Now we have to go after the Supreme Court.
What is going on with these courts? Now that we have more or less gained some kind of control over the Congress. We get blindsided my what I deem to be a corrupted Supreme Court.
Have the corporate wolf packs gotten to the Supreme Court? With the decision that was handed down recently that corporations can give money to political campaigns, it would seem that they got to some of them. These people are suppose to interpret the Constitution.
I don't think that the Founding Fathers ever wrote anything like this decision into the Constitution, I don't care how it's interpreted. The decision has given the corporate establishment an open door to steal elections by buying votes and taking away our right of choice, our right to have our votes counted. They have given corporations the keys to our house! They have given them the right to come into our homes and do whatever they want ! It has opened the door to a propaganda machine that can mesmerize the voters into making decisions without much debate. This is very dangerous, and anti-Democratic. The Supreme Court is wrong and we have to find a way to stop them from making unconstitutional decisions like the one they have just made.
We must strike down this Supreme Court and their decisions, We need to establish more than ever, Term limits and the Line item veto. I would even say that we could Amend the Constitution and set term limits for the Supreme Court.
Within the checks and balances theory , the Supreme Court is the only branch of governmnet that cannot be checked by the American people. That kind of power should not belong to any one government organization. That can be very dangerous as it is evidenced by their most resent undemocratic decision.
Come on people, lets show them whom they are dealing with!
What say you America?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Bill James on -
You are absolutely right! Now Corporations can buy our government!!!
-
Permalink Reply by tony santurio on -
So what are we going to do? We can't keep getting blindsided all the time. There must be some way to check this abuse of the Constitution and the first Ammendment. We need to launch and investigation of the Supreme court. It just doesn't look right, on the heels of the Democrats getting a shellacking in Massachussetts!
-
Permalink Reply by Daryll Conrad on -
This is an unbelievable decision. There are a lot of our corporations who are owned by countries who are not exactly too friendly to us. This gives those countries such as China and several mid-east countries the perfect opportunity to influence American elections. What were these justices thinking! I agree, something must be done. It shall be very hard to get this decision changed unless we can get someone in the Presidency who will appoint the right kind of man to the court when it is time. At least though we will be able to see what candidates these companies stand behind due to the disclosure part of this decision. We definitely need to keep a close eye out when it's campaign time.
-
Permalink Reply by Charles Hutchinson on -
Daryll,
It is still illegal for foreign owned persons and companies to participate in our elections. This ruling had no bearing on that law.
-
Permalink Reply by Gregg Olsen on -
Free speech is the single biggest check against dictatorial government power. The U.S. Supreme Court just agreed.
-
Permalink Reply by tony santurio on
-
Agreed to what ? The purchasing of votes,and idealogy? I'm not sure what your answer means. Free speech belongs to the American people not to corporations. I think "freedom of speech" is being misinterpretd and abused. The politicians run for offiice to represent the People of The United States, not corporations. Money should not be the deciding factor in electing our representatives. The people's vote is the only deciding factor.
-
Permalink Reply by Smitty on
-
First let me say that I don't agree with this decision, but not for the same reasons as expressed. Several questions arise from this decision. The decision by itself is not the issue, it is the procedual aspect that is the issue. However, I will address those issues that were expressed.
What is a Corporation? Each State has their own Statutes concerning the particulars that govern those businesses. But there is Congressional legislation that Governs the States because of Inter-State Commerce. Years ago, before there were Corporations all businesses were either solely owned, a partnership or groups of investors. Because of the personal liabilites they were exposed to, the ability to sue those individuals and the possibility of affecting the wives, relatives and children through no fault of their own, Corporations were born. This seperated any personal liability away from the Officers of the Corporation and onto the Corporation (person) itself. That's right, a Corporation is considered a Person by Law. And as stupid as this sounds, they, the Corporation (person) has a First Amendment Right of free speech.
Foriegn influence is nothing new and being exposed during the Clinton (Mrs.) campaign. Sorry I don't remember the name of the Asian gentleman the was involved. The Saudi connection thru 2nd parties. and there is more.
Corporations (for profit and not fot profit), Unions (teachers, AFO-CIL, Teamsters) Individuals (Bill Gates, Warren Buffet). There are suppose to be limits on individual contributions, right. So how does a songstress, actress, you know Barbara S. hold a fundraiser for Obama at $30,000 a plate. these are indiviuals donating to a non-profit or Bruce Sring.... holding political benifits. This is the McCain and Feingold 527 mess. At least now we get to see who is donating to whom.
The idea of term limits. I'm not going to respond.
The reason why I don't agree with this and other decisions, is simply this. The Justices are not to interpret the Constitution but enforce it. But to further my position, I will explain by example. The ACLU files action against the Boy Souts of America in the 9th District Court of Appeals (california)
The Boy Scouts are Non-Profit and considered by some to be a Christian organization, but the Families of the boys are Tax-payers. As indiviuals they they have the right of speech, they also have the right of religious expression and the right to assemble. That was the amunition that was used by the ACLU. The seperation of Church and State. The Court agrees with ACLU. The anti establishment clause does not read that religion is to be taken out of the Public Square, just the opposite, free excercise of....... Evenually overturned by the Supreme Court. repsectfully Smitty
-
Permalink Reply by tony santurio on
-
Well then if the corporations are to be treated as people, then shall they also be taxed in the same manner. You give it free speech, Corporate tax cuts, plus the lobbyist groups. What political clout do we have to debate with these Corporations in the political arena? Our Representatives cease to work for us and become an agent of the Corporation. That I beleive is Unconstitutional. unless we can organize as a Corporation , have our own lobbyist. Or If we do not agree with a certain idealogy of any Coorporation , suspect fraud, or abuse. We can aleays bouycott their products. One thing we must remember. We hold the purse strings. We can make or break a Corporation and a Candidate.
-
Permalink Reply by Smitty on
-
They are taxed, but they do get tax credits like families get child tax credits. And capital gains tax, like we get a capital gains tax credit when we sell our homes for a profit (one time deal) for Example: If you are the Officer of a S-Corporation, that Corporations Net Income is now your household income and you pay a progressive income tax based on that amount on your Schedule K. Depending on the State your headquartered you get to pay these gems, work comp, outragous insurance premiums. And if the progressives in Washington get there way and you decide to hire someone for your gift shop, you get to pay $5.000.00 a year for their healthcare. Think about it. Once again, I disagree with the Courts as a matter of the procedual context of the Constitution. The Corporations aren't the problem. Pass legislation to stop all private contributions and use public financing which would control the rediculous amount of money being spent and outside influence based on ideology.
-
Permalink Reply by tony santurio on
-
Thinking about what you said on my business having to spend $5000.00 on an employee for his health Insurance . Would not that be part of a compensation package, Also if you wanted to attract the best workers wouldn't that be a great incentive? Remember back in the 60's and early 70's i believe we had something like that. Now if the government tells me that it's mandatory I buy their Insurance then I have a problem with that. I'm worried about the corporations because they can control the passage of a bill by controlling the money these slimy politicians get to be re elected again. I still say a way around this is Term Limits. Plus I think that the Supreme Court should have term limits also .
-
Permalink Reply by TheJughead on
-
Smitty,
"That's right, a Corporation is considered a Person by Law."
This is incorrect. Depending on how the Supreme Court views the 14th Amendment wording has influenced this decision. The missing word in "natural" persons, but it had been interpreted this way for many years and many courts.
This court is supposedly made up of constructionist, but this ruling shows that this is a myth. The Declaration of Independence is explicit that:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
The power comes from our God given right to choose our government. The Constitution is an extension and explicit ruling that this right is our and ours alone. It cannot be given to a non-person.
-
Permalink Reply by Smitty on
-
JH. You miss my point. I did't say the arguement was right or wrong. I didn't say I approve, just the opposite. I was explaining the arguement proposed to the Courts I also stated, "As Stupid as this Sounds" And I am not incorrect. a Corporation is considered a Person by Law.
The is not a Constitutional issue on it's face (PRIMA FACIA) it is a law to protect the people of the Corporation by the Federal and State Governments. Whether you agree or disagree, it exsists.
© 2010 Created by Eric Odom.
