U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Halloween!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 01-24-2010, 11:24 AM
 
Location: SARASOTA, FLORIDA
11,502 posts, read 8,174,295 times
Reputation: 4796
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady View Post
You were saying? Because this is what WE have been saying all along. Guess you were too busy trying to inject partisanship.

When it is right is it right and the majority of Americans ( meaning we ) have been telling people like you all along that Obama is a fraud.

It has nothing to do with partisanship at all.

In case you have not notice even many dems have abandoned the sinking Obama ship.

If you took the time to look at the link you will see that the MAJORITY of people agree that this was taking away one of our most important freedoms and now it has been fixed.

You still have freedom to come on CD and post dont you? If it were up to the left wing whacks none of us would be allowed to speak. Something Obama wants to do is limit anything and anyone who is against him.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-24-2010, 12:01 PM
 
19,219 posts, read 6,426,596 times
Reputation: 2337
The 1st Amendment regards natural persons.

The 14th Amendment regards persons of fiction.

A Corporation is a creation of a State, or, Government.

It is Government spawn.

As such, a Corporation is a Government entity.

The Constitution grants Government no rights, only powers.

Natural persons have Constitutional Rights.

Government power stops where Constitutional Rights begin.

The Constitution does not allow Government, or its spawn, power to influence a political election, because that would, especially in the case of the fictitious person of Corporations, constitute a fascist nullification of the Constitution.

Just as the state of Alabama cannot commit money to the favor of any political party or candidate, so also, its spawn (Alabama Corporations) cannot commit money to the favor of any political party or candidate

A Corporation has no right, or privilege, to vote with its pocketbook, because it is a creation of a State, which is also prohibited from so doing.

The kids cannot be granted rights or powers that the parents themselves lack, without becoming juvenile delinquents, or runaways.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2010, 12:31 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,023 posts, read 9,540,110 times
Reputation: 7392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61 View Post
Of course it's valid to you. But again, you ignore the fact that the court overstepped in this decision. Period. Again, I'll let Justice Stevens explain it to you.
"The real issue in this case concerns how, not if, the appellant may finance its electioneering. Citizens United is a wealthy nonprofit corporation that runs a political action committee (PAC) with millions of dollars in assets. Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), it could have used those assets to televise and promote Hillary: The Movie wherever and whenever it wanted to. It also could have spent unrestricted sums to broadcast Hillary at any time other than the 30 days before the last primary election. Neither Citizens United’s nor any other corporation’s speech has been “banned,” ante, at 1. All that the parties dispute is whether Citizens United had a right to use the funds in its general treasury to pay for broadcasts during the 30-day period. The notion that the First Amendment dictates an affirmative answer to that question is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided. Even more misguided is the notion that the Court must rewrite the law relating to campaign expenditures by for- profit corporations and unions to decide this case."


The basic premise underlying the Court’s ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker’s identity, including its “identity” as a corporation. While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law. Nor does it tell us when a corporation may engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose. It does not even resolve the specific question whether Citizens United may be required to finance some of its messages with the money in its PAC. The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.
As for the majority's contention that "Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” WRTL, 551 U. S., at 464. This language provides a sufficient framework for protecting the interests in this case," I'll again direct your attention to the precedent cited in the dissent.
"Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907, ch. 420, 34 Stat. 864. We have unanimously concluded that this “reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process,” FEC v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U. S. 197, 209 (1982) (NRWC), and have accepted the “legislative judgment that the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful regulation,” id., at 209–210."
And now that we've successfully shown where the majority erred, I will return you to the part where the majority overstepped to create new law, without proper legal precedent to do so.
"The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution. Before turning to the question whether to overrule Austin and part of McConnell, it is important to explain why the Court should not be deciding that question.

The first reason is that the question was not properly brought before us. In declaring §203 of BCRA facially unconstitutional on the ground that corporations’ electoral expenditures may not be regulated any more stringently than those of individuals, the majority decides this case on a basis relinquished below, not included in the questions presented to us by the litigants, and argued here only in response to the Court’s invitation. This procedure is unusual and inadvisable for a court. Our colleagues’ suggestion that “we are asked to reconsider Austin and, in effect, McConnell,” ante, at 1, would be more accurate if rephrased to state that “we have asked ourselves” to reconsider those cases."
Ok, so can they "ask themselves" questions that appellants haven't even brought before them? Once again we find that there is precedent against doing so in this case.
"“ ‘It is only in exceptional cases coming here from the federal courts that questions not pressed or passed upon below are reviewed,’ ” Youakim v. Miller, 425 U. S. 231, 234 (1976) (per curiam) (quoting Duignan v. United States, 274 U. S. 195, 200 (1927)), and it is “only in the most exceptional cases” that we will consider issues outside the questions presented, Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465, 481, n. 15 (1976)."
So, did the majority find that this was an "exceptional case" per Youakim or Stone?
" The appellant in this case did not so much as assert an exceptional circumstance, and one searches the majority opinion in vain for the mention of any. That is unsurprising, for none exists."
The court erred. And you have yet to show why Stevens is incorrect in his assessment of where, how and why the majority erred. You just keep coming back with platitudes as if we're all ignorant. It's really offensive.

I don't mean to offend you, but if you find someone holding a different opinion offensive, there's nothing I can do about that.

You and Justice Stevens believe the Court erred; the majority and I do not.

That's the end of that.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2010, 12:40 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,023 posts, read 9,540,110 times
Reputation: 7392
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
The 1st Amendment regards natural persons.

The 14th Amendment regards persons of fiction.

A Corporation is a creation of a State, or, Government.

It is Government spawn.

As such, a Corporation is a Government entity.

The Constitution grants Government no rights, only powers.

Natural persons have Constitutional Rights.

Government power stops where Constitutional Rights begin.

The Constitution does not allow Government, or its spawn, power to influence a political election, because that would, especially in the case of the fictitious person of Corporations, constitute a fascist nullification of the Constitution.

Just as the state of Alabama cannot commit money to the favor of any political party or candidate, so also, its spawn (Alabama Corporations) cannot commit money to the favor of any political party or candidate

A Corporation has no right, or privilege, to vote with its pocketbook, because it is a creation of a State, which is also prohibited from so doing.

The kids cannot be granted rights or powers that the parents themselves lack, without becoming juvenile delinquents, or runaways.


A corporation is not a creation of the state. It is merely licensed by the state. So are you. We all must have an official government number (social security) or we're not an "official" human being.

Does that mean we shouldn't be allowed to vote either? Or contribute money to a campaign or contribute our thoughts to the debate?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2010, 12:53 PM
 
3,288 posts, read 2,648,696 times
Reputation: 812
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
A corporation is not a creation of the state. It is merely licensed by the state. So are you. We all must have an official government number (social security) or we're not an "official" human being.

Does that mean we shouldn't be allowed to vote either? Or contribute money to a campaign or contribute our thoughts to the debate?
Are you saying that corporations should have the right to vote?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2010, 01:07 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,023 posts, read 9,540,110 times
Reputation: 7392
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinkieMcGee View Post
Are you saying that corporations should have the right to vote?

No. Corporations may be legal persons, but they are not individual's and only individuals get to vote in this country.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2010, 01:24 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
3,986 posts, read 2,147,946 times
Reputation: 2759
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soccersupporter View Post
You are correct. I am extremely partisan when it comes to voting out the whole bunch of them. That I will admit to. Do you have a problem with that or do you enjoy the corruption in DC and the fact that Hope and Change really meant more of the same?

I am waiting....

blowoutcongress.com
What is the source of the the corruption?

I consider it far more important to cut off the source than to "throw all the bums out". If we don't get the special interest money out of politics, it will be a pointless exercise to vote them all out because their replacements will be more of the same.

That's why it is so clear that this decision was a huge leap in the wrong direction.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2010, 02:00 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
3,986 posts, read 2,147,946 times
Reputation: 2759
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
And you think crooked politican's weren't selling their votes before M-F was overturned? Do you think corrupt politician's are something new, something that's only come along in the past few years?

The possibility of electing someone who won't do their duty honestly is an inherent risk we take with self-governance. So long as anyone can run for office, which they can, that's going to happen now and again. It's just a fact of life which no law will prevent forever.

The solution to it certainly isn't to restrict the voters access to information.
The vast majority of Americans understand that the problem of politicians on corporate payrolls is much worse today than it has ever been. No, it is not new, but it is most certainly not a "now and again" situation today. And after this ruling, the already muffled and meek voice of the people will go from difficult to impossible to hear over the roar of corporate $$.

McCain Feingold didn't go nearly far enough. We need wholesale reform of the electoral process and not just tweaks and "limits" in order to get the money out of politics.

I'm heartened to see that so many posters DO understand what is going on here and are above being manipulated into repeating nonsense like corporations are people and campaign money is "speech".
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2010, 02:21 PM
 
Location: Midwest
20,076 posts, read 8,446,695 times
Reputation: 4273
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
No. Corporations may be legal persons, but they are not individual's and only individuals get to vote in this country.
Your don't see the contradiction of this?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2010, 02:51 PM
 
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
7,117 posts, read 4,279,133 times
Reputation: 6989
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post

I don't mean to offend you, but if you find someone holding a different opinion offensive, there's nothing I can do about that.

You and Justice Stevens believe the Court erred; the majority and I do not.

That's the end of that.
And once again you prove my point. You are completely incapable of debating this issue at all, let alone supporting your position, so every time I respond to you point by point, you respond with PLATITUDES. Every. Single. Time. All you can do is repeat yourself like a broken record; majority rules, majority rules, majority rules.

Well it may "rule", but that doesn't necessarily mean it ruled right. I have shown you repeatedly where it erred. Your problem is you have so little knowledge of the law that you are incapable of responding with anything else. Platitudes. It is that obnoxious behavior that I find offensive, not the mere difference of opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post

We all must have an official government number (social security) or we're not an "official" human being.
Oh. My. G-d.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top