Conservative Justices Sell The Nation to Corps

reply to post by ziggystrange


Thank you Ziggy for finally attempting to temper your own histrionics and make an effort to present arguments as to why you think the ruling is wrong. Would that your arguments avoided the sophistry you have relied upon, perhaps you would have actually made a sound argument. I call your arguments sophistry for many reasons:

1.) You claim yourself to be incorporated but then turn around and assert that you could not, presumably as an individual, match the funds invested in a political campaign that corporations can. Which is it Ziggy, are you an individual or are you incorporated?

Further, the SCOTUS decision made no holding about how much money a corporation could invest in a political campaign nor did it strike down any law regulating the amount of money that could be spent. It struck down Section 441b and by extension Section 203 as being unconstitutional because of the nature of these regulations and that in effect act as prior restraint and have a "chilling effect" on speech.

2.) You continually assert that this ruling is wrong and even before anyone had a chance to rebut your assertions you were busily posting in threads declaring those who hadn't even defended the ruling cowards and "red coats" and all sorts of other names, absolutely certain in your own correctness. Even so, you will qualify my own defense of the ruling as saying that neither one of us can know "with absolute certainty" until the ruling has been tested.

3.) You continually argue that precedents were wiped away. What was wiped away was, the sections mentioned of course, because they were held as unconstitutional, and a previous SCOTUS ruling Austin, which that ruling had overturned two ruling that came before it, one being the Belloti ruling. It is disingenuous to scream that there were "SC precedents", without you yourself acknowledging that the very rulings you are referring to wiped away previous and long held rulings made by SCOTUS.

4.) You continually attempt to frame this ruling as one that granted corporations the ability to "pour unlimited funds" into the political campaigning process but this is just willful deceit coming from a person who has claimed to read the ruling. If you read the ruling you know full well no such privilege was granted to corporations. The ruling kept its focus on the "chilling effect on speech" section 441b had, and the 1st Amendment that clearly prohibits Congress from making any laws doing such a thing.

5.) Congress can, and has, and will no doubt continue to legislate using this ruling as instruction on future legislation. Congress can, and should, attempt to pass an Amendment that would keep foreign investors in the form of corporation from influencing the political process. Indeed, the SCOTUS ruling rebuked Congress for their attempts to widen the berth of their jurisdiction and spoke to the fact that 441b does not limit itself to foreign corporations but seeks to "chill" speech on all corporations foreign and domestic. Had Congress kept 441b to just foreign corporations this ruling would not even have happened.

6.) You claim that 24 States will have to amend or alter their Constitutions because of this ruling but you don't bother to explain why. We are simply left with the choice of taking your word for it, or scouring through all the State Constitutions in an attempt to discern which 24 you are referring to and what in those 24 Constitutions would have to be amended or altered.

7.) You assert that corporations are now in effect "Super Citizens", but fail to explain how this is so. The people still have the ability to petition for revocation of charters, which is an action I have long advocated when faced with corporate malfeasance, and an advocacy you have taken me to task for.

8.) You continually assert that this ruling is not about freedom of speech, constantly making reference to the dissenting opinion, never acknowledging, unlike the dissenting opinion that did, that the entire reasoning of this holding is predicated on the 1st Amendment and the language written into that Amendment. The more you scream that this is not about freedom of speech, the more you reveal your own desires to "chill" speech.

9.) You assert that this is about the upcoming midterm election and the following in 2012, which only demonstrates your profound ignorance as this ruling will have an effect long into the future.

10.) You claim it is a criminal decision made by SCOTUS, which is a common tactic of yours and you have in another thread declared I belong in prison simply for expressing my beliefs! You claim it injures "every American" which again just reveals your own elitist politics as you clearly believe you belong on a pedestal claiming injury for every American, blatantly ignoring those Americans who claim no injury. You would declare them victims anyway, even against their will.

You further claim that I said that injury upon another creates some kind of "exemption" from the protection of rights. I never said anything of the kind, what I said was that rights are so as long as they don't cause injury to another. If an act causes injury to another it is not a right! There are no exemptions involved, no quibbling that this right trumps that right as rights don't trump other rights. Either it is a right or it is not and if it is a right, no exemptions are required. This attempt to change the meaning of what I argued in another thread is perhaps the most vile sophistry of all!

11.) You claim we will now fund our enemies with tax dollars ignoring that this repugnant expenditure of tax dollars has gone on long before this ruling was held. You imply that this ruling allows corrupt Representatives to be even more corrupt, but nothing could be further from the truth. It was the corruption of Congress that led to this ruling. It was the blatant act of ignoring the 1st Amendment and presuming that Congress could pass any legislation they deem necessary that has been reigned in.

12.) You ask if I call this liberty and I say yes I do. I ask in return do you call your constant advocacy of making laws that would "chill" speech liberty?

13.) You make the dubious claim that Alexander Hamilton "would have killed" people over this, apparently ignorant to the fact that Hamilton himself was killed in a duel not over politics but over an insult Hamilton had made about Aaron Burr's honor. Hamilton died in this duel not over a zealous belief in freedom but because he was too stupid to back down and apologize for his imprudent insult.

Further, Hamilton in debate with Thomas Jefferson over creating a strong central government likened the federal government to a corporation!

14.) You suggest I am propagandizing for simply agreeing with the ruling and holding fast and strong that this ruling was about keeping Congress in check not about empowering corporations. This is just more sophistry from you as it is you who is propagandizing, willfully deflecting what was held and speaking to all that wasn't held.

You are free to declare this ruling wrong but most definitely wrong in asserting that I know it is wrong. On the contrary, I know better and your own attempts to declare this ruling criminal are made with no regard to the rule of law or the Constitution that serves as the Supreme Law of the Land.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by dolphinfan
You folks don't get it. The law was unconstitutional, period.

I'm sorry but that sounds about as hollow as it possibly can. I declare that speed limits in my state are unconstitutional. There is nothing in Constitution about limiting the velocity of my vehicle, dammit! I'm also wondering why pr0stitution and gambling are prohibited in most localities, there is nothing against that in the Constitution. Finally, I posit that bribes should be made legal, because Constitution does not prohibit bribes and my giving a bribe is just an exercise of free speech.

Sheesh.

This statement of yours only reveal your own profound ignorance on the Constitution. Speed limits may very well be "unconstitutional" but not because the Constitution forbids, on the contrary, the 9th Amendment makes clear that the States have every right to legislate. If speed limits are indeed unconstitutional, and I am inclined to believe they are, you would be better served by reading your own State Constitution and what that document says or doesn't say on the matter. You would be further served to understand that your own complicit signatures on registration of vehicles and application for license to drive was a willful granting of jurisdiction where none existed before that.

I would also agree that prostitution and gambling are prohibitions on activities that do not provide a victim and as such are dubious laws and should be challenged for their Constitutionality, as well as encouraging juries to nullify any legislation that seeks to prohibit such activities. However, just because the Constitution remains silent on these activities does not make any legislation written prohibiting these acts Constitutional.

Your postulate that bribes should be made legal because the Constitution is silent about them truly explains your profound ignorance on constitutions and the law.

It seems to me that it is those who are in sharp disagreement with the SCOTUS ruling who are the ones who keep insisting that this ruling declared corporations the same as a person.

A ruling only a Republican could love

The SCOTUS ruling in Citizens United vs. the FEC was a breathtaking feat of judicial activism that the New York Times editorial board this morning rightly called a “shameful book-end to Bush v. Gore, ” in which a slightly different conservative 5-4 majority “stopped valid votes from being counted to ensure the election of a conservative president. … Now a similar conservative majority has distorted the political system to ensure that Republican candidates will be at an enormous advantage in future elections.” Viewed that way, the decision was actually worse than judicial activism — it was political activism being practiced by the judiciary, something the founders of this country surely never intended.

The decision was so bad, so enormously destructive to our democracy and so sweeping, it’s almost unimaginable that this is happening in America. The conservatives on the court have essentially declared corporations to be not just “persons” (which is absurd on its face, but rooted in decades of unfortunate precedent,) but rather, “super-persons,” with not the same rights as you and me, but many more. You and I can only marshal our own individual resources to give to a campaign or candidate. Corporations can marshal the resources of potentially hundreds of thousands, or millions, of paying customers, without their consent, and spend that money in unlimited fashion (not the $2,000 you and I are capped at) to try and buy as many politicians as it wants, and then hold its money over those politician’s heads to ensure that they do only what the corporations want. In this scenario, Fox News is not a conservative news outlet, it is the offspring of a “person” named News Corp. And that “person” can utilize its “free speech” rights to inveigh against politicians (Democrats, of course, but also unhelpful Republicans) it doesn’t like. And then the person named News Corp can take the next step, and pour millions of dollars into the election of politicians it does like. In other words, the person named News Corp can now pay Sarah Palin to give voice to its free speech, and then pay to have her elected president of the United States.

The Constitution of the United States DOES NOT recognize a "corporation" as a legal person.

Never did. Never will. No matter how "activist" and "revisionist" the SCOTUS becomes under these radical justices (formerly known as "conservatives", currently known as traitors to their own country).

It took an act of the 1819 Supreme Court to grant corporations "a plethora of rights they had not previously recognized or enjoyed.... The Corporation as a whole was labeled an "artificial person," possessing both individuality and immortality.". We currently call a corporation a person. But only because of an earlier SCOTUS decision. NOT because of what the Framers of the Constitution decided or wanted. In fact, they wanted more protection from the ravages of corporate greed and corruption - having gone through all that BS during a little thing called the American Revolution.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


It is remarkable to me that you would quote a statement I made in a repugnant attempt to group me with those who are declaring corporations are "persons". I have consistently argued they are not and that no law has made them so. More sophistry from those who have no valid arguments to make and must rely upon strategies of deceit and mendacity.

Do you even know which SCOTUS ruling you are referring to in 1819? I doubt it. The 1819 SCOTUS ruling is Dartmouth College v. Woodward and it is a ruling that speaks to the right to contract. You would be well advised to actually read the ruling instead of relying upon articles written by others about that ruling.



[edit on 25-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ziggystrange

 

J - Thank you Ziggy for finally attempting to temper your own histrionics snip I call your arguments sophistry for many reasons:

Z - I'll forgo histrionics as it is a personality disorder.

Z - Sophism has 2 meanings. You say I embody the modern interpretation.

Simplified -

In the modern definition always derogatory, a sophism is a confusing or illogical argument used for deceiving someone. For additional definitions Source Wikipedia - modern usage

Z - I call your arguments sophistry. Some of them, are loosely based on fact. Some not at all. However, the facts they are based on, are not relevant, and, or applicable to the point in question in the context of the specific discussion.

Example:

Z - I Say.

Z - I understand the difference, I'm incorporated. My contention is that this decision, causes injury to the citizens. You can disagree, but until it is tested, neither of us can claim absolute certainty.

Z - After 3 sentences, explanations, and examples from 2 quotes from an article comprised of 6 paragraphs, followed by another paragraph of mine.

I say:

Z -If a Corporation has the ability to pour unlimited funds into a campaign, is that not more than you, or I can do?

You combine the statements to create an illusion of what I claim.

In your words:

J - You claim yourself to be incorporated but then turn around and assert that you could not, presumably as an individual, match the funds invested in a political campaign that corporations can. Which is it Ziggy, are you an individual or are you incorporated?

Z - That is a classical example of sophistry. Combine 2 loosely related concepts, and confabulate a self serving premise.

Z - Declare the statements mutually exclusive, and imply that I'm lying, which you attempt to prove with an irrelevant, but suggestive question.

J - Which is it Ziggy, are you an individual or are you incorporated?

Z - I am an individual that is a principal in a Holding Company that licenses IP, and a principal in related licensee, and other Companies. I own publicly traded stock. My Corporations are privately held. I have few employees.

Z - No contradictions, no histrionics, not sophistry, straight as can be.

Z - I can't afford to contribute, personally, and, or through my companies, anywhere near as much as Microsoft, Google, or Sony. Can you?

Z - The question you crafted, has no bearing on issues posed as problems, and no relevance to the OP. it's a confabulation intended to evade debating the real issue. In favor of demeaning my character, and emotional state.

Z - You proved no deficiency of character, or deception on my part. The statements I made are not histrionic. You fail to prove your point.

All you have done is project your pathology onto me.

Next you tell another story.

J - Further, the SCOTUS decision made no holding about how much money a corporation could invest in a political campaign nor did it strike down any law regulating the amount of money that could be spent.

Z - Here you use 2 deceptive truisms, which imply, that I said, or believe the decision contained language, decisive of how much a corporation can invest? And strikes down any law regulating the amount of money that could be spent

Z - I never said it did. What I said was the decision "causes" things to occur.

Z - Why this? Invest, and Spend, in those 2 sentences?

Z - I'm to believe you lost your vocabulary?
No Jean Paul, every utterance has purpose, every omission is a tactic. You make art of deception.

Z - Your strategy is certain victory by any means, against anyone. It's been tried forever. Always ends with Abe Lincoln's GWB "fool me once" quote.

Z - You close with your, Mantra.

J - It struck down Section 441b and by extension Section 203 as being unconstitutional because of the nature of these regulations and that in effect act as prior restraint and have a "chilling effect" on speech.


Source Wikipedia Link

Note 36
The majority opinion, which was delivered by Justice Kennedy, found that §441b's restrictions on expenditures were invalid and could not be applied to spending like that in the film in question. Kennedy wrote "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."[2] The Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce which had previously held that a Michigan Campaign Finance act that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also overruled the part of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission that upheld BCRA §203's extension of §441b's restrictions on independent corporate expenditures.

The Court found that BCRA §§201 and 311 were valid as applied to the ads for Hillary and to the movie itself.

Z - The language is subtle but significant. Had I responded on your terms, you could refute me with impunity.

Here is the real problem you want to obfuscate. Source wikipedia Decision Effects

Effects

The few noted herein, and any contingent upon them, are essentially nullified, the consequences escalate exponentially.

This decision perverts the Judicial, arrests the Legislative,and shackles the Executive branches.

Thus with one fell swoop, it invalidates the Union, our Country, and the principles under which it was founded.

As an American, I have the right to an opinion under the same protection you lobbied to pervert, and support the perpetuation of, as an instrument of deconstruction.

Here it ends Jean Paul. No more word games. Either debate substance genuinely, or steer clear because I will dissect and expose your maundering, with no regard for your agenda.

I'm not shy, or hesitant to debate you, or anyone else.

The rest of your last post is a loop of the above. I admit I lose my temper.
I'm human, but most often there is good reason.

The reason I'm full of anger and zeal?

Not Sophism. not HPD.

I want my Country back!

A Republic Governed by Representative Democracy

The Union.

The United States of America

The living document in all it's glory.

Ziggy Strange

[edit on 26-1-2010 by ziggystrange]

reply to post by ziggystrange


And once again Ziggy you do nothing but attack, retreat and evade. You boldly state that the word games end here, but all you have done is engage in them. The best you can do to support your arguments is offer an appeal to authority and amusingly the authority you offer is Wikepedia! This is telling in many ways.

First, it explains why you can't answer which 24 states will have to, as you put it, amend or change their constitutions, because this is not knowledge you have, it is merely something you are parroting from what you read in Wikipedia, which is itself merely parroting what that author read in The New York Times. Secondly, the only time you have quoted the actual ruling itself is when you are copying and pasting information you got from Wikipedia, and it leads me to believe, you have not actually read the ruling yourself but have relied upon other sources to tell what was held.

You attempt to characterize my arguments as being "loosely based upon facts" but again these are just claims you do not back up, because you can not back it up. Here is the fact, and for the most part, the primary fact I have relied upon, which is that SCOTUS overturned Austin and struck down as unconstitutional certain laws based upon the 1st Amendment which expressly forbids Congress from making any laws that abridge the freedom of speech. Are you suggesting that this argument is "loosely based on fact"?

You go even further to claim that the facts I base this on are not relevant! They may not be relevant to you Ziggy, but for anyone who cherishes their freedom to speak it is wholly relevant. You, of course, immediately engage in obfuscation, by attempting to evade my direct question of whether you are an individual or a corporation. It is you, however, who has continually argued that corporations are the problem and that corporations will ruin this country and only now do you bother to qualify it with names such as Microsoft, Google and Sony.

Well, this may come as a shock to you Ziggy, but it was not Microsoft, Google or Sony that petitioned the government for a redress of grievances it was a corporation named Citizens United, which is why the case law regarding this is known as Citizens United v. F.E.C., are you suggesting that Citizens United is on the same par as Microsoft, Google and Sony? Are you suggesting because you are incorporated and would never sue to have the unconstitutional laws written that abridge speech that no other corporation should either?

The question I asked you in the my previous post has every bearing on the issue at hand, and is extremely relevant to the O.P. which is a thread titled: Conservative Justices Sell The Nation to Corps., which is ironic since that title itself is nothing but obfuscation intended to deflect away from the actual ruling which struck down legislation that Congress passed that abridged the freedom of speech.

It is even more amusing that you craft a phrase such as "2 deceptive truisms", which again shows you for the prevaricator that you are. What the hell is a deceptive truism Ziggy? A truism quite simply defined is an obvious truth. Are you suggesting I lie by telling the truth? By extension do your lies represent truth? You hope to evade my "truisms" by asserting that the ruling, which held the 1st Amendment as sacrosanct, "causes" things to occur. What "things" you never fully explain, because you don't what "things" will occur and have admitted as such yourself by insisting that neither of us can know until this has been tested.

You continually spend far more time analyzing my own tactics and techniques and discuss this as your arguments than you do actually making arguments, and why? Because you have no argument to make. You are just very angry and want to rant and rave about a ruling that affects you on a gut level and there has been no real thought put into it past your own gut reaction to it.

It is also telling that you call the primary argument I have made in this thread, which is that the SCOTUS held that the 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from making any laws that abridge the freedom of speech as "mantra". I am asking you directly Ziggy, do you think that the 1st Amendment can and should be ignored for any reason? Are there some special circumstances that would render the 1st Amendment not relevant in terms of law made by Congress abridging speech?

You claim that this SCOTUS decision "perverts the Judicial, arrests the Legislative,and shackles the Executive branches.", and once again fail to explain how or why. You are not interested in supporting your accusations just convinced that if you continue to accuse this in itself will be enough to indict and convict. Why do you this? Because you hold no regard for the rule of law and would rather the law operate by your own whims.

You can claim all you want that you will "dissect and expose (my) maundering, at every with no regard for (my) agenda.", as all you do is expose your own agenda. What is that agenda? Let me quote you again:

"I want my Country back!

A Republic Governed by Representative Democracy"

Your Country Ziggy? Have you declared yourself King of this "Representative Democracy"?

This is our country Ziggy, and whats more it is a nation ruled by law, governed by the people who have transferred, (never surrendered), certain limited power to not just elected officials but also to appointed ones, for a limited amount of time. No matter how often and how loudly you scream democracy, the majority is just as bound by the law as is the minority. It is the law, Ziggy, that insists that rights be respected and that government obey and uphold. You have accused SCOTUS of breaking this law, now either make your case or drop the charges, the accusation was made by you and it is incumbent upon you to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is true.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Your postulate that bribes should be made legal because the Constitution is silent about them truly explains your profound ignorance on constitutions and the law.

This is deep! Now, Constitution has nothing on mega corporations buying out candidates of all sorts... Certainly this is the process of "free speech"... Sheesh.

And no, I'm not ignorant and in fact had to read and memorize most of constitution and amendments for my citizenship test. Stop being so full of it.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Your postulate that bribes should be made legal because the Constitution is silent about them truly explains your profound ignorance on constitutions and the law.

This is deep! Now, Constitution has nothing on mega corporations buying out candidates of all sorts... Certainly this is the process of "free speech"... Sheesh.

And no, I'm not ignorant and in fact had to read and memorize most of constitution and amendments for my citizenship test. Stop being so full of it.

Memorization of text does not guarantee understanding that text and the very fact that you revealed you simply memorized the "most of the constitution and amendments for (your) citizenship test" just goes to show what little regard you have for the text itself. This characteristic is further revealed by your insistence of putting quotation marks around free speech.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

M. Zodeaux, you are absolutely correct in your excoriation of Messrs. Strange et. al..

It appears to me that you are one of the few people wha has actually read the ruling, know which portions of the law were repealed and which were not, and, most importantly, understand that, under our Constitution, everyone -- not just people you or I or Mr. Strange may like -- have the freedom to put their money where their mouths are.

I noticed when I was first here back in 2004 that is were usually the people who appealed to emotions rather than to reason who got the most approbation from the hoi polloi. I have recently returned after a long absence and notice that such an approach still succeeds.

“Plus ca çhange, plus c’est la même chose”



[edit on 28-1-2010 by Off_The_Street]

reply to post by Off_The_Street


Hello Mr Off The Street,

Thank you for posting. Your opinion is most welcome.

Not all us agree on this decision.

I believe everyone has the right to an opinion.


Ziggy Strange

Let me just remind many of the conservatives here about where their rights to be angry have gone.

You dont have the right to be angry at the lobbyists. You dont any longer have the right to cry foul that your politicians had been bought out by the corporations. Essentially this ruling gave the corporations shootin' season on the only thread of influence the people in the country had left and now they can by all means petition as many times they want our representitives, and they can bribe as much as they want through the form of support and campaign contributions.

So, please dont come back to ATS here and tell us the US political system is broke, and that the country is heading into a direction against the will of the people. Because what was left of it was given up to the corporations, and you supported it.

Corporations influencing your politicians to vote in policies against your views? Well they are people and they have the right now to freely petition.

Corporations bribing your politicians with millions of dollars to vote a certain way? Well they have the right to unlimited contributions now.

Complaining that problems in this country was due to over-regulation? You dont have that point to complain anymore because essentially the corporations hold all the cards to keeping free reign on our markets now. After all, they are people, and the only laws that apply are criminal.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Let me just remind many of the conservatives here about where their rights to be angry have gone.

You dont have the right to be angry at the lobbyists. You dont any longer have the right to cry foul that your politicians had been bought out by the corporations. Essentially this ruling gave the corporations shootin' season on the only thread of influence the people in the country had left and now they can by all means petition as many times they want our representitives, and they can bribe as much as they want through the form of support and campaign contributions.

So, please dont come back to ATS here and tell us the US political system is broke, and that the country is heading into a direction against the will of the people. Because what was left of it was given up to the corporations, and you supported it.

Corporations influencing your politicians to vote in policies against your views? Well they are people and they have the right now to freely petition.

Corporations bribing your politicians with millions of dollars to vote a certain way? Well they have the right to unlimited contributions now.

Complaining that problems in this country was due to over-regulation? You dont have that point to complain anymore because essentially the corporations hold all the cards to keeping free reign on our markets now. After all, they are people, and the only laws that apply are criminal.

(Sigh) Isn't that just typical of the left? Telling everybody what rights they don't have...yeah right. Thank God we have Constitution to protect those rights instead of someone who goes by the name of Southern Guardian.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Isn't that just typical of the left? Telling everybody what rights they don't have...

Yes so so typical of us telling corporate entities and their foreign investors what rights they dont have in this nation in comparison to american citizens, human beings.

Thank God we have Constitution to protect those rights

Those rights are no longer protected. Its open season for the people of this nation and I'd bet my bottom dollar when the real results come out in afew years from this ruling, people like you who rallied this will be no where to be seen.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by Southern Guardian]

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Isn't that just typical of the left? Telling everybody what rights they don't have...

Yes so so typical of us telling corporate entities and their foreign investors what rights they dont have in this nation in comparison to american citizens, human beings.

Thank God we have Constitution to protect those rights

Those rights are no longer protected. Its open season for the people of this nation and I'd bet my bottom dollar when the real results come out in afew years from this ruling, people like you who rallied this will be no where to be seen.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by Southern Guardian]

Once again it is you declaring rights not protected, it is you telling people what rights they don't have. The ruling was in regards to an American corporation known as Citizens United, but if you sat on the bench and had the majority ruling in your favor you would tell the flesh and blood people who petitioned the government for a redress of grievances, "You don't have the right!"

Be as smug and as proud of that as you want, be as angry as you want, in the end, it is still you declaring what rights other people aren't allowed to have based upon your emotionalism. Further, you are angry because the Supreme Court read the 1st Amendment and said, "Hey, wait a minute here! This Amendment say's that Congress can make no laws....abridging the freedom of speech."

Let's be very clear about this, because this is what you are angry about, that the Supreme Court told Congress the Constitution forbids them from doing this. You know, that very same Constitution you declared does not protect our freedoms of speech from unlawful legislation. That one.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Once again it is you declaring rights not protected, it is you telling people what rights they don't have.

Im not telling american citizens they dont have rights, Im telling corporations they dont deserve the same rights as american citizens. I am also telling you that unlimited campaign funding is a direct threat to our democratic process as money influences, often beyond the consensus of the people.

You argue corporations are made out people, and there for they deserve the same rights as people. Your argument is a broad generalization of what a corporation typically is in this nation. A corporation isnt merely consistent with "american citizens" who have no freedoms. Corporations consist of american citizens who already held those constitutional freedoms individually so there was no justification for the corporation itself to gain the same freedoms. In addition to that, corporations typically consist not just of american citizens but foreign citizens as well, in addition to that many corporations hold foreign shareholders to the extent where some corporations are almost wholly foreign controlled even if some were founded in America. Essentially by giving those rights reserved to the american people, and giving the corporations the right to unlimited spending on campaigning for our representitives, your giving the foreigners the key to influence just like american citizens. Corporations tend to profit, regardless of whether its domestic or foreign. They need not care about preserving this nations represention, and this ruling gave them more reign.

The constitution in its originality applied only to the american citizen. Corporations and their financial interests, foreign influences, conflict with what is deserved of those rights. You dont seem to care about this though, for some reason you feel the corporations are deserving of such rights regardless of how much of a threat it is to the control of this nation and influence by its own citizens.

be as angry as you want,

Oh I care more about this nation than ideology. I am angry, I have real concerns. Its evident the only concern you have shown here is as to whether it works for your own personal ideological views.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


SG, you can backpedal all you want, the truth is I have quoted you precisely and your words entirely, as opposed to your dubious method of editing my words to only quote what you believe relevant, and in doing so, it is inarguable that you have asserted unabashedly that those who agree with the SCOTUS ruling now don't have the right to future complaint.

Complaint is speech and all people regardless of citizenship have the right to speak freely as long as such speech causes no harm to another, outside of self defense or defense of others. It is telling in your attempt to backpedal that you would qualify rights as something that only belong to American Citizens. As if it were some kind of legislation that granted these rights rather than an acknowledgment that rights preexist any government and belong to all people.

The bottom line when it comes to the SCOTUS ruling is that it is wholly irrelevant whether corporations are people or not. You can attempt to put words in my mouth and derail the truth of The Supreme Courts ruling by you continual blather about what a person is or isn't, it is nothing more than fallacious blathering. The First Amendment is clear in its language. What that Amendment states is that Congress shall make no laws...abridging speech.

Given this, and given that Congress most assuredly made a law that in effect placed a "chilling" on speech, then SCOTUS had no choice but to strike those laws down as unconstitutional. All your yammering about American citizens and foreign citizens is just obfuscation intended to deflect the argument away from what it is about. The ruling was made in order to uphold the freedom of speech. That you so willingly declare that those who agree with the ruling have no right, by your decree alone, to complain about future problems only demonstrates what little regard you hold for the 1st Amendment, and no amount of bold letters defining citizens will change that.

You further reveal your own political leanings by continually insisting that SCOTUS gave rights to corporations. Under our Constitutional system of law rights are not granted or given but are unalienable and exist with or without a government, regardless of what Courts say about it, regardless of what Congress says about it and regardless of what a President might say about it. Rights are unalienable and non negotiable.

You make further mistakes of facts, or misinterpretation of law when you state that the Constitution in its originality applied only to the American citizen. This is demonstrably false, and evidenced by the 14th Amendment that attempts to make American Citizens where none existed before that. In the Constitutions originality, there were citizens of each state, and there were people who resided in those states, as well as people who lived in territories, but there was no such thing as an "American citizen".

You have no idea what I care about nor do I believe you really care one way or the other, but your attempt to again put words in my mouth and frame me as some sort of defender of corporatism is false and fallacious. I am a staunch defender of human rights and of the the Bill of Rights and this has been my argument and it will continue to be my argument no matter how desperately you try to make it otherwise.

You amusingly assert that what is evident about me, is that all I care about is my own personal ideological beliefs implying that you care about much more than yours. Yet, it is demonstrable that what you care about is your own ideological beliefs and further demonstrable that you would impose those beliefs on others. You are free to speak how you wish and I will ardently defend that right, you on the other hand, would gleefully silence me in heartbeat.



[edit on 30-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


*Freedom of speech* and unlimitted corporate campaign contributions are totally irrellevant concepts! The first implies you can say anything you want without getting harrassed while the other means corporations can legally bribe politicians all they want.

At the end of the day what has more influence: 250 million voters or fortune 500 companies BUYING future favorable rullings? I think we BOTH KNOW the answer to that!

Who are you trying to kid jean paul zodeaux? People not only have a right to make a BIG DEAL out of this crappy(to put it mild) legislation but it is quite amazing people like you try to vehemently defend it. All I can assume is that you personally stand to gain something while 99.999% of the population get screwed.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

*Freedom of speech* and unlimitted corporate campaign contributions are totally irrellevant concepts! The first implies you can say anything you want without getting harrassed while the other means corporations can legally bribe politicians all they want.

At the end of the day what has more influence: 250 million voters or fortune 500 companies BUYING future favorable rullings? I think we BOTH KNOW the answer to that!

Who are you trying to kid jean paul zodeaux? People not only have a right to make a BIG DEAL out of this crappy(to put it mild) legislation but it is quite amazing people like you try to vehemently defend it. All I can assume is that you personally stand to gain something while 99.999% of the population get screwed.

All I can assume is that you have something to gain by limiting speech. Your blatant disregard for law shows your criminality through and through, so who do you think your kidding?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I am excersing my *freedom of speech* rights to your TWISTED VIEW of what constitutes freedom of speech. Obviously you don't know the difference between freedom of speech and unlimited corporate donations to the political campaign process.

Get it? When you find out what I am talking about, give me a call and I will help you with your learning disabilities. Your views are absolutely pathetic and disgusting.

PS: How come you got so few stars in all your posts?

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Well then why don't you illuminate me and those who actually read the ruling and explain to us what Section 441b actually did, that is, if you can.