quote:

PEOPLE ---> GOVERNMENT ---> CITIZENS As a king you "are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative." You can do what you want to do when you want to do it. You have your own property and your own courts. There is no limit as to what you may do other than the natural limits of the universe, and the sovereignty of a fellow sovereign. You should treat the other sovereign in accordance with the Golden Rule, and at the very least must never harm him. Your sovereignty stops where the other sovereignty begins. You are one of the owners of the American government, and it is their promise that they will support your sovereignty (i.e. they have promised to support the Constitution and protect it from all enemies). You have no allegiance to anyone. The government, your only [public] servant, has an allegiance to you. As a citizen, you are only entitled to whatever your sovereign grants to you. You have no rights. If you wish to do something that would be otherwise illegal, you must apply for a license giving you special permission. If there is no license available, and if there is no specific permission granted in the statutes, then you must apply for special permission or a waiver in order to do it. Your only allegiance is to your sovereign (the government), and that allegiance is mandated by your sovereign's law (the government, though not absolutely sovereign, is sovereign relative to you if you claim to be a citizen of the sovereign). Here is a typical example: As one of the People you have a right to travel, unrestricted, upon the public highways. You have right to carry guests with you in your automobile. You have a right to own a gun and that right shall not be impaired by your servant, the government. You have a right to a grand jury indictment and a trial by jury, that is a trial directly by the people, not the government. As one of the citizens, you may not travel by automobile unless you are either a licensed motor vehicle driver, or you are a passenger with permission to be on board. Gun ownership is a privilege subject to definition and regulation. You do not have a right to a jury trial in all cases, and no right to grand jury indictment--a trial is a trial by the government, not the people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Why would SCOTUS reverse nearly 200 years of precedence?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomImus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Why would SCOTUS reverse nearly 200 years of precedence?

I thought precedence was more a matter for lower courts of law and that the purpose of the SCOTUS was to evaluate those laws that were presented to them based on their constitutionality?

"Well, we've been doing it this way for 200 years. Forget that pesky amendment".

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomImus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Why would SCOTUS reverse nearly 200 years of precedence?

I thought precedence was more a matter for lower courts of law and that the purpose of the SCOTUS was to evaluate those laws that were presented to them based on their constitutionality?

"Well, we've been doing it this way for 200 years. Forget that pesky amendment".

quote:

According to Article I of the Constitution, the power of impeachment is vested in the Legislative branch.

The House of Representatives brings charges, called "articles of impeachment," against officials it considers guilty of criminal or ethical violations. If a simple majority of the House finds sufficient evidence to support impeachment, the official proceeds to trial in the Senate.

The Vice-President of the United States presides over impeachment trials involving Article III federal judges and Supreme Court justices. Conviction requires a vote of two-thirds of the Senators present.

Impeachment only serves to remove a judge or other official from office; there are no other penalties associates with this process.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7: "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

well doesnt that make us some kind of official, I am not sure which way it leans the most.  Communist or fascist?  I suppose its a hybrid.

Does anyone know that the government is fully incorporated from the feds all the way to the city council and courts?

There is a distinction between People and Corporation. 

I wonder if anyone notices?

Does that raise any red flags?

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Read the opinion. There is a long history of the SCOTUS upholding the right of corporations to free speech and they are listed and quoted. This is nothing new and McCain/Feingold restrictions were obviously unconstitutional. Kerry even proposed a constitutional amendment to reverse the prior decisions of the court.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Read the opinion. There is a long history of the SCOTUS upholding the right of corporations to free speech and they are listed and quoted. This is nothing new and McCain/Feingold restrictions were obviously unconstitutional. Kerry even proposed a constitutional amendment to reverse the prior decisions of the court.

I read the ruling and you are simply wrong. There is copious precedent for corporations being allowed free commercial speech and even better prcedent for not giving corporations unlimited free speech. This ruling violated 170 years of precedent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Read the opinion. There is a long history of the SCOTUS upholding the right of corporations to free speech and they are listed and quoted. This is nothing new and McCain/Feingold restrictions were obviously unconstitutional. Kerry even proposed a constitutional amendment to reverse the prior decisions of the court.

I read the ruling and you are simply wrong. There is copious precedent for corporations being allowed free commercial speech and even better prcedent for not giving corporations unlimited free speech. This ruling violated 170 years of precedent.

You may have read it, but your analytical abilities obviously didnt improve during your absence. The ruling is very clear and well reasoned, and overturns only one important prior decision, Austin. If you want to claim that stare decisis is inviolable then Austin itself would be bad law, since it overturned prior decisions. The dissenting opinions, all ideologically based, not legally well reasoned, are throroughly trashed by the majority opinions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Read the opinion. There is a long history of the SCOTUS upholding the right of corporations to free speech and they are listed and quoted. This is nothing new and McCain/Feingold restrictions were obviously unconstitutional. Kerry even proposed a constitutional amendment to reverse the prior decisions of the court.

I read the ruling and you are simply wrong. There is copious precedent for corporations being allowed free commercial speech and even better prcedent for not giving corporations unlimited free speech. This ruling violated 170 years of precedent.

You may have read it, but your analytical abilities obviously didnt improve during your absence. The ruling is very clear and well reasoned, and overturns only one important prior decision, Austin. If you want to claim that stare decisis is inviolable then Austin itself would be bad law, since it overturned prior decisions. The dissenting opinions, all ideologically based, not legally well reasoned, are throroughly trashed by the majority opinions.

So you feel its good reasoning to allow the ceo of a corporation to collect a bailout paid for by the taxpayer and turn that money right around and pour it into the candidate that will give them more bailouts? Im against bailouts period. Problem solved.

So you feel its good reasoning that corporate members should have the ability to vote twice?  Once in their private contributions in the private sector and then again as their conglomerate contributions? Contributing is not voting. Contributing twice is fine, especially when one of those contributions is subject to the scrutiny of boards and shareholdrs. And finally, those contributions are already being made twice through the artifice of PACs, just with a lot of wasted overhead.

So you feel its good reasoning to cut out the unincorporated working slobs, the proprietors in the private sector from having a voice who gets to be the candidates by being drowned out by the infinitely deeper pockets and larger corporate buying power in the form of donations. Irrelevant. The Constitution does not distinguish between the size of your pockets when granting free speech. To limit it on that basis would take a Constitutional amendment. Damn right its good legal reasoning. Your hyperbole on the effects is silly.

So you feel voting for candidate with money should replace voting for a candidate by ballot is a sound well reasoned decision? same response

I suppose if you feel that a few ceo's on the very top who are authorized to sign the check should control who is put up for the candidates to insure the Ron Pauls of the world never encroach the political arena. same response

Yeh I guess you can say it was very well reasoned if you want to functionally remove most americans from the political process. your typical hysterical nonsense

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
So you feel its good reasoning to allow the ceo of a corporation to collect a bailout paid for by the taxpayer and turn that money right around and pour it into the candidate that will give them more bailouts? Im against bailouts period. Problem solved.

Well so sorry but I am the CEO of fuck you in the ass corporation and I just called your twiddle 10 grand donation and I raise your 100 grand!  I said we get the man in for bailouts even though its going to YOUR COMPETITORS  because we the CEO's and Board of directors decided we want to disolve this company and you are going to bend over and take it like the slave boy you agreed to be of you can retire early!  LOLOL!

So you feel its good reasoning that corporate members should have the ability to vote twice?  Once in their private contributions in the private sector and then again as their conglomerate contributions? Contributing is not voting. Contributing twice is fine, especially when one of those contributions is subject to the scrutiny of boards and shareholdrs.

Really?  Where did you dredge that up from? 

Show me the law that says corporations are governed that way!  They aint and they never will be!

Where in the constitution does it say YOU CAN VOTE TWICE?????

Once as an individual and then again  because you are a member of a "corporation" eh??????

What gives you more rights than the rest of us?

And finally, those contributions are already being made twice through the artifice of PACs, just with a lot of wasted overhead.

So sanctioning 2 wrongs make a better or a correction or a right?

Hell why not save the overhead of the corporations and just give it all to a stalin and let one man take care of it all?


So you feel its good reasoning to cut out the unincorporated working slobs, the proprietors in the private sector from having a voice who gets to be the candidates by being drowned out by the infinitely deeper pockets and larger corporate buying power in the form of donations. Irrelevant.


The Constitution does not distinguish between the size of your pockets when granting free speech.

Is does distinguish however between corporate and individual rights and codifies NO rights what so ever to any corporation, but insures all right belong to the people whom are not an abstract constructive legal fiction with a fantasy corpus but a real flesh and blood living breathing body.

To limit it on that basis would take a Constitutional amendment.

Sounds good to me, 

Corporations cannot engage in the political process or act as a governmental agency in any manner.

Damn right its good legal reasoning. Your hyperbole on the effects is silly.

To champion reducing the creator to to an inanimate abstract object of law is repugnant on every level known to man and every religion on the planet!

So you feel voting for candidate with money should replace voting for a candidate by ballot is a sound well reasoned decision? same response

Yeh thats fair!
The whole of the US tax payer base pays for some asshole corporate bailout and they vote individually and then vote again as a corporation.

Well then the rest of us who are unincorporated get 2 votes too!

I suppose if you feel that a few ceo's on the very top who are authorized to sign the check should control who is put up for the candidates to insure the Ron Pauls of the world never encroach the political arena. same response

Yeh I guess you can say it was very well reasoned if you want to functionally remove most americans from the political process. your typical hysterical nonsense

quote:

And finally, those contributions are already being made twice through the artifice of PACs, just with a lot of wasted overhead.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

All judges should be elected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

And finally, those contributions are already being made twice through the artifice of PACs, just with a lot of wasted overhead.

That isn't going to change. Corporations are not going to risk alienating customers directly.