Call For Immediate Arrest Of 5 Supreme Court Justices For Treason

Originally posted by yellowcard
Again, those against the ruling have no understanding of what the ruling even says or is for. It's a sad day when people are still buying the media drivel and won't read the case for themselves!

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

Treason? More like Patriots.

Ahhh! I see!! Anybody who disagrees with the ruling is ignorant and must not have the insight that people like YOU have. Guess four justices of SCOTUS were beneath you in your god-like intelligence and understanding. Atta way to dismiss opinions that disagree with yours without ever really considering them in the first place!!

You are a GENIUS!! This web site is BENEATH you!!

reply to post by mopusvindictus


The purpose of the supreme court's longevity in office is purely to prevent a situation that can be compared to Nazi Germany. Lets say "Hdolf Aitler" ran for office promising to restore the American republic to her former glory, then once elected, started scapegoating Muslims as the cause of our troubles and began putting them in camps. He would only need wait for 2 years to bring in his party into full control of the house and congress and than he could begin the above atrocities. But lo and behold, all the supreme court justices were put into power by a very liberal president some 30 odd years earlier. A whole generation ago, before this madness! They vote Mr. Hdolf Aitler out of office and try him for crimes against humanity, and call an emergency election after he's executed. As a simple necessity, voting is restricted for one generation to only those above a certain IQ so that Hdolf Aitler's blind followers can't just vote someone similar in. One generation after, the restriction is removed. A new generation of moderate voters counteract Aitler's goons. The system works, and freedom is safe.



As to the most recent decision though, total bollocks. It's a disgrace.

Look, let me spell it out for those of you who actually agree with this decision.

They stopped researching the question of whether money makes a difference in political campaigns about three decades ago because it was obvious in every study: it DOES. The better financed campaign is more likely to win. PERIOD. Nobody even questions this any more. It isn't an absolute guarantee, but it is more likely, and the bigger the difference is between campaigns the MORE likely it is the campaign with more money will win. There are many reason for this but it's a fact.

So that means whoever can get more money is more likely to win power. And the candidates most likely to get the most are the ones most supportive of the status quo, especially those who have lots of money already.

That's unamerican and scummy.

I've tried to spell it out as simply as I can.

[edit on 23-1-2010 by ClintK]

Originally posted by ClintK
Look, let me spell it out for those of you who actually agree with this decision.

They stopped researching the question of whether money makes a difference in political campaigns about three decades ago because it was obvious in every study: it DOES. The better financed campaign is more likely to win. PERIOD. Nobody even questions this any more.

So that means whoever can get more money is more likely to win power. And the candidates most likely to get the most are the ones most supportive of the status quo, especially those who have lots of money already.

That's unamerican and scummy.

I've tried to spell it out as simply as I can.

In terms of "spelling" your opinion out, it would have been nice if you would have mentioned who "they" were who "stopped" researching the question whether money makes a difference in political campaigns.

The idea that money alone makes the difference in influencing demographics is demonstrably false. There are countless corporations and businesses who have invested millions and even billions of dollars on ad campaigns that failed to sell their product.

Most recently the McDonald's corporation has experienced problems in PR due to its "giveaway" campaigns where they give free toys or products in packages such as "Happy Meals" for children. One such campaign involved teaming up with GM to give children free toy models of the Hummer they hoped to influence the parents of children by giving away 42 million toy Hummers in "Happy Meals". This campaign failed to sell any significant Hummers for GM and proved to be disastrous for McDonald's in terms of PR. Only a few months later, McDonald's blundered again when they attempted a giveaway campaign in Japan offering free MP3 players that came with free ten songs and unfortunately for McDonald's a Trojan virus as well.

GM also experienced a misfire and loss of investment when Chevrolet teamed with NBC's The Apprentice launching a commercial contest where the winner would get a Chevy Tahoe. Consumers were encouraged to visit a special website created by Chevy that allowed the consumer to customize their own version of Chevy Tahoe commercials. It didn't take long for anti-SUV commercials to appear on this Chevy Tahoe web site and Chevrolet failed to take control of the situation and the attention created by these anti-commercials went viral sweeping the internet and was a dramatic disaster for GM.

Sony attempted to capitalize on diversity by using a black woman and a white woman in one advertisement, but blundered by having the white woman holding the black woman's jaw, and while this ad was only run in the Netherlands the controversy and debate it sparked was world wide. Sony complicated the matters by at first defending the ad, only to have to finally pull the billboards and apologize for the controversy it created.

Intel blundered by featuring an ad of white man surrounded by six sprinters who all happened to be black. The artistic vision, if one can call it that, behind the ad was to convey the performance capabilities of their product by using the metaphor of the sprinters. What happened instead was a public reaction offended by six black man all bowing down before one white man and Intel had to pull the ads and apologize profusely.

These are just a very few examples of large amounts of money invested with the full on intent of influencing peoples decision making only to backfire and cost large amounts of money as well as great damage to the credibility of the corporations that made these investments.

Further, the insistence that Corporations should not be entitled to free speech because of their status in wealth, arguing that such wealth can be used to influence people adversely, is an elitist attitude that implies that individuals are incapable of making informed decisions and are just mindless automatons that only respond to propaganda and advertising.

[edit on 23-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Originally posted by Chett
reply to post by neo5842

 

The 3 branches of the US gov. are supposed to be co-equal. The court is there to ensure that the congress does not violate the constitution - the document that is above them all.
Simply this, the congress wrote a law that violated the constitution and the court called it. The law was very badly written. The court has in effect restored free speech. If congress and the people want such a law it must be redone in a way that does not violate the constitution, or pass an amendment.

Well, I can see your point. However, look at what is happening to Prop 8, the gay marriage amendment to the Constitution of the State of California. The court is trying to determine if the amendment to the Constitution is constitutional. Do you see a problem here? The people say what they want in their Constitution, and the courts say that they cannot have the Constitution that they want. It's as if the judges can decide if you can have the Bill of Rights. That, my friend, is out of the jurisdiction of any court. The judges must stay within the rules of the Constitution. They can interpret it, but they cannot abrogate it. It is defined as the standard, and the supreme will of the majority of the people.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
[
The idea that money alone makes the difference in influencing demographics is demonstrably false.

Didn't say "money alone." read my actual post, where I say, and I quote myself, "It isn't an absolute guarantee, but it is more likely, and the bigger the difference is between campaigns the MORE likely it is the campaign with more money will win."

That's the point. Period.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
In terms of "spelling" your opinion out, it would have been nice if you would have mentioned who "they" were who "stopped" researching the question whether money makes a difference in political campaigns

"They" would be the people who usually research these questions: academics in the social sciences and marketing research professionals. Who else could "they" possibly be?

[edit on 23-1-2010 by ClintK]

The CONSTITUTIONALITY of any law passed by the government is decided in the Supreme Court. What the Court did was to apply the 2cd Amendment of the Constitution to the law and the law was found in violation. All citizens of the United States have the right of "free Speech". This means money as well. If big time unions can do it. If Acorn can do it. If Hollywood can do it. If Move on dot org can do it.... so can the rest of us.

The Constitution of the United States of America "is" the law of the land and the final voice for the people.

reply to post by ClintK


Who is actually conducting the study and the methodology they used to reach their conclusions is as every bit as important as the conclusions reached by such a study. It is also important to understand any political agenda a particular research group has or is funded by. For this reason, simply categorizing "they" as "social academics" and "marketing research professionals" is hardly "spelling it out".

A study funded by the Rand Institute or the Cato Institute is likely to have a different conclusion than the same study funded by the Brookings or Tellus Institute. Thus, "they" becomes a crucial factor in determining what you are attempting to "spell out".

Your post that I quoted spoke to those who agree with the decision, willfully ignoring the fact that this agreement is predicated on upholding the 1st Amendment as Supreme over all subsequent legislation regarding speech and instead kept its focus on the influence of wealth alone, without ever bothering to address what was held by the ruling and what those who agree with this ruling actually agree with. Regardless of how careful you may have been to couch your language in non committal phraseology, it was an argument based upon wealth disparity alone.

I thought the legislature and executive can revoke the decision?

reply to post by regretable


How can a boycott possibly effect a set of multinational corporations that own 90-100% of the market? A boycott works against mom & pop stores, and even regional chains might be effected by a boycott. But a multinational? Hardly. If division A's sales are effected, division B, C, or Z will carry it. Or it will be rebranded. Boycotts are pretty useless against a corporation that views entire countries as a subset of their market.

And most people can't buy voting shares of a corporation sufficient to have any control of it or effect it in any way. As far as taking your money out of 401Ks and the stock market goes, if they can mandate that you must buy health insurance, why wouldn't they mandate that you invest in the stock market to secure you retirement? All automatically deducted from your pay before you ever see it.

So I fail to see how any of your suggestions is workable or effective, they are merely distractions allowing you to feel like you've done something.

A couple vids on the matter:

Grayson on Olberman:





Thom Hartmann

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ClintK

 

Who is actually conducting the study and the methodology they used to reach their conclusions is as every bit as important as the conclusions reached by such a study. It is also important to understand any political agenda a particular research group has or is funded by. For this reason, simply categorizing "they" as "social academics" and "marketing research professionals" is hardly "spelling it out".

A study funded by the Rand Institute or the Cato Institute is likely to have a different conclusion than the same study funded by the Brookings or Tellus Institute. Thus, "they" becomes a crucial factor in determining what you are attempting to "spell out".

Your post that I quoted spoke to those who agree with the decision, willfully ignoring the fact that this agreement is predicated on upholding the 1st Amendment as Supreme over all subsequent legislation regarding speech and instead kept its focus on the influence of wealth alone, without ever bothering to address what was held by the ruling and what those who agree with this ruling actually agree with. Regardless of how careful you may have been to couch your language in non committal phraseology, it was an argument based upon wealth disparity alone.

Look, Jean Paul, this is like finding a relationship between lung cancer and smoking. It was established long ago. If you have research indicating smoking has no effect on the lungs, everybody would love to hear it. By the same token, if you have research showing that money has no effect on poliitical campaigns, please present it, because that would be considered groundbreaking research -- an absolutely stunning breakthrough.

As far as "upholding the first ammendment" I take it you agree with the court that corporations are people. I don't. That's a ridiculous idea. But if you equate corporations with people, then the decisions make sense.

[edit on 23-1-2010 by ClintK]

Originally posted by die_another_day
I thought the legislature and executive can revoke the decision?

Congress can attempt to legislate an Amendment that would declare corporations as being subject to certain regulations that natural persons are not subject to. Even so, if this Amendment can't hold Constitutional muster then the SCOTUS can strike that Amendment down as unconstitutional, just as they have done with Section 441b of the BCFR.

The Executive Branch is tasked with upholding and enforcing the law. That law begins with The Constitution for the United States of America and serves as the Supreme Law of the Land. All subsequent legislation is bound by any restraints the Constitution has imposed upon Congress. Thus, if it is ruled that a statute, bill or act is unconstitutional, then only a future court or that same court can overturn the ruling.

Congress can and should do all they can to restrain the antics and malfeasance of corporations and any Amendment that passed that would make a distinction between artificial entities and natural persons can only be a win for individual rights. The confusion with this recent ruling lies in the actual wording of the 1st Amendment which makes no distinction between who and/or what can rely upon its protection, what the 1st Amendment does is prohibit Congress from making any laws that abridge speech.

reply to post by Doc Velocity
Doc velocity said: I'm going to enjoy it right up until November, and then I'm gonna PARTY LIKE HELL when the majority of Socialists in the Senate are kicked out on their asses.

Oh, yeah, baby. I'm gonna ENJOY my delusion. You have a nice year thinking about November.



Boy that wil be a big change in our condition as a nation won't it. lol

[edit on 23-1-2010 by Just one opinion]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


When is the last time you have seen one of the biggest companies in America fail?
And I don't mean fail as in file bank rupt. and change it's name.
Fail as in close it's doors and never be seen again?
Enron? Wrong it merly was restructured broken up and still to this day the operations are just distributed among other companies.
There are but a few companies who have closed and fail. and this leads into our government.Now big companies can protect their interest in political financing. Now any person who run who wants to protect the consumer in general will have the power of big companies thrown at them in political finance. If you can't see the bad in this then I don't know what to say.

reply to post by ClintK


I just provided several examples of corporate wealth wasted on campaigns to influence people. Those examples directly challenge your claims.

As to your question of agreeing with the SCOTUS, in no way did that Court grant corporate person hood to statutorily defined entities. Despite what the dissenting opinion attempted to argue, that same dissent acknowledged that the holding was based, iterated and re-iterated many times, on the 1st Amendment which expressly forbids Congress from making any laws that abridge speech. No distinction is made between persons, churches, groups, or corporations in the 1st Amendment and Amendments don't grant rights, (the 14th Amendment notwithstanding), they acknowledge them.

The government has no right or authority to grant rights. Rights belong to all people and preexist governments. It should be noted, however, that there is rich irony in that those who are so upset over this ruling continue to put out the false idea the the doctrine of corporate person hood is law. It is a doctrine that the very corporations you, (and I have no love for corporatism, I assure you), are so afraid of, and the their are plenty of corporations would love for you to believe it is law. In that regard, you are playing into their hands. The notion that the doctrine of corporate person hood has validity is an argument made by corporations and their snaky lawyers. It is not, however, law.

Originally posted by tsloan
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

When is the last time you have seen one of the biggest companies in America fail?
And I don't mean fail as in file bank rupt. and change it's name.
Fail as in close it's doors and never be seen again?
Enron? Wrong it merly was restructured broken up and still to this day the operations are just distributed among other companies.
There are but a few companies who have closed and fail. and this leads into our government.Now big companies can protect their interest in political financing. Now any person who run who wants to protect the consumer in general will have the power of big companies thrown at them in political finance. If you can't see the bad in this then I don't know what to say.

There are anti-trust laws that have been upheld as wholly Constitutional that were legislated for the express purpose of preventing any company or corporation from becoming "too big to fail" to begin with. The rhetoric of "too big to fail" is not official U.S. policy but is simply rhetoric used to justify the ridiculous government bailouts given to certain corporations deemed "too big to fail". These bailouts are in direct conflict with the anti-trust laws and is evidence of both Congress and the Executive branch failing to do the jobs they have been tasked with.

Conversely, the SCOTUS in this ruling, Citizens United v. FEC, did their jobs precisely as they were tasked to do, all the way down to publishing the dissenting opinions of the four Justices who disagreed with what was held.

i fully support the death penalty for all involved in this ruling


i would be more then happy to sign any petition


on top of that i firmly believe we need to end life long politicians


this is a democracy not a monarchy

we need to end these practices immediately and we must overturn the ruling instantly


to be fully truthful, we should ban corporate financing and funding all together

nothing good has ever come nor will ever come from a corporation buying a politician and america wont ever truly be free until we destroy the corporations presence in our politics

Corporations are considered entities. They have a birth, life, and death just as people do even though they are not people. A corporation may be sued and named as a party to an action civil or criminal. Hence, a corporation may exercise free speech rights under the constitution in that there are actual people running things and making decisions.

What Congress may do is prohibit foreign corporations and citizens from exercising rights such as free speech, that belong to the people of the United States.



[edit on 23-1-2010 by Fromabove]

reply to post by Asktheanimals


The United States of America is both a Republic and a Democracy, and no this is not an incompatible statement. The term democracy has two distinct meanings, one refers to a specific political model, the other refers to a general political axiom. Don't allow others to be confused that the USA is not democratic, it is most definitely a Republic built on Democratic principles, so when someone says "This is a democracy" they are speaking the truth.

tamale