Americans: Supreme Court got it wrong! 80 Percent oppose ruling!

Originally posted by TarzanBeta

Sorry to tell you, but MONEY IS FREE SPEECH.

Not according to the Constitution.

And not according to our founding fathers:

“I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan. November 12, 1816

Relax and learn. Your petitions will only show the people in power who the opposers are .. which means you're just giving out information about yourselves.

More scare tactics.

Move to Amend. Sign the Petition.


FYI - I know all corporations aren't all bad. But these kinds of rulings put far, far too much power in the hands of international mega-corporations. Time to stop it.




[edit on 18-2-2010 by soficrow]

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by TarzanBeta

Sorry to tell you, but MONEY IS FREE SPEECH.

Not according to the Constitution.

And not according to our founding fathers:

“I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan. November 12, 1816

Relax and learn. Your petitions will only show the people in power who the opposers are .. which means you're just giving out information about yourselves.

More scare tactics.

Move to Amend. Sign the Petition.


FYI - I know all corporations aren't all bad. But these kinds of rulings put far, far too much power in the hands of international mega-corporations. Time to stop it.




[edit on 18-2-2010 by soficrow]

Scare tactics?

Pot... Kettle... black? Funny thing is, I'm not even a black kettle.

I am a bottom runger, crow. I have no reason to scare anyone.

Enjoy your vanity.

Corporations are NOT defined or protected as "persons" in the Constitution.

soficrow, corporations are protected equally under the law under the fourteenth amendment because U.S. Code Title 1, Chapter 1, Subsection 1 defines a person as "corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals"

the Supreme Court DID attempt to make law with it's ruling, and to establish corporations as "persons" under law. Not right, not legal.

The supreme court doesn't write US Code. The corporations don't write the code. I'm not really understanding how you think the supreme court ruled that corporations are persons.

On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons

No, incorrect. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES made the law that corporations are persons, and it required a presidential signature. The SC ruled that it couldn't take away free speech THAT CONGRESS and the EXECUTIVE GAVE THE CORPORATIONS BY WRITING THE LAW. You are pointing your finger in the wrong direction.

"The arts of power and its minions are the same in all countries and in all ages. It marks its victim; denounces it; and excites the public odium and the public hatred, to conceal its own abuses and encroachments." Henry Clay



[edit on 18-2-2010 by METACOMET]

its just another distraction.

Love and Light, peace out.

reply to post by METACOMET


a person is a corporation. If anybody lives in the uk, have a butchers at John Harris- its an illusion, the blokes a diamond!!! Even if your American it might be worth a look.

!! www.bbc5.tv... !!

reply to post by TarzanBeta


Corporations are made up of the few and the Elite ONLY. That is what you do not get. The people employed are slaves. It's the board of directors and CEO that are the pirates.

Don't get confused. Class "A" shares are the only ones that matter, and there IS NO PUBLIC individual that holds ANY. Unless you are part of the group, you do not have the money to own the "A" shares. And if you have the money, you are on the inside.

We can not amend the Constitution as it is a corporate contract and we were never a party to it. We can amend the bill of rights but that's very dangerous territory.

People need to wise up and do some research, I provided many pages throughout my many posts in various threads. Learn the truth and the magic language or you are gonna get screwed.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


While I absolutely disagree with the SCOTUS's ruling, I have to say that I do agree with you. The Supreme Court, as defined by it's lifetime appointment, is not supposed to judge current political feelings, but rather a continued collection of thought for several decades. That's why Congress has the shortest tenure, they reflect emotion, Senate and the Executive reflect more prolonged changes in political view, SCOUTUS is supposed to represent the longest of multiple generations.

Though, I do believe that every generation would have been against such a ruling.

Originally posted by METACOMET

Corporations are NOT defined or protected as "persons" in the Constitution.

soficrow, corporations are protected equally under the law under the fourteenth amendment ...

That is an interpretation, not the law. In fact, Corporations are NOT defined or protected as "persons" in the Constitution.

See: U.S. Constitution

Also see:

The founding fathers of the United States were not interested in giving constitutional rights to corporations. In fact, they wanted to regulate corporations very tightly because they had had bad experiences with corporations during colonial times. The crown charter corporations like the East India Company and the Hudson Bay Company had been the rulers of America. So when the constitution was written, corporations were left out of the Constitution. Responsibility for corporate chartering was given to the states. State governance was closer to the people and would enable them to keep an eye on corporations.

In the eighteenth century, corporations had very few of the powers that we now associate with them. They did not have limited liability. They did not have an unlimited life span. They were chartered for a limited period of time, say 10 or 20 years, and for a specific public purpose, such as building a bridge. Often a charter would require that, after a certain amount of time, the bridge or road be turned over to the state or the town in which it was built. Corporations were viewed differently in early America. They were required to serve the public good.

But over time people forgot that corporations ad been so powerful and that they needed to be strongly controlled. Also, corporations began to gain more power than the wealthy elite.

Corporations, the U.S. Constitution, and Democracy

METACOMET
...because U.S. Code Title 1, Chapter 1, Subsection 1 defines a person as "corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals"

Congress defined corporations as persons for purposes of determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, but NOT for the purpose of interpreting the Constitution.

The Supreme Court took the liberty of deciding that the terms established for corporations in the US Code by Congress should also apply to Constitutional Rights - that application is NOT a given, and arguably is illegal.

METACOMET

soficrow
the Supreme Court DID attempt to make law with it's ruling, and to establish corporations as "persons" under law. Not right, not legal.

The supreme court doesn't write US Code. The corporations don't write the code. I'm not really understanding how you think the supreme court ruled that corporations are persons.

The US Code is NOT the Constitution. The Constitution establishes the Rights of people, and excludes corporations.

The Supreme Court erroneously applied terms established in the US Code to Constitutional Law.

METACOMET

soficrow
On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons

No, incorrect. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES made the law that corporations are persons, and it required a presidential signature.

No. The House of Representatives said that corporations are "persons" for "determining the meaning of any Act of Congress"

- but NOT for interpreting Constitutional Law, and NOT for determining the ability of corporations to claim the Constitutional Rights of persons.

...Legally very different.

METACOMET
The SC ruled that it couldn't take away free speech THAT CONGRESS and the EXECUTIVE GAVE THE CORPORATIONS BY WRITING THE LAW. You are pointing your finger in the wrong direction.

Congress and the Executive did not give corporations ANY Constitutional Rights in "U.S. Code Title 1, Chapter 1, Subsection 1" - corporations simply were defined as "persons" for the very specific and limited purpose of "determining the meaning of any Act of Congress."

Free Speech is a Constitutional Right - it was not conferred by "any Act of Congress."

The Constitution is NOT an "Act of Congress," therefor, the definition established for the US Code does not extend Constitutional Rights to corporations.

The Supreme Court misinterpreted the law, and as well, its own powers.

A Constitutional Amendment is required to give corporations Constitutional Rights of Personhood under law. There is no such Amendment.


.






[edit on 18-2-2010 by soficrow]

[edit on 18-2-2010 by soficrow]

Originally posted by METACOMET
soficrow, corporations are protected equally under the law under the fourteenth amendment because U.S. Code Title 1, Chapter 1, Subsection 1 defines a person as "corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals"

So because the law says so it justifies its reasoning? You know income tax is also in law, although you dont see many of those on rightwing accepting it as just that.

The original constitution never intended the freedoms of the individual to go towards corporate entities. Corporate entities often with corporate foreign interests and shareholders.

No, incorrect. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES made the law S

And the SC prevent the law from being taken off. So they are just as to be held responsible for implementing it as the house of representitives over a century ago.

The supreme court is not clear of her mistakes. Her rulings in the case of slavery, segregation, that blacks "were not legally people", are all examples of this.

[edit on 18-2-2010 by Southern Guardian]

I the the Supreme Court got it right too. I am so sick of polls. I am so sick of the propaganda. I am so sick of the improper use of the terms out of a political science text book.

The "Conservatives" in my opinion are morons, and I am one of the staunchest Republicans on earth.

The Democrats are marxists and not Liberals. The root word to Liberal is; "Liberty". Marxists, democrats and Conservatives are control freaks who stifle liberty.

The Supreme court got it right. I got my BA in college in journalism, this is just s pseudostory, a typical cheap journalistic tactic to get a story.


80% is about right, for the number of people the NEA education system seriously dumbs down.

Originally posted by Flidais
I am so sick of the propaganda.

Lets see now. Propaganda from the disorganized "people" against the propaganda of the multi-million dollar corporations. I mean those corporations are really really having a hard time getting their message through right?

The Supreme court got it right. I got my BA in college in journalism

There you would have figured how deep the corporations go in controlling the cable networks. Obviously you dont though.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Freedom of speech for the foreign shareholders of this company? Freedom of speech for giant multi-national corporations? How does the constitution grant them rights? If a chinese man buys majority shares of GM, is he still entitled to freedom of speech?

...How did the Constitution grant the inmates at Guantanimo Bay, Cuba rights? Not AMerican citizens, not on US soil, yet the same Supreme Court ruled that they were, essentially, to be treated as citizens.

It seems that many of the same people who likely championed that ruling are now trying to pick and choose when they want foreigners to be considered Constitutional protection (on both sides, actually as I'm sure many who are fine with this current ruling took issue with that previous one.)

Originally posted by soficrow
Congress defined corporations as persons for purposes of determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, but NOT for the purpose of interpreting the Constitution.

Says you? Can you substantiate your claim please?

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise - the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

I'd agree with you that the original constitution and the first 10 bill of rights was not an act of congress, because congress didn't exist until the constitution made them exist. However, the 14th amendment which gives equal protection under the law is an act of congress.



[edit on 18-2-2010 by METACOMET]

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Freedom of speech for the foreign shareholders of this company? Freedom of speech for giant multi-national corporations? How does the constitution grant them rights? If a chinese man buys majority shares of GM, is he still entitled to freedom of speech?

...How did the Constitution grant the inmates at Guantanimo Bay, Cuba rights?

Well heres the difference. Guantanimo bay is technically under US territorial control, the inmates are kept under US control by force. In addition to that most of these inmates had not recieved similar rights.

not on US soil, yet the same Supreme Court ruled that they were, essentially, to be treated as citizens.

United States, by virtue of its complete jurisdiction and control, maintains "de facto" sovereignty over this territory,

avalon.law.yale.edu...

The inmates are kept there by force so there for the rights apply to them. It is a different matter to free foreigners for the most part under other governing bodies.

Try again please.

[edit on 18-2-2010 by Southern Guardian]

reply to post by burdman30ott6


I will say that, as it pertains to Gitmo, we did the right thing.

No, i don't mean that we treat them like "citizens". But we SHOULD provide them every right to good treatment that we would provide our own prisoners. The basic human rights. No beatings, decent food, etc.

Does this mean they should be mirandized? Hell no. There should be no technicality that "gets them off".


Most conversations around this i have seen boil down to 1 group wants some sort of rights, the other group wants none. We have to have some way to treat them humanely, be it under the auspices of our constitution, or the Geneva Accords (which the US was VERY slow to sign, BTW). As America, we have a duty to set the example of humane treatment.

[edit on 18-2-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Originally posted by METACOMET

Originally posted by soficrow
Congress defined corporations as persons for purposes of determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, but NOT for the purpose of interpreting the Constitution.

Says you? Can you substantiate your claim please?

Of course. I used the source you provided, and posted the link above (which you did not do). Here it is again: In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, …the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations,....

METACOMET
I'd agree with you that the original constitution and the first 10 bill of rights was not an act of congress, because congress didn't exist until the constitution made them exist. However, the 14th amendment which gives equal protection under the law is an act of congress.

The 14th Amendment is an amendment to the Constitution - which is exactly what's required to give corporations the Constitutional Rights of individual "persons." ...No such Constitutional Amendment exists.

...Here is the 14th Amendment in its entirety. No mention of corporations. At all. It's mainly about giving male ex-slaves voting rights.

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 14
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 14

reply to post by David9176


Giving business entities the rights reserved for individuals is a slippery slope at best. What can be abused, will be abused. In particular when the administration is in the unions hip pocket to buy their votes.

I don't even think Obama is running the country any more. I think he is as shocked by it as those who are just figuring it out. He took their money and their votes; now he must be their puppet or be destroyed.

This ruling assures that future leaders will be caught in the same trap. Some willingly, others not realizing they sold themselves to the highest bidder.

reply to post by Blaine91555


You know it saddens me that while many people like sofi and others including you are trying to tell people how we have lost our rights to corporations, our government and even our supreme court, many still doesn't get it.

America is no longer by the people and for the people, actually is more by the foreign entities buying into America corporate world everyday.

Its going to be more foreign interest now dictating our politics and paying for politicians of their choices than anything else.

Originally posted by TarzanBeta

Sorry to tell you, but MONEY IS FREE SPEECH. You choose where you use it and what you use it on. Money is the measure of how much work we've done. Who here is foolish enough to tell people that THEIR TIME is NOT FREE SPEECH?

Um, money is (as you suggested in the middle) an accounting system for stored energy credits. Free speech is unrelated - except peripherally, insofar as when it is obstructed, money is useful to unstop the blockage.

Jeremy Rifkin had a bit in his book, Entropy, on page 57 that sums it up nicely:

Energy is the basis of human culture, just as it is the basis of life. Therefore, power in every society ultimately belongs to whoever controls the exosomatic [external] instruments that are used to transform, exchange, and discard energy. Class divisions, exploitations, privilege, and poverty are all determined by how a society’s energy flow line is set up. Those who control the exosomatic instruments control the energy flow line. They determine how the work in society will be divided up and how the economic rewards will be allocated among various groups and constituencies.

So, no... Time and free speech are not related directly at all.

thanks for this post, S&F.

Signed the petition you linked.

I really feel that the founding fathers would be disappointed if they could look down and see America's government as it is today. This is not the government they intended to create.

What ever happened to "for the people, by the people"???