Call For Immediate Arrest Of 5 Supreme Court Justices For Treason

page: 5
87
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Limits on corporate donations lifted from political campaigns, corporations to be given the rights of individuals.... and now this rather interesting snippet:

www.wired.com... dex+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29#ixzz0dR6JYO8N


U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision was a major blow to the two suits testing warrantless eavesdropping and executive branch powers implemented following the 2001 terror attacks. The San Francisco judge said the courts are not available to the public to mount that challenge.


So, let me get this straight. The courts are not there for the people to mount a legal challenge to government actions?

And the best (or rather sinister) bit:


“A citizen may not gain standing by claiming a right to have the government follow the law,” Walker ruled late Thursday.


So if the government breaks the laws of the land, the people cannot use the courts to seek redress? Surely then, with the removal of the courts as a means of redress for the people, the only logical option left for the people is open revolt to remove that government.
Is this insanity or is it by design, to back people into a corner and give an excuse for more heavy handed tactics against dissenters?

Just thought I'd share as it seems somehow related to this thread and another link in a recent chain of political events.




posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Lillydale
Well I guess the right wanted a piece of that pie as well.

The Right wanted their power back. It was taken away by McCain/Feingold, or at least hindered. But that's not the unconstitutional aspect of McCain/Feingold — the illegal part of McCain/Feingold is that it outlawed YOUR right to wage a negative campaign against a candidate for two whole months before a general election.

Not a big bad corporation's right to wage a negative campaign, but YOUR right. Under McCain/Feingold, even grassroots organizations and non-profit organizations cannot run negative campaign ads against a candidate for the entire TWO MONTHS before a general election.

THAT's the anti-free-speech reality of McCain/Feingold.

I don't care what sort of rotten crap you want to say about a candidate, you should STILL have the right to SAY IT until the election ends. Right?

And that is why McCain/Feingold is unconstitutional. It SILENCES dissent.

— Doc Velocity


As long as the negative campaign is truthful (Their a muslim, murder, tax cheater ...), Then I agree.
Calling some one fat, blue eyed, red haired or being a man or women, has nothing to do with politics. The Constitution protects this free speech.
Stockholm Syndrome McCain impeded our right! That's illegal!



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
I hope the judges that made this pass die horrible deaths. It's not a threat... Just a wish in the name of free speech.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


Yeah, I cannot wait until November either. To return to the glory and prosperity of the Bush administration.


Whatever you say.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
I hope the judges that made this pass die horrible deaths. It's not a threat... Just a wish in the name of free speech.



And this sort of sentiment is why many have fled screaming from the rhetoric and intolerance of many of the liberal left. Someone disagrees with them, and suddenly they are evil and you wish them to die horrible deaths. So much intolerance and hate for a political movement that advocates understanding and peace.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1

Originally posted by wiredamerican



and is it really treason committed by these judges, and can they really get put away for what i see as being a crime?


This is not treason. They are heroes.
Why?
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.

I find it confusing that people would rather have government control on election funding. I say let the people, fund it. And it is the people who make up the corporations and unions.

This is one step ahead toward a more perfect Union.



This law cuts the people with two edges!
The Supreme Court just rammed a double edged sword up the Americans rectum.


Lets be honest.
It really wasn't working anyway.
You can change all the rules, regulations and laws that you want to.
The riches 1% will simply adapt and find a way around them.
Think about that for just 1 minute.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Lillydale
Well I guess the right wanted a piece of that pie as well.

The Right wanted their power back. It was taken away by McCain/Feingold, or at least hindered. But that's not the unconstitutional aspect of McCain/Feingold — the illegal part of McCain/Feingold is that it outlawed YOUR right to wage a negative campaign against a candidate for two whole months before a general election.

Not a big bad corporation's right to wage a negative campaign, but YOUR right. Under McCain/Feingold, even grassroots organizations and non-profit organizations cannot run negative campaign ads against a candidate for the entire TWO MONTHS before a general election.

THAT's the anti-free-speech reality of McCain/Feingold.

I don't care what sort of rotten crap you want to say about a candidate, you should STILL have the right to SAY IT until the election ends. Right?

And that is why McCain/Feingold is unconstitutional. It SILENCES dissent.

— Doc Velocity


You are correct Doc. This is a victory for grassroots and non-profit organizations. Perhaps unintended but a victory none-the-less. That citizens can pool their resources and compete for attention against established lobbyists is critical. Look at this special Massachusetts Senate election. Who turned the tide? It was not Barrack Obama, Rudi Giulliani, Mitt Romney, Curt Schilling, the Kennedys, media outlets or the candidates themselves. It was Tea Party activism. These were frustrated citizens spending their time and resources to connect with other frustrated citizens so as to enact change in our inattentive, elitist Senate. This ruling keeps a dissenting public voice, pressure and activism viable into the future. Whether we take the ball and run with it is another story.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo5842


I have posted this mainly because I dont understand how a judge can override a decision made by government. Does this happen in the states a lot? and is it legal? and is it really treason committed by these judges, and can they really get put away for what i see as being a crime? Not being in the US, i do find some some things that go on in the legal system there very confusing, i guess i should study up on it more, but would that make any difference, especially as they seem to change it all the time, and a lot of it by judges, I mean are they elected or appointed?

Sorry if this is in the wrong place, i didn't want people to miss it in case it has significance to it. and i did look for it on ATS but couldn't find any reference to it anywhere. thanks.

www.veteranstoday.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Oh, i see. You are not an American.
We have 3 branches in our government.
Judicial - Legislative - Executive
We call it checks and balances over here.
You can read more at Wikipedia - US branches of government



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Treason Punishable by death.

answers.yahoo.com...

www.antideathpenalty.org...

I'm sure there are more links, but this is horrid...



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by neo5842
Foreign powers can't run our government because of this ruling, you still have to be an American citizen to hold office.
In practical terms I don't think this will actually change much at all.


You can't name any congressman who just might be willing to sell his loyalty to the highest bidder?

It doesn't matter who is in congress. What matters is who they've sold out to.

Foreign money can easily be used with this legislation in place, because foreigners can take over the board of an American company, or foreign shareholders can insist on a certain policy and Americans can do nothing about it.

How many "patriots" proudly announcing their love of "free speech," will stand and cheer when the Saudis "own" the ruling party? Not only is true democracy at risk here, but so is our beloved bikini!



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hemisphere
You are correct Doc. This is a victory for grassroots and non-profit organizations. Perhaps unintended but a victory none-the-less. That citizens can pool their resources and compete for attention against established lobbyists is critical. Look at this special Massachusetts Senate election. Who turned the tide? It was not Barrack Obama, Rudi Giulliani, Mitt Romney, Curt Schilling, the Kennedys, media outlets or the candidates themselves. It was Tea Party activism. These were frustrated citizens spending their time and resources to connect with other frustrated citizens so as to enact change in our inattentive, elitist Senate. This ruling keeps a dissenting public voice, pressure and activism viable into the future. Whether we take the ball and run with it is another story.


So let me see if I got this straight. This is a good thing because it will NOW allow things to happen - like what just happened before the ruling? The logic in this thread is stunning. The tea party was effective, now we have this ruling allowing wal mart to buy the tea part for china and it is good because it means the tea party can be effective like it was before this ruling? WOW!



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Upholding the Constitution is not treason. Protecting free speech is not treason. Why can't you hateful liberals wrap your open minded heads around that?

Are you that dense to believe if someone puts out a campaign ad that everyone will automatically believe it?

If I decided to write a book, and in that book a character mentioned he was voting for a certain candidate, would you want the Federal Government to ban my book?

The government takes enough of our money to restrict people on how they spend it.



[edit on 23-1-2010 by Carseller4]



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Such a great new day in America... I was really starting to worry about these corporations.... with no say and no power, at least compared to the average working American... at last they have a voice... What a beautiful land of freedom and promise. All rejoice in this major victory for Free Speech! Long live the corporate immortals.

[edit on 23-1-2010 by spiritualzombie]



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   
This is the 1st Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Now that you have actually read it.....tell me what you don't understand?



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by neo5842
Foreign powers can't run our government because of this ruling, you still have to be an American citizen to hold office.
In practical terms I don't think this will actually change much at all.


You can't name any congressman who just might be willing to sell his loyalty to the highest bidder?

It doesn't matter who is in congress. What matters is who they've sold out to.

Foreign money can easily be used with this legislation in place, because foreigners can take over the board of an American company, or foreign shareholders can insist on a certain policy and Americans can do nothing about it.

How many "patriots" proudly announcing their love of "free speech," will stand and cheer when the Saudis "own" the ruling party? Not only is true democracy at risk here, but so is our beloved bikini!


No offense, but this just shows you didn't read the ruling. Corporations still cannot contribute to candidates or their campaigns. All this ruling says is that they can use their own money to make political ads if they choose.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
>SNIP



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Why the rush?? Could it be the fear of a liberal justice appointee or maybe the NWO is moving into high gear?

What rush? The American people have been screwed in the ass by McCain/Feingold for the last 9 years, and it's taken this long to get this unconstitutional piece of legislation before the SCOTUS.

See, liberals don't understand the concept of "rush"... When you take 18 months to decide on invading another country, that is NOT a "rush to war"... When you take 9 years to defeat an unconstitutional piece of legislation, that is NOT a "rush" to defeat the legislation.

However, when you ramrod through "economic stimulus" and "bailout" and "healthcare reform" legislation in LESS THAN A YEAR and BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, and WITHOUT allowing the American People to say "yay" or "nay" on the matter, THEN you are RUSHING.

That's what un-American cowards do, see? Understand now?

— Doc Velocity


Doc don't get overheated and lose all grasp on reality.

The "conservative" Bush administration rammed through a "bailout" with zero oversight just a blank check to the banksters and their friends with no choice offered to the American public. I won't even bring up the "Patriot Act" or the hundreds of presidential signing statements of the previous administration. The court overturned over 100 years of judicial precendent by overreaching on a decision that could have been resolved on much narrower grounds. Instead they decided on dragging our country into uncharted waters in the midst of one of the most serious economic crisis in our history.

Doc you don't have to worry about Obama...he is one of them.

I can't help but picture the brown shirts of the early thirties with their jackboots and medals strutting around all puffed up and proud. Well we know what happened after that short exalted period... they were found on the working end of a rope or chewing on a cyanide capsule.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo5842

CALL FOR IMMEDIATE ARREST OF 5 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES FOR TREASON


www.veteranstoday.com

Five members of the Supreme Court declared that a “corporation” is a person, not a “regular person” but one above all natural laws, subject to no God, no moral code but one with unlimited power over our lives, a power awarded by judges who seem themselves as grand inquisitors in an meant to hunt down all hertics who fail to serve their god, the god of money.
(visit the link for the full news article)




Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 23 Jan 2010 by Hellmutt]


Wow. Such a great read. Nowhere in the entire blah-blah (which is what his article amounts to: tripe) did he detail the difference between a company and a corporation, why businesses choose to incorporate, and yes: a CORP(welcome to Latin)oration is a 'person/entity in a legal sense.

Welcome to 100 years ago.

Bye.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by neo5842
 

It is very unfortunate that this has happened. It is neither legal nor common, at least not yet.
The courts here seem to be taking more power for themselves as time goes on. This will no doubt lead down the same road as it did in the 1700's.
But more peacefully I hope, but if not, remember Patrick Henry,"Give me liberty, or give me death."



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Here is a wild crazy idea instead of worring what some corps or political groups political ads about someone hangon here is the crazy idea now stay with me do your OWN research i mean really who makes there decision on what some political ad says we all know they are lies and half truths anyway. so has anything really changed?





new topics

top topics



 
87
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join