Call For Immediate Arrest Of 5 Supreme Court Justices For Treason

CALL FOR IMMEDIATE ARREST OF 5 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES FOR TREASON

www.veteranstoday.com

Five members of the Supreme Court declared that a “corporation” is a person, not a “regular person” but one above all natural laws, subject to no God, no moral code but one with unlimited power over our lives, a power awarded by judges who seem themselves as grand inquisitors in an meant to hunt down all hertics who fail to serve their god, the god of money.

(visit the link for the full news article)




Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 23 Jan 2010 by Hellmutt]

I have posted this mainly because I dont understand how a judge can override a decision made by government. Does this happen in the states a lot? and is it legal? and is it really treason committed by these judges, and can they really get put away for what i see as being a crime? Not being in the US, i do find some some things that go on in the legal system there very confusing, i guess i should study up on it more, but would that make any difference, especially as they seem to change it all the time, and a lot of it by judges, I mean are they elected or appointed?

Sorry if this is in the wrong place, i didn't want people to miss it in case it has significance to it. and i did look for it on ATS but couldn't find any reference to it anywhere. thanks.

www.veteranstoday.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

isnt that this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Supreme court IMHO is a failure of the American system...

Everyone else is elected, but them...they are appointed and can stick around forever...

Every good system has a loop hole to exploit, a part that was left out, a mistake in the wood works...

Ours?

Lobbyists and The Supreme Court





[edit on 23-1-2010 by mopusvindictus]

I found this and think it is relevant to my questions

They need to be summarily executed in front of a baying mob.

I know its harsh and extra judicial but they are the cancer destroying us.

This decision is nothing short of a betrayal of the publics trust.Sold out to the very bastards who have already buried this once proud land with their greed and corruption.Another catastrophic system failure here in the states.

reply to post by neo5842


5 times in that video they declare that America is a democracy. 5 times!! This isn't ancient Athens, is it? This makes me sick.
The supreme court screwed up. This is not good for AMerica or the people but it won't hurt our "democracy" because we're a Republic!!!
Do you seriously think the corporations can actually get MORE power than they have already? The people have no voice as it is, I don;t see where this changes anything. It's more like a rubber stamp ok'ing everything we've already done.
Foreign powers can't run our government because of this ruling, you still have to be an American citizen to hold office.
In practical terms I don't think this will actually change much at all.

and is it really treason committed by these judges, and can they really get put away for what i see as being a crime?

This is not treason. They are heroes.
Why?
Because they just stripped election funding from government control.
They gave more power to Corporations and Unions.
Corporations and Unions are made out of people.

This is more power to the people. And that is a good thing.

I find it confusing that people would rather have government control on election funding. I say let the people, fund it. And it is the people who make up the corporations and unions.

This is one step ahead toward a more perfect Union.

The courts have been over turning all kinds of election results and government decisions since the beginning of time. Their time that is. This is no different. The difference now is going to be that corporations can play the same games as unions. From teachers to drivers and anything in-between they have been backing their horse. Why are businesses different? Unions get favorable decisions all the time from the politicians they purchase, why not corporations? Will the politicians businesses buy be more corrupt? I don’t think so. It’s all part of the grand game.

reply to post by wiredamerican


Where did you get that script from now I'm confused

Maybe we should make Dick Cheney president of Haliburton again and then he can run the USA proper how it should be run.

reply to post by neo5842


The 3 branches of the US gov. are supposed to be co-equal. The court is there to ensure that the congress does not violate the constitution - the document that is above them all.
Simply this, the congress wrote a law that violated the constitution and the court called it. The law was very badly written. The court has in effect restored free speech. If congress and the people want such a law it must be redone in a way that does not violate the constitution, or pass an amendment.

reply to post by neo5842


Early on in American jurisprudence a seminal case known as Marbury v. Madison established the precedent of judicial review. What that means is that the Supreme Court reasoned it was their responsibility to strike down any piece of legislation not consistent with the Constitution for the United States of America. That Constitution serves as the Supreme Law of the Land and all subsequent legislation must hold Constitutional muster in order to have an validity.

The current ruling from Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission held that Section 441b of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform was unconstitutional because this section attempted to suppress speech when the First Amendment makes clear that Congress has no authority to make any laws abridging speech.

SCOTUS did their jobs and struck down a law repugnant to the Constitution itself, and upheld as supreme the First Amendment and the right to speech.



[edit on 23-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by neo5842

 

5 times in that video they declare that America is a democracy. 5 times!!

Republic: AE
Democracy: BE

Don't blame the SCOTUS for this. They are here to interpret the laws of this country and render judgement.

Blame the politicians for crafted a poorly written law that didn't stand up to judicial review.

Maybe now they'll pass a law that's crafted within the existing law.

Personally I don't think a corporation should have more power than we permit it to have.

I am confused how some think this will give the people more freedom. How many people in my country or yours can afford to fund a candidate like a corporation can. Most corporations today are multinational and have no allegiance to any one country. Unless every American donates 5 dollars to one politician they like, AND has the media this won't make a difference except to allow those with tons of money have more control over who your potential presidential elects are.

Epic failure in my oppinion.

Cheers

it's been a long standing idea that a corporation is in itself a single entity and as such it is entitles to the rights and priviledges that go along with that standing, one being free speech. So the SCOTUS did thier job. However, I do not personally like the idea of the corps spending freely to back one candidtate

Originally posted by wiredamerican

This is not treason. They are heroes.
Why?
Because they just stripped election funding from government control.
They gave more power to Corporations and Unions.
Corporations and Unions are made out of people.

This is more power to the people. And that is a good thing.

Corporations are run by a very small, often rich, elite group of people that are also responsible for cutting major deals in saving THEIR particular company money in taxes, benefits, worker's comp., etc. You know -- save on the things that the government demands companies pay. The same types of things that we as INDIVIDUALS are required to pay.

So now you have a situation where companies can give any amount of money to candidates in order to get them elected. Said candidate will then be in a "bribe" type situation and need to "re-pay" said contributions once elected.

Notice how nowhere in any of those negotiations are WE -- the common worker that actually makes the company the money to fund said candidate? Further, said company will not be asking the workers -- again, this is YOU and ME -- whom to support. You will therefore be contributing passively to supporting a candidate you may not want elected simply by still working for that company. The more money you make for the company the more money they have to support said candidate.

Have you picked up on the blatant conflict of interest problem yet? Further, all a candidate will need to do to win an election is to go to bed with the largest companies with the deepest pockets. More politicians buying elections. How is that better for the Union? How does that encourage democracy?

reply to post by wiredamerican


Look , Im not american ok, but even I know the difference between say the interests of a common man, and the interests of a faceless multinational company or corperate entity. I mean are you honestly saying that you think corperations (which could be based or owned from anywhere in the world) give a godamn about you or your fellow american?
Well if you do , then you are wrong. And incidentaly, it wont be the american people who work for these corperations who make the choice as to whom to back, whom to fund. It will be the worldwide shareholder base, whose only interest in your nation is what they can get from it.

The supreme court is a wing of government in the USA and provides a check and balance in that system as it should.

No arm of the government is more powerful than another and each can stem the actions of each.