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

The only funds that should be spent on campaigns are goverment or state dollars, and the amount should be minimum, and very limited. It is the only way to guarantee a fair try at a position for the people. I would like my tax dollars to go toward campaigns in the future. My tax dollars should support any candidate for any public position as long as each candidate has equal amounts. For example, in primaries, my tax dollars would go to each party and then the party would have to decide on a candidate amongst its own group. Then the parties would have to debate and discuss positions on issues. What do you think? Would that be fair, or am I leaving something out, not accounting for something due to my naivete on the subject of politics.

[edit on 18-2-2010 by bookreader]

[edit on 18-2-2010 by bookreader]

I also think that supreme court justices and also senate or house committee meetings and the like should be broadcast on public tv, or at least downloaded directly to the internet so that we can read or see exactly what is being discussed. Some justices mightn't like that if they are not tv ready, needing make-up personnel suddenly etc. It would keep these elected people on their toes and allow for peer, veteran, or public criticism. I am surprised that this information age this type of public info is not already readily available.

Originally posted by soficrow
Don't count on it.

It takes more than polls to change things.

...and it looks like what's required here are Constitutional revisions. Won't happen easily, if at all. And definitely not without a public outcry.

Very true. I was thinking that, too. But at least it has been brought to light a bit. However, I won't be holding my breath waiting for it to change. I really hope it does, though.

If this is changed what does it matter?

Corporations will just use the funds to lobby politicians all they want no limits. Does anybody here think that because Carlyle group can't give a few extra thousand dollars to a senate candidate, that the door isn't still wide open for them 24/7/365? Ex presidents and senators work for these corporations for a reason. George HW Bush flies around in a jet and sells war. The door is always open for him in the appropriation committee office. Getting rid of this ruling does nothing to change this.

Does anybody here think campaign contributions are the only highway that corporate money is riding into Washington on?

Why would 2 candidates spend 2.4 billion (yep) to convince people they deserve a job that pays 400k a year? I wonder why?

[edit on 19-2-2010 by METACOMET]

Originally posted by METACOMET

Why would 2 candidates spend 2.4 billion (yep) to convince people they deserve a job that pays 400k a year? I wonder why?

VERY good question. Just had to star you.

Ya do really gotta wonder, dontcha?

METACOMET

If this is changed what does it matter?

It matters because:

* The Supreme Court acted illegally - it overstepped its bounds and acted beyond its mandate to create law. That was legally, ethically and morally wrong.

* The Supreme Court acted against the spirit and intent of our nation's laws; we have a duty to protect that spirit and intent.

* As citizens, we have a responsibility to protect the checks and balances of our government, and to protect our nation and our democracy.

* People fought and died to build a good country where people could be free and escape the chains of feudalism and monarchies and the corporations chartered by monarchies.

* If we don't stop this here and now, it will get worse, much worse than you can imagine. Slavery and indenture will not describe the future we are creating for our children.

* We have a legal, ethical and moral duty to protect and preserve our legacy.



“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


* All it takes for evil to conquer is for good men to do nothing. Wallowing in despair is not a legitimate option.

reply to post by METACOMET


The reason is my friend, because is not what they can do for the people but what they can do for those that spend most of the campaign money on donations.

Corporate pimps buying congress and political whores.

Originally posted by bookreader
The only funds that should be spent on campaigns are goverment or state dollars, and the amount should be minimum, and very limited. It is the only way to guarantee a fair try at a position for the people. I would like my tax dollars to go toward campaigns in the future. My tax dollars should support any candidate for any public position as long as each candidate has equal amounts.
[edit on 18-2-2010 by bookreader]

[edit on 18-2-2010 by bookreader]

This is nothing but party welfare and the liberal idea of leveling the playing field in the name of fairness. Political parties have to be as viable in the marketpalce as anything.

For exsample I dont want one dime of my taxes going to any political party. Ill send it if I think it needs to go.

What is the difference in a seperations of church and state i.e. the state cant collect taxes for any church (which is there real nature of this debate,SCS, look it up real hard) and the state supporting political parties?

Nothing. The State cant support the church, it has no grounds to support political parties based on the same principles that restrict the first. No church welfare, no party wealfare.

reply to post by David9176

In case you were not aware. The Supreme Court will never rule against the New World Order, or the Banker Corporations for which it stands. If you think that you are going to "change the system through proper channels" by investigating the FED, or abolishing the IRS, you obviously are smoking the same stuff they were smoking in the sixties. History repeats its self; don't become history, do it right the first time. Ergonomic 531

So?

What does it matter what the public thinks? The SCOTUS was wrong when they came up with that new eminent domain policy where they can take our land if they feel they can increase their tax base a while back; what changed after we scoffed at that? (Remember, that ruling was curiously handed down just before God or HAARP wiped out the gulf states. Perfect timing for greedy developers and those in the know to capitalize on the misfortune of others.)

We really need to stop looking to these folks as if we believe they are operating in our best interests.

The way I see it, this is just another ploy to rub our noses in it, rile us up, get us mad as hell to the point where we yell "We're not gonna take it" and take to the streets causing mayhem and harm to our brothers and sisters in our wake.

That's what they're programming us to do, fight. I say we blow them off, not pay attention to these little details and go about creating the new paradigm where the supreme court doesn't even exist.

Let us remember this land was originally settled by a people who didn't have prisons, courts or judges but yet managed to live for thousands of years in relative peace without even having locks and keys barring others from gaining access to their possessions.

We can do it. This system hasn't always existed, and from the looks of it, lol.. it doesn't look like it's going to continue much longer.

Scarcity is the only reason we have need for this so called justice system in the first place, and since anyone whose ever flown over this rock knows scarcity is a man-made invention that doesn't really exist I say, why continue believing in it or those who dole out this so called justice.

We live in a world of abundance and the only thing standing in the way of everyone having everything they need are the pricks who keep us on the wheel and manufacture our reality, which sadly enough includes tales of how our supreme justices hand down ruling after ruling that works not for us but against us.

I wish we were at the point were 80% of us were awake rather than pissed at more evidence of wrongdoing at the highest levels of our broken system.

I love my country and my countrymen but even our Vice President said the other day, "Washington is broken, I've never seen it this dysfunctional.

Our Founding "Free-masonic" Fathers told us to tear it down and built anew when that happened didn't they?

Yes they did, so then... what shall we dream into existence in its place? I wonder... you should too.

After all, we created this, we can create something better. Something that can serve us all as was intended.

Originally posted by bookreader
The only funds that should be spent on campaigns are goverment or state dollars, and the amount should be minimum, and very limited. It is the only way to guarantee a fair try at a position for the people. I would like my tax dollars to go toward campaigns in the future.

I have never understood this movement. I personally believe that if tax payer dollars are spent on campaigns, then the FIRST thing we must do is strip the sallary of every elected official down to the average mean sallary of the average American worker. In reality, I say let them spend whatever they can conive the people into donating and leave the taxpayer dollars alone so they can be used for what they're supposed to be used for: supporting America, not supporting the fools who are running America into the ground.

Too bad the people that own the govt. and the court don't gives a rats arse about what the public think.

The conservatives are always accusing liberal judges of legislating from the bench.

But this is the most blatant example of judicial activism yet.

Conservatives are against it except when they are for it.

Originally posted by Sestias
The conservatives are always accusing liberal judges of legislating from the bench.
But this is the most blatant example of judicial activism yet.
Conservatives are against it except when they are for it.

You know the legislative and executive branch? The other two of the three equal branches of our government? Yes?

Them folks wrote and passed the law that gives corporations 14th amendment rights. Congress wrote the law. The president signed the law.

But what the heck! Lets all denounce the supreme court for not setting a tyrannical precedent beyond their constitutional power by revoking free speech rights that the congress and the executive signed into law.

Now listen here. I don't support any corporations right to bribe our stupid representatives with boatloads of money. But that isn't even close to the issue here at all. The issue is: Should the supreme court be allowed to rule against free speech. The answer should be obvious.

D, thank goodness...

I have nothing more to add, it is nice to hear that people are not completely washed.

S+F

Originally posted by David9176
This is about corporate personhood and the influence of money in our government...

No the decision was not about corporate person hood. Please show me where in the ruling that this was about such nonsense.

This was about congress making a law that abridged freedom of speech. Since the 1st Amendment specifically states that Congress shall make no law, this was the right decision. The Court applied a Constitutional test to the law and found it failed a basic principal of the 1st Amendment.

The ruling struck down a narrow portion of the mess of legislation that is referred to as the McCain-Feingold Act. More specifically, it struck down 441b and the portion that prohibited political speech during a certain period of time. Heck, right there in the ruling the judges specifically state that campaign limits and rules pertaining to Corporate contributions are still intact....but since your emotions are ruling your thought you fail to even see that.

What many forget is the following: As an individual you have freedom in your political speech. You and your buddy are part of a partnership and you two have free political speech, but all of a sudden because you are structured under a corporation you lose that freedom?

Read the decision and critically analyze it and get off of sites like Democratic Underground and even the other extreme Fox News.

As others have stated, it now lays in the hands of Congress to either re-write the law, which will be under instant scrutiny by the Supreme Court or present a Constitutional Amendment. Pretty straight forward that the public opinion in this matter is of no consequence to the Court, only to Congress and the President.

Originally posted by Sestias
But this is the most blatant example of judicial activism yet.

How is this activism? The portion that was struck down (441b) was applied to a Constitutional test, specifically the 1st Amendment and was found to have violated it.

As it stood before, media outlets (Corporations) were given free reign during that 60 days prior period that 441b prohibited other corporations and/or individuals the ability to produce political speech in a media format that would reach the largest amount of people. How is that equal protection under the law? Which, by the way, was another tenet that was grossly violated in regards to the portion struck down.

Originally posted by METACOMET

You know the legislative and executive branch? ...Them folks wrote and passed the law that gives corporations 14th amendment rights. Congress wrote the law. The president signed the law.

No, they didn't.

The 14th Amendment does NOT refer to corporations.

Please provide a reference showing that Congress and the President explicitly gave Constitutional Rights of personhood to corporations - under the 14th amendment or anywhere else.

The reference you cited previously (U.S. Code Title 1, Chapter 1, Subsection 1) says only that Congress defined corporations as persons specifically for purposes of determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, but NOT for the purpose of interpreting the Constitution.

The Constitution is NOT an Act of Congress.

While the 14th Amendment was an Act of Congress, it was written explicitly to give ex-slaves the rights of citizenship.

The 14th Amendment specifically refers to "All persons born or naturalized in the United States." It's about "Rights, Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection" for persons born or naturalized in the US.

Corporations are not "born," they are incorporated; corporations are not "naturalized," they are chartered. Obviously, the 14th Amendment does NOT refer to corporations.

...The SCOTUS ruling is just a sleazy trick - designed to convince Americans that corporations already have the Constitutional Rights of Persons, when they do not.

NO American law gives the Constitutional Rights of Persons to corporations.

METACOMET

But what the heck! Lets all denounce the supreme court for not setting a tyrannical precedent beyond their constitutional power by revoking free speech rights that the congress and the executive signed into law.

Reference and link please.

Where and when, exactly, did Congress and the President make a Constitutional Amendment giving corporations the Constitutional Rights of Persons? Free speech or otherwise?

Corporations "Right to Free Speech" cannot be revoked if they didn't have that Right - and they didn't.

The Supreme Court ruling tries to give corporations the Right to Free Speech through the back door. Not legal. Not consistent with the letter or spirit of the law.

The issue is: Should the supreme court be allowed to rule against free speech. The answer should be obvious.

No. That's not the issue.

The issue is that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds, and acted beyond its mandate in extending the Right of Free Speech to corporations when corporations do NOT have the Constitutional Rights of Persons under the US Constitution.

The questions are:

1. Is the Supreme Court legally allowed to give corporations the Constitutional Rights of Persons, such as the Right to Free Speech?
2. When those rights have NOT been granted by any Constitutional Amendment?

The answer is NO.


The attempted focus on McCain-Feingold is a big fat red herring too.

Red Herring

A clue that is misleading or that has been falsified, intended to divert attention.

**
any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue

Originally posted by HIStory Indeed
So?

What does it matter what the public thinks? The SCOTUS was wrong when they came up with that new eminent domain policy where they can take our land if they feel they can increase their tax base a while back; what changed after we scoffed at that?

Actually eminent domain is as good and the law will go as far as the states and city wants it to go.

Many states have defined the meaning of eminent domain and in many others is not accepted by the state.

Here in my state an old lady fought one of the biggest hospital for her home that because of the hospital incredible growth and expansion her old house falls now within the hospital grounds.

The old littler lady won the court battle and the hospital had to build around her old house.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Sestias
But this is the most blatant example of judicial activism yet.

How is this activism? The portion that was struck down (441b) was applied to a Constitutional test, specifically the 1st Amendment and was found to have violated it.

As it stood before, media outlets (Corporations) were given free reign during that 60 days prior period that 441b prohibited other corporations and/or individuals the ability to produce political speech in a media format that would reach the largest amount of people. How is that equal protection under the law? Which, by the way, was another tenet that was grossly violated in regards to the portion struck down.

It not activism as you know.

The liberals as usual are pissed becouse now they really got some competition. They will have to dig deep and they are cheep....unless its tax money paying into groups that funnel money up to the mechine. Look at how they leach off of union dues to oil their thing. Now they are up against the real world.

Originally posted by Logarock

The liberals as usual are pissed becouse now they really got some competition. They will have to dig deep and they are cheep....unless its tax money paying into groups that funnel money up to the mechine. Look at how they leach off of union dues to oil their thing. Now they are up against the real world.

Heads up.

It's not Liberals v/s Conservatives.

It's Corporatism v/s Democracy.