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.
and a bad decision for most of the Americans who can't match corporate donations and buy their representatives.
If the constitution is going to become a piece of paper used for the gain of a few at the expense of many, then it should be ripped up and rewritten.
Think about it, whats the point if ideology doesn't address the problems of the current world.
As far as I understand it, corporations still can't donate to candidates. The change affects the way individuals (anyone of us) donates to politicians. The McCain-Finegold law is not Constitutional, and as predicted by a lot of people back then, it was declared as such by the Supremes. As it was before, individuals had to donate to one of the numerous organizations (such as moveon.org and others), since the new law prohibited individuals from donating directly. In other words, much like giving my money to somebody else so this person could donate it to the politicians.
Don't believe the hype there is nothing that can be done against civil servants that threaten our democracy. Congress and the Prez DO have the power to reverse this tyrannical decision and punish those who made it. If they have the backbone that is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert
"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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert
I am in favor of a constitutional amendment that would overturn this ruling. A corporation is not a sentient being.
It has rights, just as animals have rights, but we don't give animals the right to vote. Animals have been more vital to our survival as a species and civilizations than corporations. We might as well enfranchise animals now to give them a voice in the political process.
As I stated earlier, allowing corporations that can be controlled by foreign and possibly dubious, flesh and blood human beings is a national security threat.
The Congress can take away the right of the SC to judge a case like this. It is within their power as I posted earlier.
Furthermore the Justices that allowed this blatant and intentional attack on our democracy CAN & SHOULD BE IMPEACHED.
Americans it's time to really look at ourselves in the mirror:
If a President can be impeached because of his subordinates uncontrollable libidos but Justices that have de-facto sold America down the proverbial river to Chinese and Mid East slave owne,...., er,..., our global trading partners then we deserve disenfranchisement.
I may have been wrong saying that corporations won't be allowed to donate to political campaigns, because they are. However, a difference is that since corporations are comprised of individuals, these too are protected under the First Amendment like anybody else. But the Supreme's decision also includes for for all to declared or make public moneys donated for political campaign. In my view, this is not a bad idea at all. This way if a crooked corporation donates to a politician and he or she keep the money, everybody knows that the politician is just as crooked. Campaign finance ruling: Can Congress do anything? / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com
I may have been wrong saying that corporations won't be allowed to donate to political campaigns, because they are. However, a difference is that since corporations are comprised of individuals, these too are protected under the First Amendment like anybody else. But the Supreme's decision also includes for for all to declared or make public moneys donated for political campaign. In my view, this is not a bad idea at all. This way if a crooked corporation donates to a politician and he or she keep the money, everybody knows that the politician is just as crooked. Campaign finance ruling: Can Congress do anything? / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com
I agree, this ruling could be a blessing in disguise.
Any politician opposing public campaign finance reform in this climate, would effectively end their elected career.
And we luckily may see the IMPEACHMENT of certain robed individuals that have greatly overstayed their welcome.
Don't believe the hype there is nothing that can be done against civil servants that threaten our democracy. Congress and the Prez DO have the power to reverse this tyrannical decision and punish those who made it. If they have the backbone that is.
There is no justification for impeachment. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it was a bad ruling.
The justices made the correct decision. McCain-Feingold abridged free speech, congress is not allowed to do that.
The jist of the case - the government declared that a political movie about Hillary Clinton violated M-F. The government has no right OR authority to squelch political speech. Period.
The court righted a wrong.
Quote:
And we luckily may see the IMPEACHMENT of certain robed individuals that have greatly overstayed their welcome.
There is no way that will ever happen. Sorry to burst your bubble. The court is on solid legal ground - impeachment is not an option because you disagree with their ruling.
Are you aware that corporations give 100's of millions of dollars to political candidates NOW?
A corporation is a legal construct. If it were entitled to free speech it would also be obliged to speak for itself enough to swear an oath of allegiance. I've never seen that individual subjected to the draft, or pay into SS, or--- hey maybe we should really screw with everyones head and elect sugar daddy exxon mobile for office.
"Hours after the ruling, President Obama responded, saying the court has given "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."
Now I sense a bit of hypocrisy here with the lobbyist statement. So now he's against lobbyists ?
Wasn't one of his promises to remove the lobbyists from Washington ? Yet he turned around and hired them for his administration.
A corporation is a legal construct. If it were entitled to free speech it would also be obliged to speak for itself enough to swear an oath of allegiance. I've never seen that individual subjected to the draft, or pay into SS, or--- hey maybe we should really screw with everyones head and elect sugar daddy exxon mobile for office.
But don't forget that the press also is a corporation. Take the Unions, for example. They have been donating as much as they want, and it's not even their money, but the money collected from individuals. Why should the unions be allowed to use my money to give to whatever politicians they want, instead of allowing me do donate to whichever politician I want? A corporation is comprised of individuals, usually shareholders. As such they should have a much rights as you and me. Now corporations and everyone else should be able to donate, except that these donations must now be made public. This is not a bad thing at all.
Just read the following relating to "527s," which were the result of the McCain-Finegold Unconstitutional rules. These rules just created another source of soft money for politicians by allowing only certain organizations to donate to them. This First Amendment right should cover not only corporations and 727s, but every individual American (the first paragraph says it all). The changes was so unconstitutional that it should not have taken so long to be stricken down by the Supremes: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...527_committees
Finally, a SCOTUS willing to get the government out of the states business.
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.
