Conservative Justices Sell The Nation to Corps

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer

"Fascism is rightly seen as the merger of the Corporation and Government." B. Mussolini

Jdub, this quote you include in your signature by Mussolini says it all.

The traitorous "conservatives" on the SCOTUS just made us a FASCIST nation.

Hitler and Mussolini would be proud.

I'd like to ask all the conservatives and republicans to stand up and take a bow, you've pulled it off, you've literally handed the United States of America over to it's multinational corporations. They've been gunning for this for a long time, ever since Eisenhower, the LAST true republican, warned us in his farewell speech of the intent of the Military-Industrial complex to hijack this nation. Well add to the MIC all the fortune 100 companies and the multinationals that are slavering at the chance to turn (even further) the USA, and by extension the rest of the world, into vassal states under their hegemony, and I hope you'll at least begin to gain a glimmer of the DISASTER this SCOTUS ruling was.

Those talking heads over at FOX want to label health care "fascism"? THIS ruling is TRUE fascism.

How does a SCOTUS ruling that is centered upon upholding the 1st Amendment as its reasoning, amount to fascism? Fascism is a political theory that advocates an authoritarian hierarchical government. The Supreme court struck down a law legislated by Congress that endeavored to chill political speech. Such a law seems pretty damned authoritarian. If SCOTUS does not have the authority to strike down laws that are repugnant to the Constitution, then this would make Congress supreme in a "hierarchical" sense.

There is nothing at all fascistic about the Supreme Courts ruling. It was a ruling that held reverence of the 1st Amendment as being the proper hierarchy in terms of supremacy. It ruled that Congress' attempts to regulate speech and its equivalent of prior restraint was expressly forbidden by the 1st Amendment. The ruling was wholly in regards to freedom of speech and Congress' authority to regulate it. It was Congress who blundered by attempting to expand the scope of their jurisdiction and blatantly ignoring the Constitution the forbade them from doing so.

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by CyberStray

 

The 1st amendment does not teeter on the precipice if "citizenship," but you choose to ignore the basis of the thread.

"Corps" have as much of a 1st amendment right as anyone.

When you pass (unlikely) "Government" please feel free to make a sensible comment.

Thus far, your comments add nothing to any thread.

jw

The above is your response to this?

***********************************************
Foreign agents do not have the right to vote, or vote by proxy. To allow foreign interests to buy elections is not Constitutional.

Your argument is deceptive, you are incorrect.

Certain rights are reserved for Citizens. You know it, and it's use in this context, is not relevant.

Can a Supreme Court Justice be legally seated not being a citizen?
Can a Canadian citizen be legally appointed to the Presidency?

You have no argument, so you evade the issue, and use deception.

Your fallacies are transparent

**********************************************

The problem with the decision is, foreign interests buying influence in our elective process. A consequence of the decision.

Help me out here. You get to post fallacious arguments, and when confronted. You don't quote the questions so your dodging is not apparent.

Then, you deride the questioner as insensible, and irrelevant.

You not only ignore the relevant by not answering, but you try to hide it by saying the first amendment does not teeter on Citizenship.

The entire Constitution hinges on Citizenship.
What part of that don't you get?

You demand sensible responses, but you are exempt?

Respond, or ignore.

Don't manipulate, deceive, and hide .

Cyberstray


[edit on 24-1-2010 by CyberStray]

reply to post by CyberStray


It is not correct to say that "the entire Constitution teeters on citizenship". The Bill of Rights is very much a part of the Constitution and has nothing at all to do with citizenship but is either a prohibition act on specific government actions or an acknowledgment of a inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are non negotiable which means they can neither be granted nor taken away. No one has to be a citizen in order to possess rights, as those rights belong to them regardless of their status, position, or circumstance.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

Those talking heads over at FOX want to label health care "fascism"? THIS ruling is TRUE fascism.

You are so blinded. "The last true Republican" was not Eisenhower, but Jackson. Your self-serving motivations have colored your perception.

The US' taking control of GM, GMAC, AIG, Citi and BaC is "fascism" at its purest.

Your prejudice is revealed by your misleading characterization of healthcare" as commensurate with "healthcare reform."

They are not the same, nor are they the focus of any purported "FOX" agenda.

Please come back when you have something constructive to say.

Deny ignorance!

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
2nd, a corporation IS a "person," legally and Constitutionally.

So, since Wal-Mart has put others out of business, can that be murder?

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
You know, this ruling is rather ironic. It was in the mid-19th century that the supreme court ruled that blacks were not really people. Funny that.

No way! Really?

BTW, shouldn't there be a teaparty regarding this ruling issue? I hope there will be soon.... seriously.

The US' taking control of GM, GMAC, AIG, Citi and BaC is "fascism" at its purest.

So was ownership transferred to the government? Or did the government create a bailout program, much like the one Reagan did with Chrysler in the 1980's, to keep these companies from becoming insolvent? As bad as a bailout program is, it's still not a "takeover".

And did not the majority of these companies not already pay back this TARP money? Most of the banks have. Some have actually paid the money back ahead of schedule so they could get the government oversight off their back so they could go back to robbing us blind.

Sorry but the government did not take over ownership of these companies.

Claiming they did, then screaming fascism does not make it so.

Personally I did not like the bailout program, I would have deemed it a just come-uppance to see these filches burn in hell, even if would have meant total meltdown for the US. However, the elected officials decided to salvage them. I've seen the government put companies into receivership when they default, go bankrupt, etc., but even then the government itself isn't "taking over" ownership.

I've seen a lot of rhetoric that the government "took over ownership", and the cozy relationship between government and corporations is proof again how much power they hold sway over our officials, which should only reinforce how CALAMITOUS this SCOTUS decision is to hand them a carte-blanche ability to pump millions, even billions into influencing elections.

Do you find the amount of money and power the lobbyists in Washington wield disturbing? This ruling will make influence-peddling lobbyists look like the minor leagues. Wait until they can operate openly with an unlimited budget on behalf of any foreign-owned, multinational corporations "first amendment rights".

They won't just change how Washington works, but at the local level too. Most will use this ruling to fight regulations and pollution controls. They'll sway county and mayoral elections to get more favorable considerations for themselves, which almost always means to the detriment of the local populace.

By the way, when the constitution was drafted, corporations were not considered living, breathing citizens, deserving of any rights. That took another hundred years to worm it's way into our culture. And a hundred years after that we've handed more power to a corporation than any flesh and blood citizen could ever muster (excepting of course, the owners/CEOs of such corporations, but then who's side do you think they are on?)

This essay sums up nicely this ruling;

Did the framers of the US Constitution believe corporations should have free speech?

Wars, environmental degradation, and growing economic disparity -- not only in the US but abroad -- may be attributed to the traditional legal status of corporations under American law. Over the years, US courts have accorded corporations many of the rights of persons. Among these is the right to a limited degree of political free speech.

However, even in the United States, the ability of corporations to campaign, sponsor political candidates, or advertise in elections has long been subject to limitations. To the extent the courts have granted corporations limited political rights, many corporations find themselves compelled to exercise this right. "Business corporations" discover they "must engage the political process in instrumental terms if they are to maximize shareholder value." (Justice Stevens) As we saw with the health care debate, limitations on a corporate political speech have not prevented insurance companies from buying candidates (so-called "Blue Dog" democrats) representing sparely populated rural states such as Montana or Nebraska.

Today, the US supreme court -- by a narrow 5-4 majority -- took away what few restrictions existed on the ability of big companies to manipulate the outcome of the democratic political process.

Justice Stevens, in his dissenting opinion, explains that that the framers of the United States Constitution did not have corporations in mind when they accorded Americans the right of free speech. Corporations are not even mentioned in the US Constitution. This fact is particularly salient because the five-vote majority -- which included the court's four most conservative judges -- have long claimed to opposed "judicial activism" -- a sin US conservatives attribute to liberal-minded judges. Conservatives such as Justice Scalia claim, as a matter of principle, that "founder's intent" (original meaning theory) ought to guide the high court. Hence, the conservative majority's ruling in this case is glaringly inconsistent with the professed ideology. Stevens:

The Framers thus took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare. Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind.

Read more of this essay at the link above.

We're at the point now when any foreign body can incorporate in the USA, then go on to use their financial influence to distort our electoral process at all levels of society to serve their own agenda. Like the idea of Chinese or Saudi corporations coming in here influencing our elections?

Finally, if you are so concerned with the "rule of law" and constitutional rights, WHERE WERE YOU when GW Bush suspended Habeas Corpus and "renditioned" citizens without regard to the legality. Some of these renditioned "terrorists" were American citizens.

Habeas Corpus, R.I.P. (1215 - 2006)

With a smug stroke of his pen, President Bush is set to wipe out a safeguard against illegal imprisonment that has endured as a cornerstone of legal justice since the Magna Carta.

So you'll excuse me if I find your sudden interest in "rights" a tad HYPOCRITICAL and entirely self-serving to corporate interests. This SCOTUS ruling is simply put, a sell-out. As bad as you accuse the lefties, liberals, and dems (oh my!), this is INFINITELY worse.

I think there should be a new law put forward that states a corporation can only donate $4000.00 in the name of each k1 share holder of the company. That a corporation shall get in writing from said shareholder their perrmission to donate in that shareholders name if that share holder gives the corporation the right to donate in there name that individual gives up there personal right to donate. And said donation shall show up on that persons personal k1 shareholder form at the end of the year and placed in there tax return in order to prevent them from donateing multiple times. Each individual may only give there perrmission for $4000.00 once but may be split to multiple corporations and there self but may only total $4000.00. And for a individual to give there right to donate in there name they must have that right as a individual so said right to donate may not come from non-citizens and limited to US citizens. And add a large fine for anyone who violates those rules. You then limit the amount donated to individual citizens that are aloud to donate in the first place. And cause massive paper work each time a corporation wishes to donate because they must collect perrmission from each share holder in order to donate in there name.

reply to post by JBA2848


Since you brought up the issue of shareholders, which corporate america had used often as an excuse to justify their excesses, I would like to share an insight on 'shares' for consideration.

The concept of buying shares into corporations had been a good idea and even noble one in times past. Such additional funds help to build up the capital of a company or corporation so that they may expand and create more employment, in return for a better rate of return than banks.

But as the road to hell is often paved with good intentions, similar too had 'shares' became a road to workers' hell.

In this present day and age, shareholding had become a form of luxury and comfort, for many believed that one need not work or perform labour, just buy into the company and wait for returns.

Unlike the past where by most responsible citizens or shareholders would wait for dividens at financial year end, the present lot are greed frenzied and expect huge monumnental returns within seconds!

It is entirely unsustenable and would only create immense pressure upon the companies, and such pressures only lead to human detrimental actions as seen by financial criss past, where labour was the first victims to be let off, and fudging of books as well as a host of other criminal actions are acted out in private.

Therefore, arent we sacrificing honest labour and sweat for the benefits of a few filthy rich non working greedy investors? I have no issues with smart people who use brains instead of hands to profit, but at what and whose expense? Had the latest financial crisis that almost doomed the world taught us nothing?

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

A corporation is not a person, and while you may argue that a corporation consists of people, the entity in itself is that of a human being or a citizen. The entity itself is not deserving of constitutional rights as the constitution is for the people by the people.

By far the most worrying part of this ruling is over the fact many of america's corporations are owned and managed in part by foreigners who do not reserve rights under the constitution either, so this further establishes the fact that corporations or Unions are not deserving of such rights.

The REAL SG would know that the above statement is wholly fallacious and without any merit whatsoever.

1st, SG knows the difference between citizen, person and individual; each of which are distinctly different in reality, legally and Constitutionally.

2nd, a corporation IS a "person," legally and Constitutionally.

3rd, it is abhorrent to contend that only "citizens" are entitled to Constitutional rights. Isn't this at the heart of the argument over "combatants" captured overseas and the rights they are entitled to in American courts?

This post/thread is another in a series of trolls that ignore facts, the law and reality generally.

Deny ignorance.

jw

Thought this might help you,



And this



Relevant to this thread.

Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.

John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

Upon this point all speculative politicians will agree, that the happiness of society is the end of government, as all divines and moral philosophers will agree that the happiness of the individual is the end of man. From this principle it will follow that the form of government which communicates ease, comfort, security, or, in one word, happiness, to the greatest numbers of persons, and in the greatest degree, is the best.

John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776


Cyberstray




[edit on 24-1-2010 by CyberStray]

Originally posted by jdub297
The US' taking control of GM, GMAC, AIG, Citi and BaC is "fascism" at its purest.

These firms were on the precipice of bankruptcy. I'd call it corporate socialism, not fascism.

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
BTW, shouldn't there be a teaparty regarding this ruling issue? I hope there will be soon.... seriously.

No way, FOX is happy with this. They won't tell their viewers to do it, so they won't. Tea parties are for the GOP's favor

Every body keeps saying a corporation is a person. A corporation is a "Separate Legal Entity" not a person or citizen. An entity is something that has a distinct, separate existence, though it need not be a material existence. In particular, abstractions and legal fictions are usually regarded as entities. In general, there is also no presumption that an entity is animate. So how does that equal a person? Maybe a ghost but not a person and ghost have no rights to vote or donate. If some one votes or donates with a deceased persons name it is callled fraud.

Originally posted by JBA2848
Every body keeps saying a corporation is a person. A corporation is a "Separate Legal Entity" not a person or citizen. An entity is something that has a distinct, separate existence, though it need not be a material existence. In particular, abstractions and legal fictions are usually regarded as entities. In general, there is also no presumption that an entity is animate. So how does that equal a person? Maybe a ghost but not a person and ghost have no rights to vote or donate. If some one votes or donates with a deceased persons name it is callled fraud.

It seems to me that it is those who are in sharp disagreement with the SCOTUS ruling who are the ones who keep insisting that this ruling declared corporations the same as a person. You are correct that corporations do not qualify as a person, but this is not what was ruled by the Supreme Court. What was ruled was that Congress has been expressly forbidden from making any laws that abridge speech. They used as their authority on the matter the 1st Amendment which makes no distinctions as to who or what has the right to speech, it simply prohibits Congress from making any laws that would in effect "chill' speech.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by JBA2848
snip

It seems to me that it is those who are in sharp disagreement with the SCOTUS ruling who are the ones who keep insisting that this ruling declared corporations the same as a person. You are correct that corporations do not qualify as a person, but this is not what was ruled by the Supreme Court. What was ruled was that Congress has been expressly forbidden from making any laws that abridge speech. They used as their authority on the matter the 1st Amendment which makes no distinctions as to who or what has the right to speech, it simply prohibits Congress from making any laws that would in effect "chill' speech.

I understand the difference, I'm incorporated. My contention is that this decision, causes injury to the citizens. You can disagree, but until it is tested, neither of us can claim absolute certainty.

I can provide as much to support my argument as you can, maybe more.

The arguments are noted, obviously 4 Justices dissented. Why do you find it so absurd for citizens to agree with the dissent? If what you want is the dissent, I'll post it.

Here is a snippet from an article that presents some of the problems

From The Huffington Post

THE US SUPREME COURT: THE MORE YOU DIG, THE DIRTIER IT GETS

By Gary Ater

Our premier founding father, Thomas Jefferson, said in one of his many writings about freedom and aristocracy that America already had its own aristocracy in the form of its "corporations". Jefferson went on to say that America´s corporations must be kept in check because.. See article.
snip

In my previous article, I used a hypothetical example of a Chinese corporation in the US, and what under this new decision, they could do to influence or to "buy" a local politician or influence a political election.

This weekend, I heard another hypothetical story that I would like to pass on that further demonstrates just how dangerous this decision could be to our democracy, our freedom and to America´s national security.

Let´s just say for example, a US company calling itself Al Qaeda, Inc. incorporates in the United States by a group of Muslim fundamentalists. Now these Muslims are all certified US citizens that currently follow the Muslim faith and none of them have done anything illegal in the US. Their company, Al Qaeda, Inc. is allegedly organized for the promotion of their faith and for building tax-exempt Muslim Mosques all over America.

More from the same article

According to the briefs presented to the court, the original legal question about whether the anti-Hillary Clinton Film was illegally paid for with corporate funds was never even asked. Once this case made it into the court, Chief Justice Roberts had apparently already decided to put it on a "Fast-Trak" that brought it to the court in September. (Most cases don´t even get to the US Supreme Court for 1-2 years.)

Chief Roberts then decided to ignore the original question and instead to use it for dealing with the overall campaign reform issue. That decision allowed them to get to a final court decision this early, which just happens to be in time for the campaigns to begin collecting "unlimited donations for the November mid-term elections".

What the writer misses, is that these people need not be citizens, nor live here, nor be resident aliens. They can simply hire agents to charter the Corporation, in 2 states, Wyoming, and Delaware, they would pay no state taxes.

If a Corporation has the ability to pour unlimited funds into a campaign, is that not more than you, or I can do?

There is no legislation that stipulates a Corporation may only donate funds according to the shareholders choices.

In privately held Corporations, the Officers can still make personal campaign donations. These individuals are circumventing the law if the Corporation gives more than the sum it's constituents are individually allowed to each donate under the law.

In Publicly held Corporations, I know of no law that says I have to include the donations of the Corporations where I own stock in my tally of personal donations. In this example all the shareholders can circumvent.

Some say "legislate". No.
This was all legislated before, there were SC precedents wiped away as well.

Corporations effectively are now Super Citizens.

Beyond this, there are a myriad of other problems caused by this decision.

24 states will have to amend their Constitutions, if not re-write them.

This was flagrant judicial activism, if not worse.

You can scream to high heaven that it's about Freedom of speech. It's not, it's about Conservatives making more money at the expense of our sovereignty.

It's about the mid-term elections, and 2012.

It's a criminal decision. It injures every American, and benefits our enemies abroad. As you said injury justifies exceptions.

We will now fund our enemies with American tax dollars, and the assistance of corrupt representatives.

This you call Liberty?

Alexander Hamilton would have killed people over this, and you of all people should know it.

To paraphrase myself, I can expect this rationale from an ignorant, or unintelligent person, but not from you.

Unless of course you're propagandizing. This at least I can understand.

Call me what you want. This is wrong, you know it, and that makes you at a minimum, intellectually complicit.


[edit on 25-1-2010 by ziggystrange]

You're a real patriot Ziggy, much more so than the talking heads at FOX or the Tea Partiers who still seem blithely quiet on the wholesale sellout of America.

I wonder how they'd react if the headlines read:

[h1]Liberal Justices Allow Corporations and Unions To Give Unlimited Funding to Campaigns![/h1]

First they'd scream for a firing squad for these traitors.

They'd scream how they just handed America over to any multi-national, foreign based corporation, all it needed was to be legally incorporated in the USA and they could begin buying politicians, waging full-scale influence peddling campaign donations and smear campaigns of epic magnitude.

They'd find a way to blame it on Obama and how this fits his plan to allow the globalists to take over the USA.

There's only one problem - it wasn't the liberal Justices, it was the "allegedly" conservative Justices.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Hi Blackmarketeer,

We're Brothers in arms. Thank you.

I think everyone should be Patriotic, but now I guess that makes me a tyrant and despot.

No amount of reason is enough for these people.
I agree with you. Had it been the Liberals, there would be a march on Washington.


Here is a relevant video




That's the nature of extreme ideology.

What I have seen for years now is unbelievable. It's guys like Joe the Plumber that are carrying the banners for the wealthy. It's beyond the pale.
Listen to the proponent on this video, he's talking about anything but the issue.

I hope people don't go to sleep on this. Watch how they react to the solution based on opt in public financing.

The guy says it would impose on the public.

No way to win in a fixed game.

Ziggy






[edit on 25-1-2010 by ziggystrange]

Originally posted by dolphinfan
You folks don't get it. The law was unconstitutional, period.

I'm sorry but that sounds about as hollow as it possibly can. I declare that speed limits in my state are unconstitutional. There is nothing in Constitution about limiting the velocity of my vehicle, dammit! I'm also wondering why pr0stitution and gambling are prohibited in most localities, there is nothing against that in the Constitution. Finally, I posit that bribes should be made legal, because Constitution does not prohibit bribes and my giving a bribe is just an exercise of free speech.

Sheesh.