Call For Immediate Arrest Of 5 Supreme Court Justices For Treason

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ClintK

 

I just provided several examples of corporate wealth wasted on campaigns to influence people. Those examples directly challenge your claims.

Uh, sorry, but no, they don't. First, you are comparing the marketing of products with political campaigns and saying since there are exceptions to what I say with products it must be true with political campaigns. They aren't the same thing. But...

Even if they were, I didn't say the better financed campaign was CERTAIN to win the campaign, which you seem to desperately read into my post. Again, I said:

" The better financed campaign is more likely to win. PERIOD. Nobody even questions this any more. It isn't an absolute guarantee, but it is more likely."

You don't seem to understand the phrase "more likely," and seem to substitute your own phrase of "absolutely certain" where I said more likely.

Second, even in marketing, the better financed campaign is more likely to be successful. PERIOD. Just because there are well financed campaigns that fail means nothing. That is bound to happen.

I would think this would be common sense.

Originally posted by Tamale_214
reply to post by Asktheanimals

 

The United States of America is both a Republic and a Democracy, and no this is not an incompatible statement. The term democracy has two distinct meanings, one refers to a specific political model, the other refers to a general political axiom. Don't allow others to be confused that the USA is not democratic, it is most definitely a Republic built on Democratic principles, so when someone says "This is a democracy" they are speaking the truth.

tamale

No one will ever find the words "democracy" or "democratic" written in the Constitution for the United States. No one will because those words are not in that document. What is written and expressly guaranteed to each State of the Union is a republican form of government.

While there are some democratic principles incorporated into the Constitution, there are other methods of government also incorporated into the Constitution that are distinctly undemocratic. The electoral college is just one example. Until the unfortunate passage of the 17th Amendment, Senators were not elected directly by the people of their respective states and were instead chosen by the state legislatures.

Supreme Court Justices are not elected officials but are appointed to their positions by the POTUS, with the advise and consent of Congress.

A good majority of the Founders had a great mistrust for democracies and worked diligently and carefully to avoid implementing such a government by Constitution. The biggest concern was that a direct democracy where majority rules could wind up voting away rights through a legislative process that would only serve to undermine the principle behind natural rights, which is that rights preexist governments and can not be granted nor taken away either by tyrannical usurpation's or through legislative fiat.

Please understand this - you that are pretending this is a bad thing. This is a reversal of an 8 year old law. Political contributions from mysterious PAC's are more crazy than any contribution from a publicly declared corporation. Can any of you tell where the sources of the PAC's came from?

George Soros? Yeah, he has all of our interests at heart.

I think the reality here is that the Democrat machine has sent out its message and the drones are flooding the meme as they so often will.

Originally posted by seism

I think the reality here is that the Democrat machine has sent out its message and the drones are flooding the meme as they so often will.

What!? Explain, please.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Lillydale
So you would rather a Chinese corporation make decisions for out government than say...any AMERICAN?

Chinese corporations don't make decisions for our government.

When the Communist Chinese wanted to influence our elections, their military intelligence just handed the money to Bill Clinton, or their "Buddhist Monks" just handed the money to Al Gore.

The Communist Chinese have really great connections on the Left in America, they don't need to go through such legal channels as donating through a corporation.

— Doc Velocity

If you think china is the one behind all your problems you are wonrg...

Originally posted by seism
George Soros? Yeah, he has all of our interests at heart.

It is really frightening how many people in this thread think it is good for multi-national corporations to have a say and bad for Americans they do not agree with to have a say. How patriotic to worry more about Wal-mart than a fellow who disagrees.

reply to post by mopusvindictus


well you can blame our "sanctified" founders for that little loophole. Most of the "founders" wanted a government where the little guy had little to no power thus leaving them out of the political game. Want proof? look at the difference of the time a senator is in office compared to a representative of the "lower" house...

wwell mate, stuff like this goes on in the US daily. The problem here is: the americans are too lazy to do anything about it. they're the only ones with a government they can stand against, and they're too stupid, lazy or ignorant to band together and fix the problems. Funny thing is, there are people that them every day here that they only need a certain number of signatures on a petition and still.. they're too side tracked by sports, or celebrity life, or reality television, or x box. You can post all the calls to arrest you like and the only thing that will come of it is a few that will be all worked up and then it will peter out between one day and a week. THAT is why their government gets away with so much. The sad thing is, sure, I will get a few long distance u2u threats and F-U's, but not one person over here in this country, be they native, or imports like myself, will truly disagree.

Originally posted by stanlee
wwell mate, stuff like this goes on in the US daily. The problem here is: the americans are too lazy to do anything about it. they're the only ones with a government they can stand against, and they're too stupid, lazy or ignorant to band together and fix the problems. Funny thing is, there are people that them every day here that they only need a certain number of signatures on a petition and still.. they're too side tracked by sports, or celebrity life, or reality television, or x box. You can post all the calls to arrest you like and the only thing that will come of it is a few that will be all worked up and then it will peter out between one day and a week. THAT is why their government gets away with so much. The sad thing is, sure, I will get a few long distance u2u threats and F-U's, but not one person over here in this country, be they native, or imports like myself, will truly disagree.

EDIT*

You don't get it mate, the supreme court IS THE FINAL SAY here...

No petitions or phone calls have the authority or sway to change this.

This was a one stop shop, end all debate, go fook yourself America move.

* I stand corrected - option is available on JPZ post below this one

thank you sir for keeping me in the confines of reality



[edit on 24-1-2010 by Janky Red]

[edit on 24-1-2010 by Janky Red]

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by stanlee
wwell mate, stuff like this goes on in the US daily. The problem here is: the americans are too lazy to do anything about it. they're the only ones with a government they can stand against, and they're too stupid, lazy or ignorant to band together and fix the problems. Funny thing is, there are people that them every day here that they only need a certain number of signatures on a petition and still.. they're too side tracked by sports, or celebrity life, or reality television, or x box. You can post all the calls to arrest you like and the only thing that will come of it is a few that will be all worked up and then it will peter out between one day and a week. THAT is why their government gets away with so much. The sad thing is, sure, I will get a few long distance u2u threats and F-U's, but not one person over here in this country, be they native, or imports like myself, will truly disagree.

You don't get it mate, the supreme court IS THE FINAL SAY here...

No petitions or phone calls have the authority or sway to change this.

This was a one stop shop, end all debate, go fook yourself America move.

To change this requires blood or treason charges, thats it, hands tied

Not to mention that a good portion of Americans view this as a proper ruling, they are
the first defense for the government in this case which is very ironic given the year of
"defend American sovereignty cries" -

same people now think is nothing to allow foreign entities direct access to the American political machine, with no limits or boundaries is a good idea

[edit on 24-1-2010 by Janky Red]

This is not true. Congress can attempt to pass a Constitutional Amendment and if they were smart about it, they would pass one that only seeks to limit foreign corporations expenditure on political finance. In all likelihood, such an Amendment would never be able to reach the federal courts for any challenge since the courts would have no jurisdiction to hear non citizens complaints about political finance during election cycles, as the federal courts only have jurisdiction to hear issues raised by states or citizens of states.

I think there should be a new law put forward that states a corporation can only donate $4000.00 in the name of each k1 share holder of the company. That a corporation shall get in writing from said shareholder their perrmission to donate in that shareholders name if that share holder gives the corporation the right to donate in there name that individual gives up there personal right to donate. And said donation shall show up on that persons personal k1 shareholder form at the end of the year and placed in there tax return in order to prevent them from donateing multiple times. Each individual may only give there perrmission for $4000.00 once but may be split to multiple corporations and there self but may only total $4000.00. And for a individual to give there right to donate in there name they must have that right as a individual so said right to donate may not come from non-citizens and limited to US citizens. And add a large fine for anyone who violates those rules. You then limit the amount donated to individual citizens that are aloud to donate in the first place. And cause massive paper work each time a corporation wishes to donate because they must collect perrmission from each share holder in order to donate in there name.

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by seism
George Soros? Yeah, he has all of our interests at heart.

It is really frightening how many people in this thread think it is good for multi-national corporations to have a say and bad for Americans they do not agree with to have a say. How patriotic to worry more about Wal-mart than a fellow who disagrees.

Neither is very appealing Lillydale and George Soros is a one man multi-national corporation as seism inferred but you knew that. Soros has obvious access to and influence on Obama. Wal-mart backed Bush but don't think for a moment they don't play both sides of our "one party" system. Consider the former presidents that backed NAFTA.

Clinton backed by three former presidents with NAFTA trade plan

The Soros Doctrine in Obama Foreign Policy

Costco, Wal-Mart duel in political arena

There have been shadowy figures in every Oval Office and orifice.... wait a minute, that brings to mind Shari Lewis and Lamb Chop. There I go ruining my own childhood memories. (No I will not bother to link a photo of Soros as Obama's puppeteer. You could find or imagine similar images for every president dating back to... you pick the puppet.)

Getting away from the petty bickering for a moment, I found an interesting blog commentary from April 30, 2005 that hits on this ruling.

Correcting the Bizarre Incentives Created by Campaign Finance Reform Laws

Here is the meat of the piece:

What can we do differently? Here is an alternative, and arguably more straightforward, view of the world:

1. Government has become a huge business, which means there is a lot of money for various interest groups - of all political persuasions - to grab, some for legitimate reasons and much in the form of pork. Money flows into politics to buy influence because so much is at stake financially. While no one wants to talk about it openly, the flow of large sums of money into politics is yet another unfortunate price we pay for allowing government to become such a pervasive part of our lives. If we truly had limited government, the pressure to buy influence would be much reduced. It is nothing but foolish ignorance to seek limits on the flow of money without first reducing the structural incentives that currently give people an economic reason to buy influence.

2. Since money is going to flow into politics, one way or another, then we should stop setting up barriers to free speech like Morse notes have come out of the latest campaign finance reform law. Rather, why not take all limits off political contributions in America in exchange for requiring ALL details about such contributions be posted in a standardized report format on the Internet within 24 hours of receipt by either an individual politician or by a political party? Total transparency and accountability, unlike today. If a George Soros or a Richard Scaiffe contributes vast monies, anyone paying attention will see it and the public scrutiny will be immediate. No more PAC's, no more 527's, no more hard versus soft money distinctions, etc. Eliminate the incentives to play fundraising games like the alleged misdeeds by Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign. - excerpted from Donald B. Hawthorne on Anchor Rising blogsite

Of course this would be opposed by those who favor big(ger) government.

anybody want to know the most disturbing part of this situation



is that we actually have to debate whether or not we should let corporations buy and sell candidates and whether or not money plays a roll in winning an election


i mean really? really people?


its really that hard to see the problems from this situation that we have to debate this?


what the hell has happened to our species

[edit on 24-1-2010 by Dramey]

Originally posted by Lillydale

So they needed a law to ensure they can CONTINUE to do something. You obviously have no clue what you are saying but then again, you think Olberman has some kind of power so you are in a fantasy land.

Psssssssssss. Janeane and Kieth only get one vote each you know. They can talk all they like but they are still just two AMERICAN people. Now you are happy that the tea baggers can continue and the chinese can take over. Way to be American!

Lilly you can and will twist this, refusing to see what is front and center. You will notice how Jay Leno and Conan Obrien were the focus of the media all week. Why? No viewers. And yet this:

Categorized | 4-Featured, Cable News Ratings Countdown w/ Keith Olbermann October Ratings Down 63% vs. 2008

NBC is hemorrhaging cash and still the political hack is buoyed and coddled. Why? He serves the socialist political agenda under the guise of journalism. You likely remember he stole the sign off of Edward R. Murrow - "Good night, and good luck" early on. Too bad a quote from a journalist does not make you one. He should have remained ESPN's second banana. Nobody cared then that he knew nothing.

The forbidden skit: Full transcript and screenshots of SNL’s Soros/Sandler bailout satire

There are plenty of clues beyond this lost satire that it is the Mr Soros' National Broadcasting Company. I think you would only accept a full disclosure from the man himself, that's not going to happen and so it goes.

reply to post by neo5842

I have posted this mainly because I dont understand how a judge can override a decision made by government.

The Supreme Court can only rule on Constitutional matters. If the law is judged to be unconstitutional, it is overturned, if it is constitutional, the Court cannot do anything about it.

Does this happen in the states a lot?

All the time. Nine justices and who knows how many clerks under them are working full time doing this stuff.

and is it legal?

It is exactly the role defined for the Supreme Court in the Constitution when it divides up the powers between the Congress, the Administration, and the Courts.

and is it really treason

No. Absolutely NOT. These people claiming to want to "return America to respect for the Constitution" and then accusing every other person with a contrary opinion as treasonous don't know what they are talking about. They are trivializing the crime, cheapening it, trying to use it the way the King used it before the American Revolution.

Treason is carefully defined in the Constitution (the ONLY crime defined in the Constitution) expressly to prevent this kind of accusation. At the time of writing, the authors had too much recent experience of the King declaring some trivial act as treasonous and they wanted to make sure that did not happen in the new country.

The decision is a very VERY bad decision, IMHO, I expect it to go down in history as equally in error as the Dred Scott decision (which held that slaves could not be freed just because their masters moved to a non-slave state, and that people of African descent could not be citizens).

But it is not, in any way, treason.

reply to post by Evisscerator

Supreme Court Justices can be impeached as they are approved by the US Senate. Treason is a charge made against any government official. The Supreme Court is not immune from charges of Treason.

You really should try reading the Constitution sometime. It has nothing to do with "being immune from charges of Treason" or not.

It has to do with doing their job is not treason. Treason is carefully and explicitly defined in the Constitution.

If the decision is a bad decision, then it is a bad decision, that is all. Calling it treason trivializes a very serious crime. So serious that it is the only one defined in the Constitution.

reply to post by Doc Velocity

...The Legislative Branch can likewise override a Judicial or Executive action that is seen as unconstitutional...

Um, no. Otherwise a straight forward description.

The Legislative 'checks and balance' on SCOTUS are limited to approval of the President's nominee for the bench. The Legislative 'check and balance' on POTUS is the ability to impeach for 'high crimes and misdemeanors' and of course to not pass POTUS' programs.

The Legislative Branch has no control over 'unconstitutional' action by either the Judicial (that is a non-sequitur - they don't take action) or Executive Branch (except when it entails a 'high crime or misdemeanor', of course).

reply to post by apacheman

So how soon before the next logical extension of this very flawed argument?

Why won't the corporations demand a vote, too? If the corporations have a "right" to speech, why shouldn't they have right to vote, too, just as any other person does? Or perhaps they should have a seat in the Senate or House?

Be careful of what you speculate about.

Corporations DO have the vote in Australia. But I believe it is only in local (that is City, Town, or Shire) elections; not State or Federal elections.

Absentee property owners have a vote in local elections too. If they own 5 properties in an electorate they still only get one vote for those properties, but if they own properties in several different electorates they get a vote in each electorate. Plus their own personal vote, of course.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Exactly. McCain/Feingold told millions of American Citizens that they would not be allowed to spend money to have their voices heard. It was a statist law that was appropriately struck down. A corporation is a collection of people engaged in a cooperative endeavor. Nothing more.

You guys that are calling for the SCOTUS to be executed and whining about this need to go read a freshman's civics book.

Just to share an insight with you.

The reason why the campaign funding for elections became an issue to be debatated after so many decades of silence was caused by 2 effects:-

1. Obama's treasure chest from the people
2. Rise of the internet as a platform for campaigning and funds.

Corporations under-estimated Obama and only allowed him to campaign to make the people 'feel good', as the masses were down during that period of time due to the massive mishandling of the economy by the Corporations.

McCain had probably already prepared a concillatory speech to Obama after the elections was over - "Well done buddy, a good show, but next time, not today, Obama".

As the Corporations had failed in the economy and led america into military disasters time after time, so too had they failed in societal comprehension of the masses.

The masses voted not only with their minds and hearts, but with money as well. It totally destroyed the Corporations puppet as Obama DOMINATED the airwaves and the media, along with his team's sincerity and hardwork in an attempt to effect change.

The Corporations had erred, but being pragmatic and driven people they are, will attempt now to correct the mistake by:-

a. Use fear again - using assumed and presumed anarchy, chaos, and terrorism to frighten the masses back into their fold

b. Subjugate the SCOTUS to legitimize campaign funding to support their puppets.

c. Discredit President Obama and opponents who fight against NWO slavery and their directions.

Once again, the Corporations will fail, simply because the world and american masses are better informed today, and a new awareness for a better path awaits, than the authoritarianism and utilitarianism used by the Corporations to enslave humanity.

[edit on 24-1-2010 by SeekerofTruth101]