the media cannot understand organic leaderless democracy

Alright, then maybe I just misinterpreted this remark of yours

in the context of an encampment i think i used OWS as an example,

organic leaderless democracy is where the acual people decide what they want to see in the bills before congress.

Please let me know what you really meant by it.
Here you are talking expressly about OWS and not the students in Iran, so you must be giving advice to Americans.

in the context of a "social democracy" ie in the context of an encampment OWS as an example,
the people all have the same right to speak, all have the right to agree and disagree and all work for the benifit of the "encampment" (comunity)

when in the process of decideing what the complaints are and how to fix them,
the input towards a template for a bill is derived from a concensus or by majority vote (only in the context of what to include and what to discard and how to word certain sections.

at this point when the comunity imput is achived there is a democractic concensus of what is to be presented to law makers in the form of a template.

this template goes to law makers who then turn it into a bill

at this point it is in the hands of the republic law makers to craft the wording and legislation so that it works in the context of law

so to summerize
social democracy is only at the botom level where the acual people decide on the process of democractic vote
to decide what is templated for the betterment of all. it is also the way decitions are made for day to day operations of the encampment. other than crafting a template for bills it is a way for people to comunicate and operate in a confind space with others of different political or social norms

everything other than that is exactly the same for law making.

Oh gosh, you are not American but you want OWS to generate bills you want passed. Now tell me just how that works? You are living in the States on a visa or overstayed your visa or whatever but you want to be represented but you can't vote being you are not a citizen? Is that what is going on here?

i have a "want" to see wall street prosicuted, (i lost my business in the down turn of the economy)
i have a "want" to see people debate how and what caused the economy to tank (my friends lost houses)
i have a "want" to know that americans are not going to end up homeless and destitute (our pension funds rely on this)

i have a "want" for the greatest country in the world to have a future.
i refuse to let the banks decimate your country and mine by proxy
we are human i desire the best for humanity.

OWS currently gives a minority group of socialist collectivists an avenue to impress on leaders that they want free stuff from rich people. That is the message they have been giving. Then again, because they are not a majority, maybe it's not a majority rule they really want, but their own lobby voice in Washington, but they are calling it something else. They want to write a bunch of bills to regulate industry and have their student loans forgiven. I feel so represented by them. (Not)

edit on 23-11-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-11-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-11-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

mabey OWS just wants wall street to pay for the crimes of bankrupting your country?

pretty simple
\
xp

nevermind, enjoy your party lasses

Your presentation sucks.

It borders on being word salad.

reply to post by XPLodER


Social psychology and sociology have repeatedly demonstrated . . .

in study and experiment after experiment as well as study of real groups as they function, evolve and exist . . . that

THERE IS !NO! SUCH THING AS A LEADERLESS GROUP.

It can be the case that an agreed upon formula can be chosen for rotating leaders. However, even in such a case . . . sooner or later charismatic, powerful, influential etc. leaders rise to the top and are given the lion's share of respect and power.

It may well be that a structure and set of rules could be devised that would emphasize humility and selflessness. However, enforcing it and insuring that leaders didn't consolodate and embellish their personal fifedoms . . . could be a real challenge.

reply to post by XPLodER

you really want to compair PAID lobbyests and privite persons? you realise thats like compairing apples and moon rocks right? xp

Lobbyist are private persons , infact they are the exact people who you talked about earlier...

i do think presenting to a well conected politician that supports the effort will be far more fruitful, but it great to know that "the people" can deliver bills for debate

They are well connected people pushing the agenda of people that want things done........the sad part is you dont see the connection..........

You dont see that exactly what you were promoting is the same exact thing you guys are complaining about....

The only difference is its OWS man in the wings , instead of say......Bank of Americas......

Different side of the same coin.......the corruption continues under new management.....and the beat goes on.......

Cant talk sense to those who refuse to use any

I asked what you thought -- not what Wikipedia thought. But alas, we will work with this. In the formation of the United States and up to the 17th Amendment, the United States of American was a Republican form of Government focusing on a Federal system in which both States and Central Governments retained a limited political power. After the 17th Amendment, the United States of American became a Representative Democracy, in which all representatives were elected directly by the People.

thank you for informing me of those details

The last step, in which I wish to never see would be to abolish the Electoral College; the system that places a president into their position. Once that has happened, the United States of America, as far as governmental structure, will become a full-fledged Direct Democracy.

i like you wish to see no change in "the process" i wish to see people engaging the process with people originated templates for concideration by law makers

Then why is the clamor on Wall Street and not on Pennsylvania Avenue or in front of the Halls of Congress in which the very laws that have allowed such collusion to become legal were borne? This is a major wedge in many people that have kept an arms length of the OWS movement.

IMHO and i only speak as an individual,
everybody recognises that wall street behaviour is blatent and obvious that is why to start on wall street.
in good time i beleive IMHO that the crimes of the legislature will bring about direct protest on both locations.
the investigation by 60 minutes on "insider trading" will help with the motivation for this protest.

You were? Are you sure? I see you have a "direct democracy party" but none of your political or government structure history suggests that you were ever a Direct Democracy. A Constitutional Monarchy is what I have seen -- but please, if you have sources that I can refer to and read I would be happy to.

a good example is a referendum for our type of democracy we are about to have on MMP or mixed member proportional representation.
everyone can vote to decide what is law concerning our form of representation,
a very complicated form of direct democracy

"the people" shouldn't be taken lightly and in my opinion, placing them in quotes shows you hardly believe what I am saying. The People on the other hand, have all the inherent political power and only the powers in which the People have enumerated to said governmental body are valid.

i would like to see the people use their inherent political power to see criminal wall street behaviour corrected.
and legislation put in place to protect people from illegal banking activity

It is not about presenting it to a "well connected" politican; it is about putting into place men and women of stout and steady principles that follow the Constitution (or in your case, the governmental document that your nation has agreed upon).

the insider trading bill being templated by OWS seeks to remove politicans who only seek to serve for self interest, goes to removing greedy politicans.

We are...not could. Could says you have acquiesced your Natural Rights and have allowed the State to reign supreme. May it be through collusion with business or repression of Rights -- what we could be is a dangerous statement that suggests that we have already lost.

the main point is that people can change what happens to them by engaging the political process,
empower people to try to engage the political process

piece and light xploder

Lobbyist are private persons , infact they are the exact people who you talked about earlier...

you compair lobying for corperate interests (paid by corparate companies)
and delivering a bill to a law maker from the people (not payed)

They are well connected people pushing the agenda of people that want things done........the sad part is you dont see the connection..........

The only difference is its OWS man in the wings , instead of say......Bank of Americas......

BOA private concern only concerened with profits
group of people ..............only concerned with the betterment of conditions for people
can i say it any clearer

Different side of the same coin.......the corruption continues under new management.....and the beat goes on.......

Cant talk sense to those who refuse to use any

one side of the coin designs and legislates on behalf of corperate profits,

the other side of the coin designs and legislate on behalf of the people and freedom

see the difference
??????????????

xploder

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

would you be for or against removing corperate person hood?
one thing of note is the bill removing iminity from insider trading for congress
would you support that?

xploder

I cannot help but wonder, before even answering this question, if you have bought into the indoctrination that the Supreme Court made corporations a person. Some will claim it was SCOTUS in Santa Clara County v. Pacific Railroad Co., others will insist that it was the Citizens United ruling, but the truth of the matter is that no court has ever turned corporations into "persons", that was done by Congress, not once, but twice!

Both the United States Code, and the Uniform Commercial Code define corporations as a "person", but what far too many either ignore, or ignorant of is that Congress has also statutorily defined you as a "person" and that has ramifications so far reaching it boggles the mind. By acquiescing to a statutory definition of who you are, you instantly become one who is subject to the whims of Congress and their penchants for regulation. If you are a "person" you do not have unalienable rights, you do not even have inalienable rights because if you are a "person" it is fairly presumed you voluntarily surrendered your rights as inalienable and now all you have is civil rights, which is to say you exist by the kings pleasure.

Everyone wants to be all upset because corporations are a "person" and nary a peep about the fact that individuals are defined the same way. Sigh.

I am not a thing that can be statutorily defined!

I say to government, let corporations have their precious "person-hood", just back the hell away from me and make sure you mind your own goddamned business before getting in mine.

reply to post by XPLodER

you compair lobying for corperate interests (paid by corparate companies) and delivering a bill to a law maker from the people (not payed)

seriously? lol ok...........look..........what you said in your above thread about having a well connected man doing what it takes to get things passed is exactly what they do..........and it would be NO different for people of the OWS movement..........as far as thats concerned , the corruption would still be there and of COURSE this guy would get paid......

Trying to deny any of that is either inexperience in the world or ignorance, or both......

"the people" are a corporation, a "body" with interests, your "insider" you describe is indeed just another lobbyist, pushing an agenda of another special interest group..........you just want to make it sound different because its YOUR special interest........and not Bank of America or US Bank etc. etc.

BOA private concern only concerened with profits group of people ..............only concerned with the betterment of conditions for people can i say it any clearer

Bank of America is concerned with money, OWS's Group of people are concerned with what THEY want as well....it doesnt make it any better just because its people YOU think should be doing it........Perhaps what THEY are pushing isnt what OTHER people want? ever think of that? or does it not matter because its THEIR brand of tyranny?

one side of the coin designs and legislates on behalf of corperate profits, the other side of the coin designs and legislate on behalf of the people and freedom see the difference ??????????????

There is no difference, each side peddles their own brand of injustice.......its just a matter of which side you agree with.....

Apparently you cant see that.....and thats sad......

and also a reason why Im done with the thread, ive proved my point and its pretty concise and pretty clear.......im sorry you cant understand it......

but i have no other way to break it down to any baser of a form for you to grasp........

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

would you be for or against removing corperate person hood?
one thing of note is the bill removing iminity from insider trading for congress
would you support that?

xploder

I cannot help but wonder, before even answering this question, if you have bought into the indoctrination that the Supreme Court made corporations a person. Some will claim it was SCOTUS in Santa Clara County v. Pacific Railroad Co., others will insist that it was the Citizens United ruling, but the truth of the matter is that no court has ever turned corporations into "persons", that was done by Congress, not once, but twice!

Both the United States Code, and the Uniform Commercial Code define corporations as a "person", but what far too many either ignore, or ignorant of is that Congress has also statutorily defined you as a "person" and that has ramifications so far reaching it boggles the mind. By acquiescing to a statutory definition of who you are, you instantly become one who is subject to the whims of Congress and their penchants for regulation. If you are a "person" you do not have unalienable rights, you do not even have inalienable rights because if you are a "person" it is fairly presumed you voluntarily surrendered your rights as inalienable and now all you have is civil rights, which is to say you exist by the kings pleasure.

Everyone wants to be all upset because corporations are a "person" and nary a peep about the fact that individuals are defined the same way. Sigh.

I am not a thing that can be statutorily defined!

I say to government, let corporations have their precious "person-hood", just back the hell away from me and make sure you mind your own goddamned business before getting in mine.

Corporations aren't people, corporation is a group of people engaged in business.

The UCC was first introduced in the 1950's, not sure which version of the American code you

speak of, it use to be updated once a decade, which version do you speak of?

Santa Clara is where the Supreme court held that the fourteenth amendment apply to

corporations, that the groups deserved equal protection a thing which was created to combat

the slavery in the anti federal states.


The Supreme court decision create precedence which will be used by the lower courts to

decide on similar matters which was practiced in the common law were America got its law

form from. It is corruption to give a company special rights under the law and then double up

and protect them like they are a lone man also. If a company of many people gets special rights

and get the rights of a man put on them to what is the point of giving them limited liability, as

the example/ or taxation/ or duty of loyalty/ or duty of care/ or duty of loyalty/ or duty of

obedience. You think they get to be men as a group and individual at the same time but you don't

know law enough to see they get special consideration with the chartering they get in the first

place.

Originally posted by XPLodER
thank you for informing me of those details

While they are details and I could back them up...you take them as fact. I implore you to utilize your resources and verify. Like him or love him, but Ronald Reagan's statement of "trust but verify" can be something applied by any walk of life.

Do not take my word for anything that you read here. Do not take any of the others for what they say, but rather take what they say and actually critically think. Think deep, I understand it is hard. I understand it requires a deep cognitive process -- but just make sure you verify what I say; what anyone else says.

i like you wish to see no change in "the process" i wish to see people engaging the process with people originated templates for concideration by law makers

Then I would have to say you are happy to see the United States not as a Constitutional Republic bur rather as a Representative Democracy. Do you honestly see the difference with those two? Do you understand why we are one and not the other; regardless of the overall sway that some groups portray?

IMHO and i only speak as an individual,
everybody recognises that wall street behaviour is blatent and obvious that is why to start on wall street.
in good time i beleive IMHO that the crimes of the legislature will bring about direct protest on both locations.
the investigation by 60 minutes on "insider trading" will help with the motivation for this protest.

"Everybody" is a strong and broad word. Now, I -- myself have been corrected and/or led to a different path. The actions of Congress are not blatant? Are you serious? Do you know the percentage of people (statistically of course) that give Congress a low number.

They don't poll a certain way to satisfy their need.

a good example is a referendum for our type of democracy we are about to have on MMP or mixed member proportional representation.
everyone can vote to decide what is law concerning our form of representation,
a very complicated form of direct democracy

The action may be direct, but it does not make one a direct democracy. While your "royality" may just be a figure head, it still does not make New Zealand a direct democracy. Here in the United States, structure was put into place that such actions (referrendums), based on State Constitutions and local municipalities were allowed such polititcal power. But the question remains: Can you show me a country (barring the size of the United States) that has been able to implement and maintain a direct democracy!?!

i would like to see the people use their inherent political power to see criminal wall street behaviour corrected.
and legislation put in place to protect people from illegal banking activity

What criminal activity? They have taken advantage of collusion and of laws that allow such behavior. There are some examples of alleged criminality, but overall, corporations, small business and Individuals will work within the confines of the Law -- it would only be logical to stop wasting energy on Wall Street and start redressing the representatives and anyone else -- take the fight and debate to the steps of those that have legislated and created such loopholes and have mowed the grass of the market place to maintain such collusion.

the insider trading bill being templated by OWS seeks to remove politicans who only seek to serve for self interest, goes to removing greedy politicans.

Can you link this bill so I can see it? I know there was one floating around -- as has been for a number of years, but I want to see the bill "templated" by the OWS.

litical process,
empower people to try to engage the political process

piece and light xploder

Such is done with education about the current process. Sorry, I cannot advocate nor support people who have no general idea of civics and cannot even understand how the government is structured and how such structure has been rattled in a number of years.

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller
Santa Clara is where the Supreme court held that the fourteenth amendment apply to corporations, that the groups deserved equal protection a thing which was created to combat the slavery in the anti federal states.

You speak of SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC R. Co. correct? You do understand that this line -- in which people have utilized to be the Supreme Court's blessing of corporate "personhood" is all based on advisory -- rather -- non-binding opinion of that case right?

What is funny is I have seen what JPZ writes and it does not speak kindly to that of corporate "personhood". Both of his assertions on where corporations are defined as "persons" are found exactly where he said. A Supreme Court ruling can only void previous law, not create a person.

You think they get to be men as a group and individual at the same time but you don't know law enough to see they get special consideration with the chartering they get in the first place.

You do know that chartering is achieved at the State level I assume? If such charters are offensive to the People, then the People need to redress their respective State Governments that have created the legal construct for the creation of a corporation.

OWS and the argument that the Supreme Court "opened the door" to corporate personhood is a waste of time considering it is Congress who has validated them as such and that chartering occurs at the State level.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller
Santa Clara is where the Supreme court held that the fourteenth amendment apply to corporations, that the groups deserved equal protection a thing which was created to combat the slavery in the anti federal states.

You speak of SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC R. Co. correct? You do understand that this line -- in which people have utilized to be the Supreme Court's blessing of corporate "personhood" is all based on advisory -- rather -- non-binding opinion of that case right?

What is funny is I have seen what JPZ writes and it does not speak kindly to that of corporate "personhood". Both of his assertions on where corporations are defined as "persons" are found exactly where he said. A Supreme Court ruling can only void previous law, not create a person.

You think they get to be men as a group and individual at the same time but you don't know law enough to see they get special consideration with the chartering they get in the first place.

You do know that chartering is achieved at the State level I assume? If such charters are offensive to the People, then the People need to redress their respective State Governments that have created the legal construct for the creation of a corporation.

OWS and the argument that the Supreme Court "opened the door" to corporate personhood is a waste of time considering it is Congress who has validated them as such and that chartering occurs at the State level.

What you fail to see is that all the rulings after that upheld with legal principle of stare decisis.

Stare Decisis is not just a principle, it is a practice of manners and respect in the courts

that span back centuries, several centuries. The courts conduct shows that dicta can be followed

if the the merits make for sound decision. So the non binding has little to do with what many judges

did to following the suit of the decision. You and the guy you defend didn't go to pre law, I tell you

that much. In stare decisis the (what) is what matters and the business of judicial politics

The Supreme court has everything to do with the corporate personhood, it has to do with process

and function like a subtle thing or water making a new arm on a river. I can read past what is

writing and see that defending the business man is the most important thing to some of you,

I don't expect an advertisement about it many of my friends do it just like you

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller
Santa Clara is where the Supreme court held that the fourteenth amendment apply to corporations, that the groups deserved equal protection a thing which was created to combat the slavery in the anti federal states.

You speak of SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC R. Co. correct? You do understand that this line -- in which people have utilized to be the Supreme Court's blessing of corporate "personhood" is all based on advisory -- rather -- non-binding opinion of that case right?

What is funny is I have seen what JPZ writes and it does not speak kindly to that of corporate "personhood". Both of his assertions on where corporations are defined as "persons" are found exactly where he said. A Supreme Court ruling can only void previous law, not create a person.

You think they get to be men as a group and individual at the same time but you don't know law enough to see they get special consideration with the chartering they get in the first place.

You do know that chartering is achieved at the State level I assume? If such charters are offensive to the People, then the People need to redress their respective State Governments that have created the legal construct for the creation of a corporation.

OWS and the argument that the Supreme Court "opened the door" to corporate personhood is a waste of time considering it is Congress who has validated them as such and that chartering occurs at the State level.

I forgot to say that saying the supreme court can't make people does not make sense legally.

The corporations are made of people who have their god given rights/unalienable rights but

the charter gives the group/agents and owners special consideration for taxes/liabilities and

many benefits. But then in the same hand the lawyers and corrupt judges say that on top of

special consideration they get an individuals rights applied to the whole of the group as a fictions

entity also. You ever bothered to look at the SoPac legal strategy cause it says it all the judge

fell directly in line with the corporate personhood presented by counsel and strategy. The weight

of that decision lies in the motion of trying to avoid paying the state taxes citing the vertical

supremacy of federal statute

reply to post by jacklondonmiller

Corporations aren't people, corporation is a group of people engaged in business.

It is patently absurd that you quoted the entirety of my post only in reply to begin by making perfectly clear you did not understand a damn thing I had just said.

The UCC was first introduced in the 1950's, not sure which version of the American code you speak of, it use to be updated once a decade, which version do you speak of?

United States Code: Title 26 Subtitle F, Chapter 75 Subchapter D, 7343

The term “person” as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.

U.S.C.: Title 26 Subtitle F Chapter 79, 7701

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—

(1) Person

The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.

Uniform Commercial Code: Article I General Provisions

(27) "Person" means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, public corporation, or any other legal or commercial entity.

Santa Clara is where the Supreme court held that the fourteenth amendment apply to corporations, that the groups deserved equal protection a thing which was created to combat the slavery in the anti federal states.

The canard that this Court ruled that corporations were a "person" is also promulgated much about the Santa Clara County ruling. Indeed, the documentary The Corporation insists this is a fact. It is not, however, a fact. It is a legend, a mistake of fact, and a perception that was created by a headnote a court reporter wrote regarding that ruling. The Santa Clara County ruling did not hold that corporations are a person. What was said to that nature was merely dicta, not what was held.

Here is what you are attempting to do: The question of the U.S.C. and U.C.C. seem to be nothing more than misdirection, because without waiting for my reply you go straight away into the argument that it was the SCOTUS that wrought this havoc upon the People. It was not only not the Supreme Court that has done this, it was done by legislatures that consisted of elected officials. Let that last sentence sink in a bit.

By insisting that it was the Supreme Court who declared corporations a "person" you are not only continuing a falsehood, you are willfully ignoring the fact that I made a point to point out, that Congress has statutorily defined you as a "person" too! This, apparently, will not sink in as it seems to have flown right over year head. Are you okay with any legislature statutorily defining you? Do you get the ramifications of this?

It is corruption to give a company special rights under the law and then double up and protect them like they are a lone man also. If a company of many people gets special rights and get the rights of a man put on them to what is the point of giving them limited liability, as the example/ or taxation/ or duty of loyalty/ or duty of care/ or duty of loyalty/ or duty of obedience. You think they get to be men as a group and individual at the same time but you don't

Your hopeless attempt at a straw man argument is dripping with bathos. A charter of incorporation, generally granted by the states and not the federal government, is by definition "special rights" or privileges. "Special rights" are not superior to unalienable rights and have no supremacy over those individuals that assert their unalienable rights. Blah, blah, blah, "special rights", blah blah, blah, look over there, presto magic! Come on!

As long as so many insist on agreeing to this misdirection of blaming a Court filled with lifetime appointed Justices, instead of going after the real culprit, this problem will continue to exist, and you are a big part of that problem. You've made it clear you're not interested in going after Congress, you want people to remain upset about Supreme Court rulings they don't even understand because they've never read them. Meanwhile you and they remain statutorily defined as a "person".

reply to post by jacklondonmiller

What you fail to see is that all the rulings after that upheld with legal principle of stare decisis. Stare Decisis is not just a principle, it is a practice of manners and respect in the courts that span back centuries, several centuries. The courts conduct shows that dicta can be followed

Dear Lord! You are never going to pass the bar muttering that mumbo jumbo. The Santa Clara County ruling was in 1886. However, this is what the Supreme Court held about stare decisis in 1932:

Stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right. ... But in cases involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible, this Court has often overruled its earlier decisions. ... This is strikingly true of cases under the due process clause.

Burnett v. Colorado Oil and Gas Co.

The Supreme Court regularly reverses itself. Don't believe me? Maybe you won't believe the Supreme Court when they make the same claim:

[W]hen convinced of former error, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. In constitutional questions, where correction depends upon amendment, and not upon legislative action, this Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of its constitutional decisions.

Smith v. Allwright

This is most likely why OBE "failed to see" your point, because OBE has a tendency to ignore the bull crap and just stay focused on the facts. Whatever your understanding of the legal principle of stare decisis actually is, it is irrelevant to this argument. Stare decisis has not in anyway altered the American political landscape. Hell, the biggest irony of your assertion is that the Citizens United ruling overturned earlier rulings. How's that for some weak ass stare decisis?

The courts conduct shows that dicta can be followed if the the merits make for sound decision. So the non binding has little to do with what many judges did to following the suit of the decision. You and the guy you defend didn't go to pre law, I tell you that much.

The stupid irony of your last remark is that virtually all of the judges you claim followed non binding dicta and apparently according to you viewed this dicta as holding, or as you would put it, stare decisis, did go to pre-law, then law school, and many even practiced law before becoming judges. You got to smile at that one!

Consider this:

Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of stare decisis et quieta non movere — "to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled." Consider the word "decisis." The word means, literally and legally, the decision. Nor is the doctrine stare dictis; it is not "to stand by or keep to what was said." Nor is the doctrine stare rationibus decidendi — "to keep to the rationes decidendi of past cases." Rather, under the doctrine of stare decisis a case is important only for what it decides — for the "what," not for the "why," and not for the "how." Insofar as precedent is concerned, stare decisis is important only for the decision, for the detailed legal consequence following a detailed set of facts.

United States Internal Revenue Serv. v. Osborne (In re Osborne), 76 F.3d 306, 96-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,185 (9th Cir. 1996)

In stare decisis the (what) is what matters and the business of judicial politics The Supreme court has everything to do with the corporate personhood, it has to do with process and function like a subtle thing or water making a new arm on a river. I can read past what is writing and see that defending the business man is the most important thing to some of you, I don't expect an advertisement about it many of my friends do it just like you

You repeat the blahdy blah you've been indoctrinated with, all the while remaining stubbornly ignorant of the law. It is Congress, and Congress alone that has everything to do with corporate personhood and all your oddly phrased utterances of mystical incantations are nothing more than the mystic dying gasps of that worn out priest class lawyer sect.

Stare decisis? Ignorantia juris non excusat!

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

It seems like you and your friend have a very rudimentary idea of

legal principle. You fail to comprehend that it is perfectly common

to adhere to the dicta of previous cases there is tradition that you seem

to have no idea of which moves courts and creates trends. The dicta was

applied to several other cases where the affirmation gained mass and further

precedence, the (what) of the case. The (what) is that state statute cannot

trump the constitution which did not specified a company as an individual,

however lawyers since long before the forming of the US used definition

of person to make outcomes for companies. The (what) is the law gives

equal protection under the 14th amendment so the supremacy of federal law

in this case eliminated taxation at the state or locale statutory level. The was

a misuse because the republic that was mentioned did allow for state assessment

of taxation with statutory means. Only when corporation was applied with the

personage defense did the side without the idea of business being protected in the name of

constitutional supremacy. Look at the case and the defense and it wont take a genius

to see what the defense argued or the implications. Federal law protected SoPac from

being unfairly taxed in California due to federal statute the result of federal law

as applied to man

reply to post by jacklondonmiller

You fail to comprehend that it is perfectly common to adhere to the dicta of previous cases there is tradition that you seem to have no idea of which moves courts and creates trends.

Please do not insult either OBE, or I, by attempting to link us to legal nonsense. Both OBE and I understand the law and this is why you are struggling to keep up with us and beginning with statements like "What you fail to see...", or "You fail to comprehend...", because all that follows is usually just more legalese mumbo jumbo that in regards to the law is neither here nor there.

"Adhere" is a gross exaggeration of what courts do when accepting dicta as a part of their own legal reasoning. If dicta is relevant to the case at hand and it supports the judge or justice rendering the opinion, then dicta will bu used just the same as "other authorities" will be used. It is not as if The Federalist Papers is in any way binding in case law, but if I may borrow your word usage, the courts regularly adhere to it.

The rest of your blather regarding the 14th Amendment misses the point that this 14th Amendment is hardly an Amendment individuals want to use as a legal strategy, especially on federal matters, (although I have no doubt many lawyers disagree, but have you talked to many people who have had lawyers who were impressed with them lately?), and even many times on a state level the 14th Amendment is more a hindrance than a benefit.

No one, lawfully speaking, needs the 14th Amendment in order to assert their unalienable rights. That is human breathing people I mean. The 14th Amendment is an arrogant piece of crap legislation that in its own disgusting way repealed the 13th Amendment. The 13th Amendment rightfully prohibited slavery, and the 14th Amendment turned right around and invited us all to surrender to slavery.

Not that any lawyer would look at like that. I suppose it takes people with "rudimentary" understandings of legal principles and profound understanding of law to get that.

The most problematic thing about your arguments is that you still insist on dismissing the fact that Congress has defined individuals as a "person", and you refuse to address the big ass problem with that. Hmmmmm....zealous advocate for whom, I wonder?

reply to post by XPLodER


I've been going by the demands they put on their website, and by the talk on their livestreams and in their chatrooms. They are demanding direct democracy, which would change our system of governance. We already have the ability to call our representatives and Senators and tell them what we think. We send letters, faxes, telephone calls, emails. They already hear us. For this reason OWS clearly has an agenda to change things fundamentally, and because I have already researched their advocates, supporters, organizers, and the fact that Soros has a hand in this, and the Democrat Party is staunchly behind them, plus the communists and socialists, it is clear to me that it really is an extension of Obama's Socialist plan to fundamentally change our country.
This is why real Constitutionalists call this bs for what it is. They also call to abolish Capitalism. I have heard them saying it in their open mic sessions.
Just because it is part of the "global" movement to change things doesn't make it right.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


The rule of law that applied to SoPac was federal supremacy over state statutory.

The defense defended on the grounds that evoked the 14th amendment which instantly

would solve the matter, shifting the weight of the decision into a federal question which

is the ultimate jurisdiction of the supreme court exactly why the supreme court took the

case it was a federal question of constitutional importance. Dicta is commonly applied to

the (what) of the matter on hand it is a tradition and a matter of respect in the courts to

do it that way otherwise cases the law would not be consistent and the legal system would

be challenged to the core. Imagine one case outcome being wildly different from the exact

same circumstance and evidence of a similar case a month later. No men would have any

respect of law wavering all over the place which is why the what is respected and affirmed

since before. Stare decisis is not a law, it is a practice or code of conduct this is how I know

you have no legal training, it is like martial arts master bowing regardless of culture or country

of origin.


STARE DECISIS a doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in previous judicial

decisions unless they contravene the ordinary principles of justice.


Key words rules/principles and a federal equation does not contravene with ordinary principle

it is constitutional. Business is given special right upon incorporation

. Business owners seek incorporation for consideration

that is different than the rights retained by an individual, limited liability and taxation