Obama says US court ruling a blow to democracy

People tend to forget the basic constitutional role of the Supreme Court/Judicial Branch: To be a "parachute" to intercept/absorb major errors of the Legislation and of the Federal Government/Administration/President. Now that this important and proven "parachute" has abruptly turned out to NOT work anymore, the birdnation of the United States of America is ready to "conquer the sky". Get ready to jump. And to measure the depth of the crater.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bd68553116d9.jpg[/atsimg]
(from: improbable.com...)

I forgot to mention. It is neither Obama nor the SC who are going to jump. It's only the U.S. population.


[edit on 24-1-2010 by CoolBlackHole]

I dont care if its dog poop flavored ice cream.

If Obama doesn't like it, IT MUST BE GOOD!

reply to post by jdub297


That was a bombshell and I checked it out myself. No wonder the dems were acting so upset about this, they had it easy as pie before hand. Regardless this ruling is wrong as were the provisions in the bill that allowed media outlets exemption. Our bigger problem though is PAC. Who wants to take a go at that one?

reply to post by ventian

Regardless this ruling is wrong as were the provisions in the bill that allowed media outlets exemption.

I am certain that an exemption for one person over another is wrong.

What is wrong with the decision that all "persons" have an equal right to expression? Where do you draw the line about who is more "free" than others?

Our bigger problem though is PAC.

Why? A "Political Action Committee" is no different from any other corporation with a self-centered purpose.

If my corporation decides that we want to devote all our resources to selling widgets, why should your corporation that believes that it should devote all its resources to Barack Obama's political ascendancy be given different treatment?

What ever happened to freedom of assembly?

Freedom of expression?

Why can't all my friends who feel the same as me pool their money to get maximum effect?

What is it about free enterprise that scares you?

jw

reply to post by jdub297


The problem honestly to me is the fact that I have less representation than any corporation. I am a raging capitalist but I do feel we should all be on an equal field when it comes to government. Many members of congress/senate didn't wake up to the fact that they are public enemy number one until Brown won the other day. Many of them still feel that the majority of American people still want that healthcare bill when polling is overwhelmingly against it (this is before and after the Brown election). If the government isn't listening to us then who are they listening to? As I said things will be a little more balanced with right vs left now but it doesn't change the fact that we need stricter laws with campaign finances. We also need the lobbyist's out of D.C. like Obama said on the trail in 08 (yea he delivered /sarcasm). Life ain't fair but truthfully I am tired of being bent over by corporations and government catering to them all while driving the jobs oversees. Just my two cents.

reply to post by jdub297

What ever happened to freedom of assembly?

Freedom of expression?

Why can't all my friends who feel the same as me pool their money to get maximum effect?

What is it about free enterprise that scares you?

You've left out the fact that foreign entities are now endowed with the rights of a United States citizen. Does that not scare you?

I am completely baffled by people who are not getting this. Foreign entities (citizens and governments) own huge chunks of American industries, and now those same foreign entities can literally and easily make or break politicians at their whim.

Free enterprise doesn't scare me. Global free enterprise that is burrowed deep into the government at the expense of the people's voice scares me.

Why do you continually defend the military industrial complex, the bankers, and the elite?

Have you even looked at your signature lately???

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

That is some severe irony.

Originally posted by ventian
reply to post by jdub297

 

The problem honestly to me is the fact that I have less representation than any corporation.

No, you don't. I can create "ventian, inc.", in 2 minutes for $150 state filing fee ( plus my fees, of course).

I am a raging capitalist but I do feel we should all be on an equal field when it comes to government.

Acording to this decision, we are.

Many members of congress/senate didn't wake up to the fact that they are public enemy number one until Brown won the other day. Many of them still feel that the majority of American people still want that healthcare bill when polling is overwhelmingly against it (this is before and after the Brown election). If the government isn't listening to us then who are they listening to?

This has nothing to do with the right to advertise for or against a candidate.

As I said things will be a little more balanced with right vs left now but it doesn't change the fact that we need stricter laws with campaign finances.

Why? Why can't anyone or any company spend all their money any way they want? Won't it be evident where your, or anyone's, loyalties lie?

We also need the lobbyist's out of D.C. like Obama said on the trail in 08 (yea he delivered /sarcasm).

OK. So, enact a law affecting all legislators, instead of favored donors.

Life ain't fair but truthfully I am tired of being bent over by corporations and government catering to them all while driving the jobs oversees. Just my two cents.

Survival of the fittest, no? When the public decides they control their "representatives," maybe things will change.

You can't cure a disease by treating the symptoms.

Wake up.

jw

Guess which corporations are bigger than Walmart and Exxon?
Guess who has more money than God?
Guess how many lawyers and judges in our system are graduates of Pat Robertson's Law School?
Guess which corporations own most of the private schools, colleges and universities?
Guess which corporations own the hospitals (some cleverly cloaked under umbrellas) ?

Guess how many of those "special interest" corporations are already on the National Council for Policy?

Guess what people....all of the above corporations cited are RELIGIOUS BASED CORPORATIONS.

Welcome to the New Age of public stoning.
Didn't like Pres. Obama's health care plan? Well, in the future, your health care will depend on whether you disobeyed some commandment or statute to cause your own health problem. You will pay for prayer and maybe that's all you will get.

Get ready to skin your knees bowing to the Anti-christ. It ain't Obama.




[edit on 24-1-2010 by Alethea]

reply to post by Avenginggecko
The only irony is your failure to place blame. The problem lies not with those seeking influence but with those who are willing to sell their allegiance.

My signature about fascism stands true for government control of commerce. We have no business being the controlling owners of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, GM, GMAC, Citi, Chrysler or BAC. THAT is fascism.

Any differential treatment of advertising paid for by "foreign" corporations overlooks the fact that every corporation is both foreign and domestic to the extent of its ownership.

I own shares of "BYD". Does that make me Chinese? Do owners of "Thomson" become French or Canadian?

You really need to re-think your parochial attitude to economic and political reality.

deny ignorance

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Avenginggecko

 

The only irony is your failure to place blame. The problem lies not with those seeking influence but with those who are willing to sell their allegiance.

My signature about fascism stands true for government control of commerce. We have no business being the controlling owners of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, GM, GMAC, Citi, Chrysler or BAC. THAT is fascism.

Any differential treatment of advertising paid for by "foreign" corporations overlooks the fact that every corporation is both foreign and domestic to the extent of its ownership.

I own shares of "BYD". Does that make me Chinese? Do owners of "Thomson" become French or Canadian?

You really need to re-think your parochial attitude to economic and political reality.

deny ignorance

jw

You need to rethink the implications of your support, all of you are truly amazing, went from fight the socialist fascist march to supporting a one stop solution to implication of these very ideas.

No where in the constitution does it suggest that our BASIC political process should be funded or infiltrated by foreign interests. Know why? Because the notion was not even
imaginable 200 + years ago...

At the end of the day YOU and all of you folks who seem to have completely 180%
on the American sovereignty issue are go to literally piss all your political momentum
on this foolishness, mark my words, this makes socialized medicine look like
Disneyland in comparison, we will pursue it and you will defend it, and guess WHAT will happen at the polls??? Just guess???

I find it hard to believe that you guys have the gall and are so clueless to what you have been declaring all last year, this defense appears from an outside observers
position to be BI POLAR.

I heard the progressives plan to eliminate American sovereignty with its slow relentless agenda, WELL JDUB, what do you think this is??? That our information, access to it and our politicians can be subjugated and purchased by ANYONE FROM ANYWHERE.

Either you guys are missing the point, have been neocons all along, are clueless,
super partisan or do not actually care about backlash or implications as long as it is sanctioned by "conservative" voices.

This game just flipped, I am damn good at being realistic, three days ago the Dems were COOKED, they will not let a good opportunity go to waste and you guys are ferrying in the opportunity by the truck load right here, on this thread.

Keep it up folks, really, wanna give the Dems a super Duper majority

Freedom of speech, right... freedom to quell anyones speech who cannot not afford it,
true brazen elitism if it has ever been so. I am going to weep for the poor PTB that want to enslave us in a brave new world, they need to speak MORE, in fact I want a
speaker in my room at all times because all the ISP contracts stipulate such

HISTORICAL FAIL

So, is this some sort of end run to eliminate or degrade the strength of SCOTUS? Think about it, if you want a dictatorship, you need to eliminate or disable the checks and balances. A populist outcry to disable the 'evil' Court would be an effective means to do so.

Is Obama's anger crocodile tears?

reply to post by Janky Red


Henceforth, I will not respond to meaningless crap, no matter how baited. That said, you really do not understand the Constitution, do you?

No where in the constitution does it suggest that our BASIC political process should be funded or infiltrated by foreign interests. Know why? Because the notion was not even
imaginable 200 + years ago...

Know what? The Constitution was not crafted to mold future politics.

It is an outline for GOVERNMENT of many by a few, select individuals.

How the individuals get into "government" (politics) is rightly let to the people of the states.

Deny ignorance!

jw

MY opinion is that corporations should be just money making organizations.

They are not humans.
They have no rights to vote.
They have no rights to privacy.
Corporate Lobbying political convolutions should not be deductable in any way to them.
They should have no rights other than unfettered ability to create profit for the share holders.

Nute G. gave the right to privacy to Corporations.
That was the moment that I stopped being a republican.

Nute G. has allowed the archives of information (Corporations’) the right not to incriminate themselves.
While at the same time insisting that they must keep the records on their actions & employment data.

Sorry to say.
Eisenhower’s warning was right.
The current corporate structure in the USA is in the midst of over throwing human rights.
The USA is well on its way in transforming to a corporate state.


-Watcher

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Henceforth, I will not respond to meaningless crap, no matter how baited.

No where in the constitution does it suggest that our BASIC political process should be funded or infiltrated by foreign interests. Know why? Because the notion was not even
imaginable 200 + years ago...

How the individuals get into "government" (politics) is rightly let to the people of the states.

Deny ignorance!

jw

Sir. I beg to differ with your inference regarding Janky's Constitutional Quotient.

In rebuttal.

Foreign influence is truly the Grecian horse to a republic. We cannot be too careful to exclude its influence.

Alexander Hamilton, Pacificus, No. 6, July 17, 1793

That said, you really do not understand the Constitution, do you?

The Founding Fathers had some say, and disagree on this. With you. Sir.

Know what? The Constitution was not crafted to mold future politics.
It is an outline for GOVERNMENT of many by a few, select individuals.

(1)
Good constitutions are formed upon a comparison of the liberty of the individual with the strength of government: If the tone of either be too high, the other will be weakened too much. It is the happiest possible mode of conciliating these objects, to institute one branch peculiarly endowed with sensibility, another with knowledge and firmness. Through the opposition and mutual control of these bodies, the government will reach, in its regular operations, the perfect balance between liberty and power.

Alexander Hamilton, speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, June 25, 1788

(2)
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

(3)
The circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite, and for this reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 23, December 17, 1787


Sincerely,

Cyberstray

Originally posted by traderjack
So, is this some sort of end run to eliminate or degrade the strength of SCOTUS? Think about it, if you want a dictatorship, you need to eliminate or disable the checks and balances. A populist outcry to disable the 'evil' Court would be an effective means to do so.

Is Obama's anger crocodile tears?

Sir,

This is at best an unfounded theory. Reactions like yours indicate, quite the opposite is the case.

Cyberstray

Originally posted by ziggystrange
"This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address.

"It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way -- or to punish those who don't. This ruling strikes at democracy itself," Obama said.

Elections should be about who the people want, not the corporations. Parties should only be allowed a minimum amount for their campaigns, so they are forced to sell themselves with their policies alone.

Big money in elections is simply used to manipulate people into voting for them, and usually means big, fancy campaigns with paid people in the background cheering radically as if some god has come to save them.

[edit on 25/1/10 by NuclearPaul]

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Avenginggecko

 

deny ignorance

jw

The only irony is your failure to place blame. The problem lies not with those seeking influence but with those who are willing to sell their allegiance.

The blame Sir, falls squarely on the lap of those that place self interest above that of the Nation, and by default the people. Allegiance was sold by the five Justices.

My signature about fascism stands true for government control of commerce. We have no business being the controlling owners of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, GM, GMAC, Citi, Chrysler or BAC. THAT is fascism.

No comment.

Any differential treatment of advertising paid for by "foreign" corporations overlooks the fact that every corporation is both foreign and domestic to the extent of its ownership.

This specific example you cite, is "now" a legal matter yet to be decided.

Most Corporations are privately held. These are domestic, to their Country of incorporation. however, the law in the USA is clear, and very accommodating to foreign owned Corporations..

From Ezinearticles.com

The Foreigner's Guide to Owning an American Business
By Bob Dean Stanford

Meeting legal requirements Source

It isn't a requirement to be an American citizen or even live in the USA to own a company here. You can hire agents to setup your corporation or LLC (Limited Liability Company) for you for less than $700 (US Dollars), and maintain your own business address with receptionist for about $200 - $300 per month. Your phone number will cost about $30 per month. Business licenses are low cost and renewed annually. Your company will be required to obtain an Employer's I.D. from the U.S. Internal revenue Service (IRS) since it must pay taxes it earns. If you setup your company in the state of Nevada, Delaware, or Wyoming, you won't have any state corporation or personal state income taxes.

**********************************************************
The problem is this.

We cannot accept to be governed by agents of foreign interest.

Foreign influence is truly the Grecian horse to a republic. We cannot be too careful to exclude its influence.

Alexander Hamilton, Pacificus, No. 6, July 17, 1793

I own shares of "BYD". Does that make me Chinese? Do owners of "Thomson" become French or Canadian?

The republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they entrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion or to every transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men, who flatter their prejudices to betray their interests.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 71, March 18, 1788

You really need to re-think your parochial attitude to economic and political reality.

No comment

Cyberstray

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Henceforth, I will not respond to meaningless crap, no matter how baited. That said, you really do not understand the Constitution, do you?

No where in the constitution does it suggest that our BASIC political process should be funded or infiltrated by foreign interests. Know why? Because the notion was not even
imaginable 200 + years ago...

Know what? The Constitution was not crafted to mold future politics.

It is an outline for GOVERNMENT of many by a few, select individuals.

How the individuals get into "government" (politics) is rightly let to the people of the states.

Deny ignorance!

jw

Get off your high, you an your disrobed neocons friends will see this country sold to the highest foreign bidder and then explain the government did it. While technically it will be true as your spawn will have done it. You will see the entire concept of this nation
and it intent destroyed so log as there is a technicality to support such. Just as you hide behind the Iraq war and who started it, ignoring the political manipulation, terror alerts, or the patriot act or FISA, all Neocon, sanction by constitutional process, rotten
to the core.

Or this failed economy, helmed by Dick Armies buddies, the very men who coopted the only genuine grass roots movement in this country, Tea Parties. You ignore that is was YOUR candidate that crippled this economy and act if as if this new jerk off created the mess.

I am sure you are fine with subverting this nation as long as you can do it based upon a technicality and pass it off as someone else's baby once you get booted again. I have never encountered a grander collection of dishonest cowards in my life, Elite to the core, life's a technicality and America and her citizens sweat are there for the reaping.

Have fun protecting the free speech of those who desire to silence yours.

HAIL NEOCON, THE REAL MESSIAH!

PS... Thank you to all the REAL CONSERVATIVES who appear to be for America above partisanship, I appreciate your backbone and attempt to inform the corrupted even if does not benefit your strategic position, once again thanks!


[edit on 25-1-2010 by Janky Red]

Grumble, neocon, grumble


[edit on 25-1-2010 by Janky Red]

reply to post by Janky Red


Hey Janky, you are awfully janky on this aren't you?

I have read through most of the dissenting and majority opinions now, plus some breakdowns by some other people.

This whole thing comes down to free speech. The laws in question that the SC ruling struck down inhibited free speech, therefore RIGHTFULLY struck down.

Legislation should be written to stop foreign corporations, from in anyway trying to manipulate elections.

I wonder why no one has brought up yet, the Obama tie in with obvious foreign campaigning and also campaign finance. Maybe I should start dumping my HD info now?



[edit on 1/25/2010 by endisnighe]

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Hey Janky, you are awfully janky on this aren't you?

I have read through most of the dissenting and majority opinions now, plus some breakdowns by some other people.

This whole thing comes down to free speech. The laws in question that the SC ruling struck down inhibited free speech, therefore RIGHTFULLY struck down.

Legislation should be written to stop foreign corporations, from in anyway trying to manipulate elections.

I wonder why no one has brought up yet, the Obama tie in with obvious foreign campaigning and also campaign finance. Maybe I should start dumping my HD info now?

[edit on 1/25/2010 by endisnighe]

This! Sir, has naught to do with the current administration.

The consensus of which you speak, is ill advised, and not relevant to the issue.

Your denials fall on deaf ears. You are disingenuous.

I suggest you research further as you fail to see the depth, and nature of the travesty.

If you were to read the statements of the Founding Fathers, you will find yourself described therein, as licentious.

This is not about Freedom of Speech, it's about a decision that does not consider the consequences to the Nation.

I suggest you will find more relevant consensus in the writings of those Patriots, that unlike you did not collect consensus but thought for themselves, and stayed true to the core values of the Constitution.

With prophetic wisdom they left us the tools with which to apply discernment, and remedy when the Constitution is assailed, as it has been by this decision.

There is not just one reversal to address, but 102 years of legislation, and Supreme Court precedent, this was a Judiciary coup d'état in time of war perpetrated by the 5 Justices on behalf of their appointers traitorous and despotic ideology. It would serve you to read the dissent.

Justice Roberts betrayed the Country, and will be reviled by true Americans as an activist, and an usurper. He makes the abolition of lifetime appointments a desirable response to his stab at the heart of the Constitution.

You Sir, are no Patriot.

Cyberstray

The republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they entrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion or to every transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men, who flatter their prejudices to betray their interests.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 71, March 18, 1788

[edit on 25-1-2010 by CyberStray]