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

Originally posted by jam321
The SC did their job. Was it a correct decision? Maybe not, but their job is to decide what is constitutional and what is not.

In this case, by a narrow decision, they decided it wasn't.

Now the ball is in Congresses court. They can either give up or use many of the government resources(LAWYERS) to figure out how they can pass a bill that will stand up to the SC scrutiny.

DC and Congress is full of lawyers. IMO, this isn't a daunting task.

As far as the poll, I have to ask how many of those polled truly know what the hell they are talking about.

Did they really do research into the subject to arrive at their decision or are they merely basing their opinion on what they have heard?

Well said.
The Supreme Court did their job.
I'm glad we have 3 branches in the U.S. Government.
It works out well.
------------------------
When people get emotional it clouds their judgement.

thank God u live in a democracy where the wishes of people are law.

Oh, man. This is good, for sure. I had given up hope for a very long time, until I saw this. As if corporate power isn't already ridiculous enough. At least now they won't be getting more. Time to wipe the sweat off my forehead.

[edit on 18-2-2010 by Fangula]

reply to post by David9176


To OP;
What you gonna do about it? Nothing... Thought so. Greed is good, which is what this is. It looks to me like everythings rolling ahead just how 'they' like it.

Common folk have no say, even if its 80% of them. It may help in an argument but unless 'they' like it, it wont make a dent.

Originally posted by Fangula
As if corporate power isn't already ridiculous enough. At least now they won't be getting more. Time to wipe the sweat off my forehead.

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.

As for a Public outcry... The only time one is heard is when 'they' want it to be heard. On gaming forums the best way to calm things down is to simply ignore them.

Runescape and Wow forums for example. If people complain... If their ignored they will be just talking to themselves. If a forum mod/game mod replies it can cause huge uproar since they feel like they have the eyes/ears of a person in command. If they do not reply at all, then people just talk amongst themselves and wait for what happens, instead of feeling like they are in charge and can change it.

These days if they want silence, they just do not report it on the news or other sources. It falls down to sites like this. Best way to deal with noisy people is to simply ignore them. Yelling at a brick wall doesn't help, and all the people in charge know this. Unless its on the news or reported somewhere online no one will know about it. (Unless it directly affects them, but their cries aren't heard).

Originally posted by Aoxoa
As for a Public outcry... The only time one is heard is when 'they' want it to be heard. On gaming forums the best way to calm things down is to simply ignore them.

But professed democracies aren't gaming forums, are they?

...The trick is to follow the rules of engagement. Hint: participating in a poll means absolutely nothing; legal action is required.



- sofi

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
The only problem I have with this is that it does set a dangerous precident if we have judgement via popular opinion in this country.

Popular opinion? I always believe that in America the government is for the people and by the people, no for the corporation and by the corporations.

Did I miss something here?

The constitution can be twisted and interpreted to favor those that pay the most under the table to corrupted entities sitting behind and hiding behind the law.

Its human nature, money talks BS walk, our supreme court is not exempt for corporate manipulation and corruption.

Just look what is happening to our government this days.

That is just like the banker bailout, majority of American's were opposed to it, but when it comes down to big matters the Reps and Dems are always on the same page which is just the opposite of what the people want.
The Rep and Dem thing is a fake show for suckers who buy into it.

Originally posted by crusaderiam

The Rep and Dem thing is a fake show for suckers who buy into it.

Agreed, because corporations run both parties - and the country.

Which is why I think a Constitutional amendment is required to strip corporations of their "personhood."

What's your take / recommendation?

So we can consider the actual issue:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I would like to know when we decided a corporation is a person...also, can my toaster be considered a person?

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
The only problem I have with this is that it does set a dangerous precident if we have judgement via popular opinion in this country.

Popular opinion? I always believe that in America the government is for the people and by the people, no for the corporation and by the corporations.

Did I miss something here?

The constitution can be twisted and interpreted to favor those that pay the most under the table to corrupted entities sitting behind and hiding behind the law.

Its human nature, money talks BS walk, our supreme court is not exempt for corporate manipulation and corruption.

Just look what is happening to our government this days.

The ultimate issue is that the SCOTUS needs to make decisions by technicals, not by what the people think the technicals should be. Popular opinion is quite often wrong and "tarded". The constitution/Bill of Rights is not perfect, but its not bad at all...and we need to stick to it even when popular opinion sways against it.

in saying that...I still see no valid reason why we are seeing a corporation as a person to begin with...they should have no political voice unless they are the press.

Alternatively, if non-entities were not allowed to voice opinions in matters of opinions...would that mean I can no longer have a political bumper sticker on my car?

The more I consider this, the more gray it becomes.

reply to post by SaturnFX


That question has its roots in what a person is classified as, from a national perspective. I am sure you have read all the CT info on how people are property of the Queen of England? Well, that may or may not be true (and enforcable), but it brings out important point on what is the legal relationship of a person.

Corporations register as a "sole entity", using provisions in our legal system (and constitution) to allow for it. I could dig it out....but it is already in this thread on the first or second page.

A corporation being a "person" is not at issue here. What is at issue is how much money can be used to "donate"? How far are we willing to allow it to go before we see it for what it is: an attempt to subvert the constitution?

The issue is that corporations (and all wealthy "individuals") are being told that due to their wealth, they will have a louder voice. This is elitism. It is exactly what the US was founded against, and exactly what 90% of our nation is against. Of course, there are some who are partisans that will "toe the party line" and claim that all sorts of bad things could happen on that slippery slope. "No more youtube videos of me bashing candidate X?"

It is fine that a corporation would be seen as a person. The legalities behind it make it a good way to conduct business. We just need to make sure that it is kept to "1 person = 1 voice". No 1 element is given more input than another. It will already happen to an extent, but this is institutionalizing it as a way of governance.

reply to post by David9176


I want to know where the 20% of folks are who think they got it right because I can't find any.

reply to post by SaturnFX


I agree, but right now corporate power in America is enslaving the people that is also the voters and tax payer for their own personal and financial benefits.

In our nation corporate America rules over the people, so popular opinion no longer counts as we have seen with the laws passed in congress.

Still the only opinion been accepted is exactly the one that people are opposing too the opinion been manufacture, pay for and endorsed by our own congress, supreme court and government.

Sadly, most of you have it worng and the SC has it right - but for all of the wrong reasons! The SC based its decision on existing case law - case law established AFTER the Uniform Commercial Code became the supreme law of the land.

I don't have the exact dates, laws, decisions etc... BUT... sometime in the early 1900s, maybe around 1930-ish, Executive Orders and House Resoultions basically sidelined Common Law in favor of the Uniform Commercial Code and rendered all previous court decisions moot heretofore. This was done in tandem with implementing the Federal Reserve and was designed to view everything under the auspices of commerce and contract. As a result, legal definitions, known better as legalese, changed as did the "normal" definitions used in plain English. On example of this is the definition for "Person". Let's investigate...

Black's Law Dictionary (7th Ed.) (1999) defines "person" as:

1. A human being.
2. An entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being.

There is MUCH MORE to this whole chirade, but in order to not derail the thread, I am focusing on this one aspect. The current legal system is built around this entire construct of commerce and Maritime Admiralty Law and ones ability to enter into contract with another "Person". The SC did not have the luxury to make any other determination regarding this challenge. The problem is not with the SC, per se, but with the entire legal construct that forms the foundation of this nations current legal/political system.

Actually there's nothing wrong with the SCOTUS decision.

Yes. NOTHING WRONG. You heard me.

The decision was correct within the law.

If you want to blame anyone you should be blaming the guys that created the law in the first place.

I agree that corporations shouldn't be allowed to influence government any more than a normal person could.

But the law wasn't right to limit their freedom of speech.

There needs to be a mechanism in place for corporations to publicly lobby. Other than them just throwing tons of money at it.

Heck man! Many of these against this ruling were saying nothing for years as some "organizations" were running their mechine off of tax money and wealthy private contributors.

Organizations that would have otherwise failed, were propped up really more as propaganda mechines.

The left is simply scared now that the "level playing field" idea is out the window and thus so much of thier phoney persona of being on par as a ligit political entitie. You know they same way thier "prophet" college professiors have taken over higher education on eveyones dime, to include tax money, gives them a platform to appear ligit in their leftest dogma.

Corp money still has to compete with the press, the education system, asundry established platforms ect ect.

Vincent Bugliosi, the Prosecutor who took on Charles Manson's organized crime gang... not only wrote a Criminal Indictment of George Bush, but wrote this book
The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President

Which is likewise a depressing read, if you live in america or under the heels of its jackboots.

www.amazon.com...

Originally posted by SaturnFX

...I still see no valid reason why we are seeing a corporation as a person to begin with...they should have no political voice unless they are the press.

Searched this for the first time to answer your question. I had made the assumption that a Constitutional Amendment gave Corporate Entities the status of "personhood." Which meant an 'anti-amendment' would be needed to correct the inequity.

But no. Appears I was wrong - looks like maybe someone bought a judge to establish legal precedent. NOWHERE does the Constitution specifically grant corporations legal status as "persons."

Seems it's all a "Matter of interpretation"!

"As a matter of interpretations of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations.

Time to question that interpretation, get this so-called democracy back on track, methinks.

In the United States, corporations were recognized as having rights to contract, and to have those contracts honored the same as contracts entered into by natural persons, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward. Some mistakenly believe, based upon an Obiter dictum statement in the headnote to the case that corporations were recognized as persons for purposes of the 14th Amendment in an 1886 Supreme Court Case, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 when in fact, the case did not take up the question as to whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to corporations. Some critics of corporate personhood, such as author Thom Hartmann in his book "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," claim that this was an intentional misinterpretation of the case inserted into the Court record by reporter J.C. Bancroft Davis. [1] Bancroft Davis had previously served as president of Newburgh and New York Railway Co.

**

As a matter of interpretations of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations.[citation needed] Opponents of corporate personhood wish to limit these rights to those provided by state constitutions through constitutional amendment.[4] Others argue that corporations should have the protection of the U.S. Constitution, pointing out that they are just organizations of people, and that these people shouldn't be deprived of their human rights when they join with others to act collectively.[5] Though it is argued this is a form of double-representation. People may join together to act collectively while they are simultaneously able to act individually, giving them a greater presence than just individuals. In other words, some argue that a corporation's interests are already covered by all individuals who hold an interest in a corporation, for example, shareholders, employees and customers.

Corporate Personhood Debate