to be in the form of a meme - words on a picture posted to a feed. While I usually am highly against posting memes into my threads, in this case I want to make an exception. Of course I will be following the meme with more information. I just want to let you, the reader, have the same gutteral reaction as I did when seeing it:



You read that right. One-hundred-thirty-two people, or 0.000042 percent of the population funded 60% of the SuperPACS. We scream about the top one percent often, but who would have imagined such a disparity as to literally be the top one-hundred-thousandths of one percent who were buying America and our Government wholesale?

One-hundred-thirty-two people.

Upon reading this I decided to do a bit of checking on Mr Lessig, to attribute the quote and to find out who he is and how he's flown under my radar for this long. Sourcing the quote was easy, it can be found on multiple sites, including this one. In fact there is a much, much longer discussion to be read at that link which happens to include the quote above.

Second job - find out who he is. Wikipedia tells us:

Lawrence "Larry" Lessig (born June 3, 1961) is an American academic and political activist. He is a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark, and radio frequency spectrum, particularly in technology applications, and he has called for state-based activism to promote substantive reform of government with a Second Constitutional Convention. In May 2014, he launched a crowd-funded political action committee which he termed Mayday PAC with the purpose of electing candidates to Congress who would pass campaign finance reform.

Lessig is director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University and a Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Previously, he was a professor of law at Stanford Law School and founder of the Center for Internet and Society. Lessig is a founding board member of Creative Commons and the founder of Rootstrikers, and is on the board of MapLight. He is on the advisory boards of the Democracy Café, Sunlight Foundation and Americans Elect. He is a former board member of the Free Software Foundation, Software Freedom Law Center and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

If you'll read that link I think you'll be surprised. This is a guy who agrees with aspects from all parties and political philosphies. He refers to himself as a "Constitutionalist". He is a long time friend of President Obama, yet he:

Lessig has emphasized in interviews that his philosophy experience at Cambridge radically changed his values and career path. Previously, he had held strong conservative or libertarian political views, desired a career in business, was a highly active member of Teenage Republicans, served as the Youth Governor for Pennsylvania through the YMCA Youth and Government program in 1978, and almost pursued a Republican political career.

Oh and a huge kicker - he's a MILITANT and ARDENT supporter of NET NEUTRALITY and Copyright reform!

This man is an Internet lovers political dream - no matter which side of the fence one sits on. So why is his name not spoken more?

Being that this is ATS I am sure somebody will hone in on the fact that he attended the Bildeberg conference. To me this is not a big deal as most powerful people end up there at some point or another. It comes with the territory. Besides, if he picked up an agenda from that association, it is hard to tell what it might be since his Wiki says this:

In 2010, Lessig began to organize for a national constitutional convention. He co-founded Fix Congress First! with Joe Trippi. Lessig called for a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution in a September 24–25, 2011, conference co-chaired by the Tea Party Patriots' national coordinator, in Lessig's October 5, 2011, book, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It, and at the Occupy protest in Washington, DC. Reporter Dan Froomkin said the book offers a manifesto for the Occupy Wall Street protestors, focusing on the core problem of corruption in both political parties and their elections. Lessig's initial constitutional amendment would allow legislatures to limit political contributions from non-citizens, including corporations, anonymous organizations, and foreign nationals, and he also supports public campaign financing and electoral college reform to establish the one person, one vote principle.

A man who can influece both the Tea Part AND the Occupy Movement? Again, why is he NOT on every talk show available on a regular basis???

I am going to continue researching this man - but his positions, IMO, address everything that is wrong with our Nation currently. If I find nothing horrible hiding in his closet, this promise I make - I am writing his name in on my ballot come 2016.

Thanks for reading!

A man we've never heard of? Eh, we had one of those guys win in 2008.

a reply to: Hefficide

He should run with Warren as his running mate. The banks and corporations would competely lose their minds.

a reply to: Hefficide

You haven't heard much of him because he is the enemy if everything that is the status quo. I've been watching him with excitement for a while now. He's got no skeletons I know of.

originally posted by: Hefficide

A man who can influece both the Tea Part AND the Occupy Movement? Again, why is he NOT on every talk show available on a regular basis???

I am going to continue researching this man - but his positions, IMO, address everything that is wrong with our Nation currently. If I find nothing horrible hiding in his closet, this promise I make - I am writing his name in on my ballot come 2016.

Well he certainly won't be on my ballot.

Where opponents have gone wrong is in constitutional analysis. They claim the Second Amendment would be infringed by the proposed reforms,which include universal background checks, limits on high-capacity magazines, and restrictions on assault weapons.

Yet none of these laws are likely to be overturned by the Supreme Court as violation of the Second Amendment. That is the view expressed by over 50 distinguished constitutional law professors in this Statement of Professors of Constitutional Law: The Second Amendment and the Constitutionality of the Proposed Gun Violence Prevention Legislation. The signatories include Laurence Tribe, Richard Epstein, Eric Posner, Reva Siegel, Geoffrey Stone, Charles Fried, Walter Dellinger, Dawn Johnsen, Larry Lessig. I was one of a number of Second Amendment specialists who signed, including Sandy Levinson, Mark Tushnet, Joseph Blocher, Jamal Greene, Michael Dorf, Carlton Larson, and Lawrence Rosenthal.

Might as well be Diane Feinstein as far as I'm concerned. Good thing there's no realistic chance of him becoming president.

Restrictions on the manufacture and sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines and
assault weapons are also consistent with the Second Amendment. In a recent opinion
authored by Judge Douglas Ginsburg and joined by Judge Karen Henderson, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that such regulations are
consistent with the Second Amendment and with the Supreme Court’s decision in
Heller. The court of appeals recognized such weapons and magazines are not necessary
for individual self-defense—what Heller called the “core lawful purpose” of the Second
Amendment. Restrictions on high-capacity magazines and assault weapons, the court of
appeals held, do “not effectively disarm individuals or substantially affect their ability
to defend themselves.” The Second Amendment, like the First Amendment, does not
prevent lawmakers from enacting reasonable regulations that do not seriously interfere
with the core right guaranteed by the Constitution.

www.acslaw.org...

Sounds like a tyrant to me.

a reply to: smithjustinb

The full letter can be found here. Since it's discussing decided law, already - legal experts chiming in on Constitutionality of that settled law is a non-sequitor.

All the letter says is background checks and no high capacity clips.

The majority of Americans support both of these laws.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: smithjustinb

All the letter says is background checks and no high capacity clips.

No it isn't.

It says, "universal background checks, limits on high-capacity magazines, and restrictions on assault weapons."

The majority of Americans support both of these laws.

No they don't.

www.rasmussenreports.com...

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

www.gallup.com...

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: smithjustinb

The full letter can be found here. Since it's discussing decided law, already - legal experts chiming in on Constitutionality of that settled law is a non-sequitor.

You're linking something to me that I already linked to you and then misquoting that link?

Do you even read?

a reply to: smithjustinb

So because he wants reasonable limitations on guns he's a tyrant. He's quite far from a tyrant. Maybe you should look into him more. He seems like an all around nice guy. He has done nothing but try to fight for democracy and the little guy.

a reply to: smithjustinb

So losing just about all your rights thus far is ok and good, but that second amendment is the last straw?

a reply to: LDragonFire

Indeed. What about the 4th amendment? That one is far more important and far closer to death

a reply to: smithjustinb

I read quite well, thank you. Do you logic? The statement that the paper discusses extant law was accurate.

a reply to: Hefficide

He'd run for president if elections were real. He doesn't look like a puppet.

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: smithjustinb

reasonable limitations

Limits on high capacity magazines and restrictions on certain types of assault weapons (like the semi-automatic AR-15) is far from reasonable.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: smithjustinb

So losing just about all your rights thus far is ok and good, but that second amendment is the last straw?

Its not okay and it is the last straw.

a reply to: Trueman

Yeah he's 100% not a puppet. Him and Warren are both real people. They have been forced to play politics at times, but they aren't puppets.

a reply to: smithjustinb

What do you need an automatic weapon for?

If you need 30 rounds to hit a target, maybe a gun range is a better option than a larger clip.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: smithjustinb

I read quite well, thank you. Do you logic? The statement that the paper discusses extant law was accurate.

No it wasn't.

Several proposed reforms to the nation’s gun laws, including universal background
checks and restrictions on high-capacity ammunition magazines and assault weapons,
are now pending before Congress.

How are proposed laws, that are pending, extant?

You're 0 for 3 on accurate statements so far.

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: smithjustinb

What do you need an automatic weapon for?

I didn't mention "automatic weapons".