Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
mackfatsoe

SUPREME COURT SUPERTHREAD 2010

Recommended Posts

Supreme_Court_US_2009.jpg

"hey"

 

 

 

I find the workings of the US Supreme Court fascinating. (nh?)

 

It's one of the few arenas of politics where I feel consistent genuine interest and can clearly understand the ramifications of the decisions of these anointed few.

 

There are heroes and villians, petty arguments and personality clashes. What more could you ask for?

 

I do most of my supreme court reading secondhand, ie from Slate.com, which I will probably be mentioning again and again (sorry), mostly by one Dahlia Lithwick, who is fucking awesome, and brilliant.

 

But you guys have suggestions for other political websites you frequent?

 

anyways

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

first of many promised slate plugs,

 

here is an article by lithwick about the recent decision to bar videotaping of the upcoming/ongoing (?) battle over the legality of Prop 8 in California

 

really interesting, and if you voted against Prop 8, this definitely feels like a step in the wrong direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/riki-ott/the-us-supreme-court-sell_b_432050.html

 

The U.S. Supreme Court Sells Out: A Government of, for, and by the Corporations

 

 

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Citizen United v. Federal Elections Commission case sold America down the river. It opens the floodgates to unfettered -- unlimited! -- corporate and union spending on candidate elections by overturning state and federal restrictions on electioneering. This will affect all elections: school board, zoning commissions, state and municipal judges, state representatives, congressional delegates, President.

 

The Supreme Court ruling means Americans can kiss goodbye whatever shred of faith we had left in the electoral process. Forget dissent. Forget debate. Forget reason. Corporate-owned media megaphones will drown out any troublesome voices. Our elected officials will henceforth represent corporations first and people second -- bluntly and boldly -- if they want to serve in "public" office.

 

Our ExxonMobil-funded officials will tell us climate change is good for us as they open America for coal and oil leasing. Our Big Pharma- and Big Insurance-backed congressional delegates will tell us you-don't-really-want-a-public-option in health care reform. Our Monsanto-owned officials will give us growth hormones in milk and GMO diets. Goodbye Republic. Goodbye Democratic Process. Hello Corporate America.

 

Constitutional scholars are calling this is the most tragic assault on our human rights in the 220-plus years of our Republic. How did things come to this?

 

The expansion of corporate rights began over 200 years ago as the anti-corporate fervor from the American Revolution began to fade. The U.S. Supreme Court blurred the distinction between "natural persons," or real living human beings, and "artificial persons" -- corporations -- in 1886 when it conferred the 14th Amendment right of "equal protection of the laws" to an artificial person, a railroad corporation in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Since then, the Supreme Court has handed out other human rights to artificial persons (corporations), including the battery of First Amendment rights leading to Citizens United.

 

There were early attempts to reverse parts, but not all, of the trend to give human rights to corporate persons. Specifically, under First Amendment issues, Congress passed the Tillman Act in 1907 to prohibit corporate expenditures in candidate elections to end an era of big money corruption and usher in campaign finance regulation. However, regulating something allows it to happen to the extent allowed by law and laws can change.

 

Starting in the 1970s, the Supreme Court began to chisel away our election integrity by granting corporations First Amendment rights including: "commercial speech," as in free speech equals money; "political speech," as in unlimited corporate spending for ads to overturn citizen initiatives; "negative speech," as in the right not to speak and disclose harmful contents of products; and "false speech," as in the right to blatantly lie in advertising under the guise of let the buyer beware. "Robust speech" or unlimited corporate spending on elections is just the next chip to fall from our First Amendment protections. It may be the last chip as there's really nothing left to protect from corporate usurpation.

 

When I recently asked a class of fifth graders in Santa Barbara who were the "people" referred to in our Constitution, there was a stunned silence. Finally, one boy jabbed his thumb into his chest and said in an exasperated tone, "WE!" Surely our Founders had only this WE in mind when they drafted our Constitution and Bill of Rights. After all, WE had just rebelled against the monarchy and moneyed corporations of the time. When we first set out on the new adventure of our Republic in 1888, corporations were carefully controlled creatures of state legislatures. They had privileges, not rights. But no more. Powerful corporations burst their legal shackles using a backdoor approach through the Supreme Court to amend the real people's Constitution by judicial fiat. Our democracy has been hijacked by corporations through illegitimate usurpation of rights intended for human persons. It makes no sense to fifth graders that fake persons have the same rights as real people - and it shouldn't make sense to the rest of us either. The United States is no longer a government of, for, and by the real people: human rights are being trumped by fake persons - corporate - rights and power. It's time to change the rules. Our Founders knew that the ultimate defenders of the U.S. Constitution were not the government or the court. The ultimate defenders are WE, the real people. It's time to amend our Constitution through the front door approach spelled out in the Constitution. It's time to make what is obvious to fifth graders the law of our land: People rule, not property! WE need to amend the Constitution to affirm that only human beings have constitutional rights, not artificial persons, not corporations.

 

uhh i think it means our government is now for $ale

 

someone correct me if i'm wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also hearing rumors of John Paul Stevens stepping down.

 

And, yeah it is. Not that it already wasn't. This just makes things easier for the boys up top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also hearing rumors of John Paul Stevens stepping down.

 

 

where did you read/hear that?

 

been reading all about citizens v fec and goddamn is it depressing and scary

 

I hope it isn't as corrosive to our democracy as so many believe it will be

can the majority seriously see this issue through the veil of free speech? fucking insanity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
where did you read/hear that?

 

been reading all about citizens v fec and goddamn is it depressing and scary

 

I hope it isn't as corrosive to our democracy as so many believe it will be

can the majority seriously see this issue through the veil of free speech? fucking insanity

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/us/03stevens.html

 

Yet you can't curse on the radio. Go figure.

 

and now we'll hear from the gentlemen from Shell Oil.

 

LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh oh ok, I thought you were talking breaking news

 

hey christo, any possibility you wanna share your id and pass on statfor?

hmmmmm buddddy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one thing really stood out to me on the campaign finance decision.

 

In the majority opinion they wrote that the protections of the first ammendment extend to corporations.

 

I am aware that this is not the first time constitutional protections have been made available to corporations. However,.................I don't think I know how to exactly say this correctly or exactly clarify my thoughts, but pretty much. When did corporations become so humanized? Why are corporations afforded so many human protections. Specifically the constitution. I mean...fuck I'm not saying it right but basically why and what precedent was set where that began this humanization of corporations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ here's an article about that

 

relevant quote:

"The other basic theory supporting the ruling in Citizens United—the court's claim that, for some purposes, corporations are constitutionally, if not actually, people—comes out of the long history of the development of corporations. But the extension of corporate personhood to campaign speech is a controversial innovation of the conservative justices over the last few decades.

 

Corporations needed some rights usually reserved for people to function as legal entities, so that they could, for instance, make enforceable contracts and sue or be sued. But despite the common cultural personification of corporations—we can easily say "GM was embarrassed today"—they obviously don't and shouldn't have all the rights of people. For example, they don't have the right to vote."

 

it goes on, but I'll spare you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fucking Alito, apparently they didn't clearly define "APOLITICAL Judicuary" in his 'My first SCOTUS Seat' orientation manual.

 

Harvard Law Prof's opinion about the decision from the day before the SOTU speech.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaaand it begins...

 

Supreme Court Ruling Spurs Corporation Run for Congress

First Test of “Corporate Personhood” In Politics

 

Following the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to allow unlimited corporate funding of federal campaigns, Murray Hill Inc. today announced it was filing to run for U.S. Congress and released its first campaign video on Youtube... Murray Hill

“Until now,” Murray Hill Inc. said in a statement, “corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and influence peddling to achieve their goals in Washington. But thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate the middle-man and run for office ourselves.”

 

Murray Hill Inc. is believed to be the first “corporate person” to exercise its constitutional right to run for office. As Supreme Court observer Lyle Denniston wrote in his SCOTUSblog, “If anything, the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission conferred new dignity on corporate “persons,” treating them — under the First Amendment free-speech clause — as the equal of human beings.”

 

Murray Hill Inc. agrees. “The strength of America,” Murray Hill Inc. says, “is in the boardrooms, country clubs and Lear jets of America’s great corporations. We’re saying to Wal-Mart, AIG and Pfizer, if not you, who? If not now, when?”

 

Murray Hill Inc. plans on spending “top dollar” to protect its investment. “It’s our democracy,” Murray Hill Inc. says, “We bought it, we paid for it, and we’re going to keep it.”

 

Murray Hill Inc., a diversifying corporation in the Washington, D.C. area, has long held an interest in politics and sees corporate candidacy as an emerging new market.

 

The campaign’s designated human, Eric Hensal, will help the corporation conform to antiquated “human only” procedures and sign the necessary voter registration and candidacy paperwork. Hensal is excited by this new opportunity. “We want to get in on the ground floor of the democracy market before the whole store is bought by China.”

 

Murray Hill Inc. plans on filing to run in the Republican primary in Maryland’s 8th Congressional District. Campaign Manager William Klein promises an aggressive, historic campaign that “puts people second” or even third.

 

“The business of America is business, as we all know,” Klein says. “But now, it’s the business of democracy too.” Klein plans to use automated robo-calls, “Astroturf” lobbying and computer-generated avatars to get out the vote.

 

Murray Hill Inc. is launching the campaign with a website, Facebook page and Youtube video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think one thing really stood out to me on the campaign finance decision.

 

In the majority opinion they wrote that the protections of the first ammendment extend to corporations.

 

I am aware that this is not the first time constitutional protections have been made available to corporations. However,.................I don't think I know how to exactly say this correctly or exactly clarify my thoughts, but pretty much. When did corporations become so humanized? Why are corporations afforded so many human protections. Specifically the constitution. I mean...fuck I'm not saying it right but basically why and what precedent was set where that began this humanization of corporations.

 

a corporation is nothing more than an agreement among people. the right to contract. why shouldnt an entity that is nothing more than a way of partnering people together not have 'rights?'

 

so you think if you and your friend create a corporation and open a store that anyone acting on behalf of corporation cant speak freely? that you cant post a sign in your window? or anything like that? the government should regulate this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^you're equating money with speech in your analogy, which is the same mistake the supreme court made in coming to this decision.

 

moneytalks.jpg

this coming round of elections should certainly be interesting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, i was specifically talking about speech. i merely chose freedom of speech to illustrate the 'rights' i was talking about for the purpose of making an analogy

 

but as far as money... why in the hell cant a group of individuals who contracted freely and call themselves the ' ______ corporation' give money to whoever the hell they want?

 

the response will be... then special interests will buy the next president, congressmen or senator.

my response:

dont they already? why not repeal the 17th amendment if you are serious about senators getting money from whoever they want to? (which i favor by the way)

why do we have to curb freedom of association and freedom allow title transfer of property? do you also favor limiting these in general or just in this case because you are scared of the 'corporations?'

 

does voting really matter anyway? we elect people to government who want to spend their career's rearranging deck chairs on the sinking titanic. voting is just about a waste of time on the national level. you would probably be more productive picking up the dog shit in your back yard than voting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a corporation is nothing more than an agreement among people. the right to contract. why shouldnt an entity that is nothing more than a way of partnering people together not have 'rights?'

 

A corporation need be no more (but no less) than three people. That's just a fun fact.

 

Now for facts that are less fun.

 

First, let's talk about "free speech".

 

Since the 'Trust Busters' rolled through in the late 19th century, corporate speech has been limited FOR GOOD REASON. Rulings that followed this reasoning include the 'Truth in Advertising' laws you sometimes hear about. Lately, Cherrios had to recall and change a bunch of cereal boxes because they claimed to actually IMPROVE (operative word) heart health. I think now they've complied by saying it 'benefits a heart healthy diet' or some other corporate euphamism designed to convey the same message. Whatever, right? I have no problem parsing the grammar of advertising claims and I feel sorry for those that don't (looking at you compulsive Lotto players), but corporations can obviously only go SO FAR in the claims they make about their product. Not so much in 1890, back then it wasn't just oatmeal, it was a genuine, bonafide, electrified six car MONORAIL! What's that word? OATMEAL!...

 

So sit down with the 'corporate free speech' argument, I can defeat that about a hundered ways without any research. Seriously, I would like to exaggerate and say 'thousands of ways' but, realistically, I bet there are at least a hundred legal precedents establishing limitations on corporate speech relating to advertising claims and probably the manner in which stuff like earnings and losses are reported.

 

Let's move on to 'So, you wanna form a corporation 101'... in America ANY 3 people can form a corporation! AMERICA, FUCK YEAH! However, in America, ANY 3 people can form a corporation. They don't need to be American at all, a guy from China, a guy from North Korea and a guy from Iran can totally form a corporation. It's really just some fees and registration, pay the lawyer, send the forms, baddah bing.

 

Now let's get to the heart of the matter, the ruling. Corporations now enjoy the same rights as ANY INDIVIDUAL PERSON. Person, not "American", just "person". That's the ruling, it was a free speech case which should have been cut and dried (and ruled AGAINST) but the OBVIOUSLY politicized Judiciary ruled favoring Repulicans and 'Corporate America' without considering the true ramifications.

 

*I can cite another case ruled against precedents favoring the Repulicans by what we're farcically calling a 'conservative court' but we all know Cheney and his goons didn't really kidnap or totrture anyone so... moving on...

 

Now let's talk political ramifications... Let's say I'm Bill Gates, richer than God. I decide to run for office and there is NO LIMIT on the amount of my own funds I can dump into my campaign coffers. Usually that act is dressed up with the phrase 'borrowed from themselves'. This, of course, is a shill game, advertising sleight of hand. It's like any person that relies on the 'tip jar'... Cardinal rule, if it's empty it stays empty... so when you show up fpr yous shift you toss in $1.41 and 'prime the pump'. In the world of political campaigns you can do this to the extreme, say dropping $1.4m into the kitty and watching other contributions pile up.

 

So, I'm Bill Gates, I wanna be President. I borrow as much as I need and I do my thing... all good right? My money, I'm an American, I posess all the rights as any other "person" in America... good to go. I can spend/borrow/collect as much money as I want to finance my campaign... I may lose but since the dawn of time usually the party that outspends the other prevails. There are also many examples that go against that rule but, generally it's true.

 

So, now I'm Gill Bates Inc. and I'm those three foreign guys I mentioned earlier who formed a corporation (Really I'm 3 guys who are straw men for the goverments of China, North Korea and Iran but SHHHH!). Lucky for us 3 guys tha we happen to have the combined influence, monetarily, to borrow BILLIONS of dollars from ourselves to dump in our campaign coffers. What am I saying, I mean TRILLIONS! I have every right because as a corporation I enjoy the same rights as any individual person.

 

AND THAT is the story of how Mr. ChIraNorthKorea Inc. became Americas 45 President.

 

 

 

AND IT'S TOTALLY LEGAL!

 

 

 

 

Before you say that this is fantasy talk and general crap, consider the McRib, universally hated, it's on it's 3rd 'comeback' but now it's been elected to the permanent menu. That could just as easly be China and the oval office.

 

This is SO much bigger than whether we torture people (legal, despite the Geneva Conventions) or try them in civil courts (the TRUE place to try individual acts of terrorism) versus holding them indefinately in military prisons.

 

Wrong is wrong, but this is WRONG!

 

Stop telling yourself that this country is ruled by people like you with their trusty rifle 'Bessy' and their sidearm in holster.

 

Wake up to the political reality of, well, REALITY!

 

The Supreme Court has shafted all of us, but most significantly the 'conservatives' (read:Republicans) they are BOUND BY LAW NOT to support, hence the whole apolitical stance and the 3 SEPERATE powers of government...

 

The Supreme Court has undeniably put us face down, ass up. America is doomed. AoD needs to keep his powder dry and his guns clean becuase this absolutely opens the door. Look at Starbucks, look at McDicks, Haliburton, Xe...

 

'et tu Brutus'...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
senators getting money from whoever they want to? (which i favor by the way)

 

The result of corporations giving money to senators, some will ague, is that arms industires pay whole political parties off and encourage aggressive adventurism in foreign policy causing or facilitating war that may then be seen as a security threat to the nation via blowback, as some would argue.

 

Just one facet of free flow of money to senators/parties from private interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, let's talk about "free speech".

 

Since the 'Trust Busters' rolled through in the late 19th century, corporate speech has been limited FOR GOOD REASON. Rulings that followed this reasoning include the 'Truth in Advertising' laws you sometimes hear about. Lately, Cherrios had to recall and change a bunch of cereal boxes because they claimed to actually IMPROVE (operative word) heart health. I think now they've complied by saying it 'benefits a heart healthy diet' or some other corporate euphamism designed to convey the same message. Whatever, right? I have no problem parsing the grammar of advertising claims and I feel sorry for those that don't (looking at you compulsive Lotto players), but corporations can obviously only go SO FAR in the claims they make about their product. Not so much in 1890, back then it wasn't just oatmeal, it was a genuine, bonafide, electrified six car MONORAIL! What's that word? OATMEAL!...

 

you are talking about fraud. not 'free speech.' im in favor of laws against fraud.

even in a world without a government, brand names, competition and general education can defeat someone calling dog meat 'fish' in a store.

who cares?

 

 

So sit down with the 'corporate free speech' argument, I can defeat that about a hundered ways without any research. Seriously, I would like to exaggerate and say 'thousands of ways' but, realistically, I bet there are at least a hundred legal precedents establishing limitations on corporate speech relating to advertising claims and probably the manner in which stuff like earnings and losses are reported.

 

sure, anyone can 'defeat' any argument 100%. take alcohol for example. anyone can make the case that alcohol has bad side effects but do we really want to favor throwing people in jail or fining them for their actions? im not in favor of limiting freedom just because someone else doesn't like what im doing. your argument is the same argument used to pass any number of laws throughout our past present and future. laws defending slavery, laws forbidding blacks from owning guns, alcohol prohibition, drug prohibition, laws against interracial marriage, laws against building a tool shed on a swamp in your back yard (wetland) or any number of laws, rules, regulations or statutes.

 

Now let's get to the heart of the matter, the ruling. Corporations now enjoy the same rights as ANY INDIVIDUAL PERSON. Person, not "American", just "person". That's the ruling, it was a free speech case which should have been cut and dried (and ruled AGAINST) but the OBVIOUSLY politicized Judiciary ruled favoring Repulicans and 'Corporate America' without considering the true ramifications.

 

you are in favor of people pooling their money and doing whatever they want with it. the court ruled on this as well as in a few other areas in this case in question. they basically said...congress... what part of 'congress shall write no law....' do you not understand?

 

if what you are trying to get at is that foreigners who are part of corporations.... are essentially allowed to give money to political groups, i believe you are wrong.

 

i'll quote individualist former judge andrew napolitano:

 

"On Wednesday night, during his State of the Union address, the president attacked this decision by arguing that the ruling permits foreign nationals and foreign corporations to spend money on American campaigns. When he said this, Justice Samuel Alito, who was seated just 15 feet from the president, gently whispered: “That’s not true.” Justice Alito was right. The Supreme Court opinion, which is 183 pages in length, specifically excludes foreign nationals and foreign-owned corporations from its ruling. So the president, the former professor of law at the one of the country’s best law schools, either did not read the opinion, or was misrepresenting it"

 

corporations are still forbidden from donating to individual candidates campaigns. the direct campaign donation of mccain feingold was not challenged in this case, thus the court did not rule on it.

 

judge napolitano explains the case well...

 

"the case arose in the context of a challenge by an advocacy group that produced a 90-minute motion picture called "Hillary: The Movie," a highly critical movie about Hillary Clinton, to a ruling by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The FEC had ruled that in reality the movie was an anti-Hillary political ad. And, since it was financed by an advocacy group, it was banned under the Supreme court's 20- year-old ruling, the one that the Court just invalidated. That movie can now, two years after it was made and eighteen months after Sen. Clinton abandoned her presidential campaign, be distributed and viewed."

 

effectively free speech was banned.

if this happened to a liberal who put out a movie, everyone would be up in arms.

 

 

This is SO much bigger than whether we torture people (legal, despite the Geneva Conventions) or try them in civil courts (the TRUE place to try individual acts of terrorism) versus holding them indefinately in military prisons.

 

Wrong is wrong, but this is WRONG!

 

wow. as i pointed out, you situation cannot exist as foreigners and foreign owned corporations are still forbidden from donating money, and to top it off... you are equating someone giving money to someone being as tyrannical and inhumane as the government suspending the civil rights of people, torturing them, throwing them in a secret prison, without charge and holding them forever.

wow. just wow.

 

Stop telling yourself that this country is ruled by people like you with their trusty rifle 'Bessy' and their sidearm in holster.

 

america is not ruled by people with guns named 'bessy.' america is run by do-gooders like yourself who think they know what is best for everyone and that infringing on freedom is actually freedom. orwell would be proud.

 

The Supreme Court has shafted all of us, but most significantly the 'conservatives' (read:Republicans) they are BOUND BY LAW NOT to support, hence the whole apolitical stance and the 3 SEPERATE powers of government...

 

this just illustrates the idiocy of americans allowing the federal government the right to be sole deciders on what it can and cannot do. if you enter into a contract, do you only allow the other party the right to rule on the authority of the contract? hell no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The result of corporations giving money to senators, some will ague, is that arms industires pay whole political parties off and encourage aggressive adventurism in foreign policy causing or facilitating war that may then be seen as a security threat to the nation via blowback, as some would argue.

 

Just one facet of free flow of money to senators/parties from private interest.

 

i think you quoted me out of context:

 

i said:

"why not repeal the 17th amendment if you are serious about senators getting money from whoever they want to? (which i favor by the way)"

 

i am in favor of repeal of the 17th amendment not senators getting money from whoever they want. the 17th amendment got rid of state legislature election of senators which therefore allowed senators from new jersey to basically campaign in california. if the state legislature stopped electing senators they cannot hold the senator accountable to the states interests as was designed by the founders. they used to be ambassadors from the states to the federal government they are not ambassadors from the federal government to the states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, ok sorry. I understood you out of context, didn't mean that on purpose. And in that case I agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you are talking about fraud. not 'free speech.' im in favor of laws against fraud.

even in a world without a government, brand names, competition and general education can defeat someone calling dog meat 'fish' in a store.

who cares?

 

I see, so fraudulent claims are not actually a form of speech? Please explain further what exactly the 'fraud laws' are regulating.

 

 

 

sure, anyone can 'defeat' any argument 100%. take alcohol for example. anyone can make the case that alcohol has bad side effects but do we really want to favor throwing people in jail or fining them for their actions? im not in favor of limiting freedom just because someone else doesn't like what im doing. your argument is the same argument used to pass any number of laws throughout our past present and future. laws defending slavery, laws forbidding blacks from owning guns, alcohol prohibition, drug prohibition, laws against interracial marriage, laws against building a tool shed on a swamp in your back yard (wetland) or any number of laws, rules, regulations or statutes.

 

Well, that's not entirely true. There are many arguments that simply can't be won if you're on the wrong side of the truth (notice I didn't say 'facts').

 

 

 

you are in favor of people pooling their money and doing whatever they want with it. the court ruled on this as well as in a few other areas in this case in question.

 

I don't remember saying that.

 

they basically said...congress... what part of 'congress shall write no law....' do you not understand?

 

OK, apart from the entire sentence, mostly the part that boggles me, assuming you're facts are correct, is how the fuck these guys in Congress have been writing laws for the last 230 years? Seriously, WTF? Sounds like somebody really dropped the ball on that one, maybe we should form some sort of oversight comittie so they don't make any laws in the future.

 

if what you are trying to get at is that foreigners who are part of corporations.... are essentially allowed to give money to political groups, i believe you are wrong.

 

Nope, didn't say that either...

 

i'll quote individualist former judge andrew napolitano:

 

No need to repeat the quote because it's not what I was getting at but... just in re: It's a good thing no Americans have EVER willfully undeminded our country's interests for something as petty as financial gain or due to some ideological difference. God forbid we finally find a traitor in our midst and then discover he had incorporated. I mean, shit, it might even turn out that it wasn't this individual traitor who betrayed us if it was instead the corporation. That would, of course, limit his liability because THAT'S WHAT A CORPORATION IS. It's a legal way to limit liability.

 

effectively free speech was banned.

if this happened to a liberal who put out a movie, everyone would be up in arms.

 

Uh, no, that wasn't 'free speech' it was political speech, propaganda from an ADVOCACY GROUP. Advocacy groups have not previously been recognized as having individual rights because they are by definition A GROUP. This is why it's OK for your History teacher to wear a crucifix around her neck but not OK for the Catholic church to produce and provide the History books for your local public school system.

 

wow. as i pointed out, you situation cannot exist as foreigners and foreign owned corporations are still forbidden from donating money

 

Yeah, you didn't do that, and what if it's just domestic corporations? That's not a problem? You've got no problem with signs that say stuff like "Welcome to Florida, by Disney" or "You are now entering Kentucky Fried Chicken's state of Kentucky!"?

 

and to top it off... you are equating someone giving money to someone being as tyrannical and inhumane as the government suspending the civil rights of people, torturing them, throwing them in a secret prison, without charge and holding them forever.

wow. just wow.[/qiuote]

 

Yeah, WOW, because I never even mentioned campaign contributions, that's just some crap you pulled up in your failed research to try to obfuscate my real argument that corporations have been granted ALL THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL PERSON. ANYTHING a single person can do is now legal for a corporation to do, things like running for office, gaining property tax exemptions for their office building by claiming it as their primary residence, giving corporations the right to vote in an election (provided their at least 18 years old, of course. The door is wide open.

 

america is not ruled by people with guns named 'bessy.' america is run by do-gooders like yourself who think they know what is best for everyone and that infringing on freedom is actually freedom. orwell would be proud.

 

You obviously don't know who the fuck I am or what I really stand for so QUIT putting words in my mouth and mischaracterizing me to pump up your moronic arguments.

 

this just illustrates the idiocy of americans allowing the federal government the right to be sole deciders on what it can and cannot do.

 

Uh... what? Who do you suggest? (I'm just asking to say something because that sentence makes no sense.)

 

if you enter into a contract, do you only allow the other party the right to rule on the authority of the contract? hell no.

 

Again, what? Do you understand the meaning of the word 'contract'? What the hell does 'the right to rule on the authority of the contract' even mean?

 

Did your brain just step on a duck at the end of your post or are you actually trying to say something? You basically put out nothing but gibberish in these last couple paragraphs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

OK, apart from the entire sentence, mostly the part that boggles me, assuming you're facts are correct, is how the fuck these guys in Congress have been writing laws for the last 230 years?

 

 

i was specifically talking about free speech. the first amendment. the court said 'what part of congress shall write no law' do you not understand?

 

 

Nope, didn't say that either...

 

your whole silly scenario was based around some china/north korea owned conglomerate electing the next president. i'd say you 'did say that.'

 

 

 

It's a good thing no Americans have EVER willfully undeminded our country's interests for something as petty as financial gain or due to some ideological difference. God forbid we finally find a traitor in our midst and then discover he had incorporated. I mean, shit, it might even turn out that it wasn't this individual traitor who betrayed us if it was instead the corporation. That would, of course, limit his liability because THAT'S WHAT A CORPORATION IS. It's a legal way to limit liability.

 

instead of going on some absurd rant of some subjective notion of 'our countries interests.....'

 

why not just say..'I am Smart and I am against the freedom to contract 100% because I do not believe groups of people acting as a group have ANY rights whatsoever' and we could just end this conversation right now.

 

Uh, no, that wasn't 'free speech' it was political speech, propaganda from an ADVOCACY GROUP. Advocacy groups have not previously been recognized as having individual rights because they are by definition A GROUP. This is why it's OK for your History teacher to wear a crucifix around her neck but not OK for the Catholic church to produce and provide the History books for your local public school system.

 

an advocacy group is nothing but a group of individuals who pooled resources and put out a film. why cant they do this? its absurd. do you not understand the right of free individuals to contract? are you really against this? apparently so. your teacher/catholic church analogy doesn't work either. if you were actually trying to prove your point, you would of said...'that is why its ok for an individual to produce religious history books for the public school system, but the catholic church which is a group cannot.' which of course is absolutely false.

 

 

Yeah, you didn't do that, and what if it's just domestic corporations? That's not a problem? You've got no problem with signs that say stuff like "Welcome to Florida, by Disney" or "You are now entering Kentucky Fried Chicken's state of Kentucky!"?

 

no, why the hell would i have a problem with that? if someone owns property on the state line, why CANT someone put up a sign that says that stuff? is it on my property? no. is it damaging my property? no.

no problem there.

 

Yeah, WOW, because I never even mentioned campaign contributions, that's just some crap you pulled up in your failed research to try to obfuscate my real argument that corporations have been granted ALL THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL PERSON. ANYTHING a single person can do is now legal for a corporation to do, things like running for office, gaining property tax exemptions for their office building by claiming it as their primary residence, giving corporations the right to vote in an election (provided their at least 18 years old, of course. The door is wide open.

 

omg omg ! the sky is falling! groups of peoples who contract together have rights? omg!

if a law is passed that says 'dogs have all rights as humans' as a lot of bunny huggers believe, is there going to be a sudden rush of dogs going to take over the country and vote that the humans are dinner?

 

Uh... what? Who do you suggest? (I'm just asking to say something because that sentence makes no sense.)

 

im talking about the supreme court in general. why did we allow the federal government to be the sole decider in what the federal government can do and what it cant do? when you sign a contract do you ONLY allow the other party to interpret the contract?

 

do you need a little wittle history lesson, smart?

back in the day the states formed the federal government. they gave it a few enumerated powers. although its not in the constitution judicial review became the order of the day by judicial activism more or less. soon it was realized that the federal government was the sole decider on what its authority was. its sort of like when police departments do 'internal investigations' and never find anything wrong. dont you see a conflict of interest here? that we allowed the FEDERAL government decide what the FEDERAL government can and cannot do?

 

to combat this jefferson and madison penned the VA and KY resolves of 1798. it said that the states have the right to interpose themselves between the people and the federal government if unconstitutional legislation is being foisted on the population. jefferson went further to say that states have the right to nullify federal laws that were unconstitutional and even went so far as to say secession was legitimate. after all, it formed the US. and before you go into a rant about how corporations were enslaving people, that nullification is only a defense of slavery, etc... note that the new england states NULLIFIED the federal fugitive slave law that compelled people to return runaway slaves under penalty of law.

 

this is a much more properly 'level' playing field.

this essentially happened with the REAL ID. states refused to comply and basically made the executive branch unable to enforce it. states are standing up for 'medical marijuana' and essentially legalizing drugs on a small limited scale in direct violation of federal law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Blow for Free Speech

by John Stossel

 

From the commentary in the mainstream media, I thought there had been a coup d'etat in Washington.

 

The New York Times said what happened "strikes at the heart of democracy."

 

The Washington Post quoted an authority who warned it "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation."

 

No, not the Scott Brown victory. The media were upset because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that forbidding corporations and labor unions to spend money on political speech before elections is unconstitutional. A horrendous section of the abomination known as McCain-Feingold campaign-finance "reform" had bitten the dust. It was long overdue.

 

The case grew out of a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton that Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, planned to show on cable television during the 2008 presidential primary season. The law said that was illegal.

 

The 5-4 majority consisted of the four conservative justices and the swing justice, Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the main opinion. He couldn't have been more clear: "When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. ... The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."

 

He also said, "Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy -- it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people -- political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it."

 

And, "We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers."

 

Of course, the "progressive media" condemned the majority for its judicial activism because the ruling overturned two precedents. I thought progressives favored judicial activism and dumping bad precedents. I also thought they favored free speech. Wrong. (To its credit, the ACLU was on Citizen United's side.)

 

It depends on whose ox is gored.

 

In condemning the decision, the offended progressives engaged in amazing mental contortions. It "was wrong because nothing in the First Amendment dictates that corporations must be treated identically to people," the Post editorialist wrote.

 

I guess the writer is unfamiliar with the obscure opening phrase of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law." And apparently the outraged progressives don't realize that corporations and unions are associations of individual who have rights. Dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens didn't get it, either.

 

The media outrage is almost funny. Under McCain-Feingold, media corporations were exempt from the prohibition -- which suits the Washington Post and New York Times just fine. But people with common sense already knew what Justice Kennedy found it necessary to say: "This differential treatment (between media and nonmedia corporations) cannot be squared with the First Amendment."

 

So now we are being served dire warnings that "corporate money ... may now overwhelm both the contributions of individuals and the faith they may harbor in their democracy." (Are similarly freed wealthy labor unions potted plants?) But the same Post editorial conceded that corporate money was "never lacking in the American political process." So what's the difference?

 

Besides, as John Samples and Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute write: "Before McCain-Feingold, both (corporations and unions) could spend freely on advertising about candidates for federal office. Such spending made up a relatively small part of election-related speech, and no one group dominated ... the political arena."

 

One need not be a fan of big corporations -- which in today's interventionist economy benefit from many government privileges -- to see that restrictions on anyone's speech are dangerous. A government lawyer last year said that even corporate-funded books favoring or opposing candidates could be prohibited under McCain-Feingold. That should scare progressives -- especially since the Federal Election Commission once had an anti-Bush book written by George Soros under scrutiny.

 

It is shameful that progressives are willing to throw free speech under the bus in their devotion to big government.

 

There is a simple way to get corporate money out of politics: get the government out of our lives and economic affairs. If government has no favors to sell, no one will spend money trying to win them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for a 12ozProphet forum account or sign in to comment

You need to be a forum member in order to comment. Forum accounts are separate from shop accounts.

Create an account

Register to become a 12ozProphet forum member.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×