It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Call For Immediate Arrest Of 5 Supreme Court Justices For Treason

page: 10
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 03:12 AM

If you say a corporation isn’t a person, than you’re going to screw up the entire economy....


This quote came from a reader response on the Veterans today website on an article related to this topic...

Veterans Today

This has got to be the most ignorant comment I've ever heard from someone that claims intelligence.

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 03:18 AM
So, what case did they make this ruling in? Or were they just sitting around and out of the blue decided this?

No article I saw actually took the time to cite their sources. And without doing that, the story in question loses any sort of validity.

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 03:27 AM
reply to post by cuthbert

The ruling is in regards to Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission which has been mentioned several times in this thread.

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 05:42 AM
Perhaps I am in need of some corrections in my assumptions. Please feel free to inform me.

Unions and Corporations both use lobbyists to influence the voting members of their entities and the voting public. Both entities are made up of real people who are eligible for voting in the American elections. I do realize that all investors are not American voters, but they should not be voting in our elections anyhow.

If we now say that the entity itself is separate from the members would not this be making null the individual member's vote? Especially with the increased war chests of unions and corporations to override all else with their funding of ads.

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 06:32 AM

Originally posted by hadriana
There are checks and balances, and the buck doesn't STOP with the SC.

It seems to me the first thing is definitions. A corporations is NOT a person, and needs to be defined that way.

As for this being a partisan fight, it does seem that way to me from listening to various news outlets. The conservative republicans just LOVE this, and the liberals all hate it. I think the republicans won't like it so much when George Soros gets done with them....he said he'd spend his last dime to see America more socialist.

Anyway, we can work to change the definitions of what a corporation IS. It sounds like it is needed if someone is stupid enough out there to think it is a person. That's common sense? Or are we so money blinded we don't even recognize OUR OWN KIND anymore?

Also, maybe we'd do better if there were REALLY strict limits. Like say there's 3 people running for an office. You each have 1 million dollars each - let's see what you do with it.

We might make better decisions and we might end up with a president like Howard Dean or Ron Paul that mended their old suits and stayed with friends instead of the most posh hotel rooms on the campaign trail. In other words, we might elect someone with some REAL money management skills. Might come in handy budget time..

I hate to wade into this again, but... A corporation is recognised as a "person" under the law because that is the whole and entire point of being incorporated! In a partnership. when legal (civil) action is taken on the business, the assets of all partners, whether business or personal, are up for grabs. If the business were incorporated, only business assets are in danger, because the assets are the property of that "person". Investors do not stand the risk of losing personal assets. I really can't believe I'm having to explain this. What happened to education?

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 07:11 AM
Freedom means anyone should be able to spend whatever they want to back a candidate. This includes corporations because corporations are people. I can not believe people whine about how it is not a free market making money is a fair game. If you want to play you have to pay.

I just hope the asinine limits private individuals can contribute to a campaign get lifted one of these days.

Freedom of speech and the pursuit of happiness mean we should not be regulated by the government what we can or can not throw our money at.

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 08:11 AM
(This is my first post. I hope I have done so correctly)

Most posters are asuming that you have the right to free speech.
This has well gone - apparently unremarked.
With the advent of Political Correctness the right to 'free' speech has been rather a joke.
Whilst you are trying to get your constitution perhaps amended, a return to genuine free speech should be considered.
However, take care. Take real care.
There are those who have wanted to hold a constitutional conference to amend the constitution in ways that many would not like.
For instance high on the list would be the abolition of the need to be a 'natural born' American to run for the Presidency.
Anyone could run and with corporate finance the mind boggles.
Barry Soetoro is your present President.
(There is absolutely no record of any subsequent name change).
There are many desperate to legitimise this person before the proverbial brown stuff gets past the corrupt Supreme Court and hits the fan.......

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:15 AM

Originally posted by lpowell0627

Originally posted by wiredamerican

This is not treason. They are heroes.
Because they just stripped election funding from government control.
They gave more power to Corporations and Unions.
Corporations and Unions are made out of people.

This is more power to the people. And that is a good thing.

Corporations are run by a very small, often rich, elite group of people that are also responsible for cutting major deals in saving THEIR particular company money in taxes, benefits, worker's comp., etc. You know -- save on the things that the government demands companies pay. The same types of things that we as INDIVIDUALS are required to pay.

So now you have a situation where companies can give any amount of money to candidates in order to get them elected. Said candidate will then be in a "bribe" type situation and need to "re-pay" said contributions once elected.

Notice how nowhere in any of those negotiations are WE -- the common worker that actually makes the company the money to fund said candidate? Further, said company will not be asking the workers -- again, this is YOU and ME -- whom to support. You will therefore be contributing passively to supporting a candidate you may not want elected simply by still working for that company. The more money you make for the company the more money they have to support said candidate.

Have you picked up on the blatant conflict of interest problem yet? Further, all a candidate will need to do to win an election is to go to bed with the largest companies with the deepest pockets. More politicians buying elections. How is that better for the Union? How does that encourage democracy?

Is it too much to ask that posters read the SCOTUS opinion before hitting the send button. The court did not legitimize giving any money to candidates. All the opinion did was to allow buying media time in the 30 days before an election using the corporations general treasury money as opposed to PAC money. Corps could always buy ads with PAC money up to 30 days pre election. This whole thread is much ado about nothing. Some unknown teabagger writes that he wants 5 SCOTUS Judges arrested for his own wackbag definition of treason and the ATS world acts like something has really happened.

posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 03:11 AM
Ralph Nader has been talking about this for a while:

Corporations are not People

These megacorporations have become Frankensteins—moving to own our genes, the plant seeds of life and taking control of computerized artificial intelligence. Their final conquest is far along—the control of government which is then turned against its own people.

new topics

top topics

<< 7  8  9   >>

log in