Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
"The Constitution provides that justices "shall hold their offices during good behavior" (unless appointed during a Senate recess). The term "good behavior" is well understood to mean Justices may serve for the remainder of their lives, although they can voluntarily resign or retire. A Justice can also be removed by Congressional impeachment and conviction."
I sure as hell say that allowing multi-national corporations which can be owned and controlled by non-citizens with unknown and possibly dubious intent is not only the opposite of good behavior but a serious threat to national security. And where has it been explicitly stated that corporations are American citizens. the answer, nowhere.
"A legal fiction should not be employed to defeat law or result in illegality: it has been always stressed that a legal fiction should not be employed where it would result in the violation of any legal rule or moral injunction. In Sinclair v. Brougham 1914 AC 378 the House of Lords refused to extend the juridical basis of a quasi-contract to a case of an ultra vires borrowing by a limited company, since it would sanction the evasion of the rules of public policy forbidding an ultra vires borrowing by a company. In general, if it appears that a legal fiction is being used to circumvent an existing rule, the courts are entitled to disregard that fiction and look at the real facts. The doctrine of “piercing the corporate veil” is applied under those circumstances."
The members of the SC who voted for the awful ruling are not acting in good faith OR behavior toward natural persons who are American citizens and our treasured democracy.
Thus they are grounds for their removal.
"A Justice can also be removed by Congressional impeachment and conviction."
Congress and the President have a duty to protect private citizens who don't have the resources of multi-national corporations from directly taking over the state apparatus.
Congress also has recourse that the SC has acted outside its jurisdiction.
"Congress could pass legislation that restricts the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other federal courts over certain topics and cases: this is suggested by language in Section 2 of Article Three, where the appellate jurisdiction is granted "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."."
Fact of the matter is no branch of government is above our beloved Constitution and it is up to concerned citizens to force our elected officials to get off their behinds and act in the interests of their non fictitious natural citizen-persons.
There IS something that can be done about justices. But it has to come from natural person -citizens being aware of their rights and pressuring OUR public servants in fighting for and protecting them.
With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.
This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington -- while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates.
That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.
I feel the need to pray for my country. We cannot afford to be dragged down further into corruption.
In any case, you should research things before you post. The Supreme Court has indeed ruled that corporations have the same standing as individuals many, many times, that article from wikipedia not withstanding. If you're really interested, here's just a partial list of precedents the Court used to make the ruling in question, taken directly from the slip opinion:
"The Court has recognized that First Amendment protec-tion extends to corporations. Bellotti, supra, at 778, n. 14 (citing Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro, 431 U. S. 85 (1977); Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U. S. 448 (1976); Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U. S. 922 (1975); Southeast-ern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U. S. 546 (1975); Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469 (1975); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241 (1974); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U. S. 713 (1971) (per curiam); Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U. S. 374 (1967); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254; Kingsley Int’l Pictures Corp. v. Regents of Univ. of N. Y., 360 U. S. 684 (1959); Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495 (1952)); see, e.g., Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC,
26
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N
Opinion of the Court
520 U. S. 180 (1997); Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U. S. 727 (1996); Turner, 512
U. S. 622; Simon & Schuster, 502 U. S. 105; Sable Com-munications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U. S. 115 (1989); Florida Star v. B. J. F., 491 U. S. 524 (1989); Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U. S. 767 (1986); Land-mark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U. S. 829 (1978); Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U. S. 50 (1976); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323 (1974); Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn., Inc. v. Bresler, 398 U. S. 6 (1970).The Court has recognized that First Amendment protec-tion extends to corporations. Bellotti, supra, at 778, n. 14 (citing Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro, 431 U. S. 85 (1977); Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U. S. 448 (1976); Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U. S. 922 (1975); Southeast-ern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U. S. 546 (1975); Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469 (1975); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241 (1974); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U. S. 713 (1971) (per curiam); Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U. S. 374 (1967); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254; Kingsley Int’l Pictures Corp. v. Regents of Univ. of N. Y., 360 U. S. 684 (1959); Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495 (1952)); see, e.g., Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC,26"
Any further questions?
And, by the way, the opinion you quoted in your post makes reference to the House of Lords. We don't have a House of Lords, so that quotation is most likely British, which has no bearing on our Constitution or the Court's ruling.
The Supreme Court's judgments aren't above the law. They are the law. Unless you can get a constitutional amendment in to override those judgments. This was settled 200 years ago in Marbury v Madison.
In any case, you should research things before you post. The Supreme Court has indeed ruled that corporations have the same standing as individuals many, many times, that article from wikipedia not withstanding. If you're really interested, here's just a partial list of precedents the Court used to make the ruling in question, taken directly from the slip opinion:
"The Court has recognized that First Amendment protec-tion extends to corporations. Bellotti, supra, at 778, n. 14 (citing Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro, 431 U. S. 85 (1977); Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U. S. 448 (1976); Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U. S. 922 (1975); Southeast-ern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U. S. 546 (1975); Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469 (1975); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241 (1974); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U. S. 713 (1971) (per curiam); Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U. S. 374 (1967); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254; Kingsley Int’l Pictures Corp. v. Regents of Univ. of N. Y., 360 U. S. 684 (1959); Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495 (1952)); see, e.g., Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC,
26
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N
Opinion of the Court
520 U. S. 180 (1997); Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U. S. 727 (1996); Turner, 512
U. S. 622; Simon & Schuster, 502 U. S. 105; Sable Com-munications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U. S. 115 (1989); Florida Star v. B. J. F., 491 U. S. 524 (1989); Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U. S. 767 (1986); Land-mark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U. S. 829 (1978); Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U. S. 50 (1976); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323 (1974); Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn., Inc. v. Bresler, 398 U. S. 6 (1970).The Court has recognized that First Amendment protec-tion extends to corporations. Bellotti, supra, at 778, n. 14 (citing Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro, 431 U. S. 85 (1977); Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U. S. 448 (1976); Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U. S. 922 (1975); Southeast-ern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U. S. 546 (1975); Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469 (1975); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241 (1974); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U. S. 713 (1971) (per curiam); Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U. S. 374 (1967); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254; Kingsley Int’l Pictures Corp. v. Regents of Univ. of N. Y., 360 U. S. 684 (1959); Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495 (1952)); see, e.g., Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC,26"
Any further questions?
And, by the way, the opinion you quoted in your post makes reference to the House of Lords. We don't have a House of Lords, so that quotation is most likely British, which has no bearing on our Constitution or the Court's ruling.
I don't care about precedents. This is just wrong on so many levels.
I don't care about precedents. This is just wrong on so many levels.
Get your local representative and senators to work on a constitutional amendment to override the ruling. Until they succeed, what the court says on this subject is the law.
Get your local representative and senators to work on a constitutional amendment to override the ruling. Until they succeed, what the court says on this subject is the law.
It doesn't require a Constitutional amendment. All that's necessary is a more carefully crafted law, one which addresses Constitutional issues, and that's already being talked about in both Houses of Congress.
"The Constitution provides that justices "shall hold their offices during good behavior" (unless appointed during a Senate recess). The term "good behavior" is well understood to mean Justices may serve for the remainder of their lives, although they can voluntarily resign or retire. A Justice can also be removed by Congressional impeachment and conviction."
I sure as hell say that allowing multi-national corporations which can be owned and controlled by non-citizens with unknown and possibly dubious intent is not only the opposite of good behavior but a serious threat to national security. And where has it been explicitly stated that corporations are American citizens. the answer, nowhere.
"A legal fiction should not be employed to defeat law or result in illegality: it has been always stressed that a legal fiction should not be employed where it would result in the violation of any legal rule or moral injunction. In Sinclair v. Brougham 1914 AC 378 the House of Lords refused to extend the juridical basis of a quasi-contract to a case of an ultra vires borrowing by a limited company, since it would sanction the evasion of the rules of public policy forbidding an ultra vires borrowing by a company. In general, if it appears that a legal fiction is being used to circumvent an existing rule, the courts are entitled to disregard that fiction and look at the real facts. The doctrine of “piercing the corporate veil” is applied under those circumstances."
The members of the SC who voted for the awful ruling are not acting in good faith OR behavior toward natural persons who are American citizens and our treasured democracy.
Thus they are grounds for their removal.
"A Justice can also be removed by Congressional impeachment and conviction."
Congress and the President have a duty to protect private citizens who don't have the resources of multi-national corporations from directly taking over the state apparatus.
Congress also has recourse that the SC has acted outside its jurisdiction.
"Congress could pass legislation that restricts the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other federal courts over certain topics and cases: this is suggested by language in Section 2 of Article Three, where the appellate jurisdiction is granted "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."."
Fact of the matter is no branch of government is above our beloved Constitution and it is up to concerned citizens to force our elected officials to get off their behinds and act in the interests of their non fictitious natural citizen-persons.
There IS something that can be done about justices. But it has to come from natural person -citizens being aware of their rights and pressuring OUR public servants in fighting for and protecting them.
It doesn't require a Constitutional amendment. All that's necessary is a more carefully crafted law, one which addresses Constitutional issues, and that's already being talked about in both Houses of Congress.
I expect the GOP, fresh off the Scott Brown victory, won't be in a mood to deal. The Democratic Senate majority is no longer filibuster-proof. John McCain, who may be in for a stiff primary challenge, is unlikely to be as as accommodating as he was when he co-sponsored McCain-Feingold. He was also outraised by Obama by roughly $300m in 2008.
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 register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
