It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In any case, what's your solution? Other than sarcastic mocking of the lemming masses? Let the special interest dominate everyone? I'm pretty sure their tyranny is exponentially worse than your supposition that it's repealing free speech to say get the money out of politics.
Originally posted by Raelsatu
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
If he's so ill-informed & not a genuinely good politician as you've asserted, then here's some advice. Call him. Or write to him. Inquire him on the things you've addressed & do something useful with all that knowledge. Even if he's [partly] wrong on this issue, he's still a better man than the majority of narcissistic greed-singularities plaguing the political system today.
Good-day.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
What makes you think calling or writing that Senator would be useful? Clearly my efforts in this thread have done little to convince you of the problem.
On the contrary, I'm very interested in what you have to say and I'm appreciative of you informing me (us) on some things. Likewise, if you could re-assemble this information and contact Sen. Sanders --- & possibly post the response here --- that would be wonderful.
The real history of today's excessive corporate power starts with a tobacco lawyer appointed to the Supreme Court.
In 1971, Lewis Powell, a mild-mannered, courtly, and shrewd corporate lawyer in Richmond, Virginia, soon to be appointed to the United States Supreme Court, wrote a memorandum to his client, the United States Chamber of Commerce. He outlined a critique and a plan that changed America.
[...]
Powell titled his 1971 memo to the Chamber of Commerce “Attack on American Free Enterprise System.” He explained, “No thoughtful person can question that the American economic system is under broad attack.” In response, corporations must organize and fund a drive to achieve political power through “united action.” Powell emphasized the need for a sustained, multiyear corporate campaign to use an “activist-minded Supreme Court” to shape “social, economic and political change” to the advantage of corporations.
Originally posted by crankyoldman
Sadly Bernie is wrong. What he does not understand, and most people don't is that "persons" are corporations. "Persons" are the only body that can vote, humans cannot vote. In order to be a voter you have to be a corporation - person, and this is established by your birth certificate and a very convoluted process I won't go into. But, the CRANKY OLD MAN is a company. What the justices ruled is that all companies are to be treated the same - they were right.
What Bernie should be sponsoring is a bill that says "humans, occupying a body, are not corporations." I'll leave you to discover what that would mean for the human population.
US Constitution, 14th Amendment
Section 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.
merriam-webster
Person
: human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes
US Constitution, First Amendment
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.
Pay very close attention
US Constitution, First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting.....abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
What does the word "abridging" mean?
merriam-webster
a archaic : deprive b : to reduce in scope : diminish
In order to ban corporations, you would need an amendment(as the constitution expressly prohibits limiting the the right of speech[makes me wonder how constitutional the FCC is?]) that limits the freedom of speech of individuals acting on behalf of corporate entities. Now doesn't that sound appealing? And how easy would such an amendment be used to curtail everyone's freedom of speech?
Originally posted by korathin
The reason why Corporations are ruled as "Person" is because corporations are COMPOSED OF PERSON'S AKA HUMAN EMPLOYEES!
Originally posted by EspyderMan
reply to post by Raelsatu
Whats the deal with Mods editing the posts heavily as they did? If i don't like some info ill skip past it i dont need an mod to filter stuff for me.
Originally posted by Raelsatu
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
If he's so ill-informed & not a genuinely good politician as you've asserted, then here's some advice. Call him. Or write to him. Inquire him on the things you've addressed & do something useful with all that knowledge.