19
   

Supreme Court Provides For Corporate Takeover of Nation

 
 
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 09:17 am
The recent precedent-shattering decision of the court gives corporations the power to rule the country. The decision, alledgedly based on the right of free speech, has been embraced by Republican leaders as a step in the right direction.

http://www.etalkinghead.com/archives/last-weeks-supreme-court-ruling-a-step-towards-corporate-communism-2010-01-23.html
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 19 • Views: 6,786 • Replies: 124

 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 09:26 am
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:
The recent precedent-shattering decision of the court gives corporations the power to rule the country. The decision, alledgedly based on the right of free speech, has been embraced by Republican leaders as a step in the right direction.

http://www.etalkinghead.com/archives/last-weeks-supreme-court-ruling-a-step-towards-corporate-communism-2010-01-23.html
Things were OK before McCain made any trouble.
FREE SPEECH is now RESTORED.

HAPPY DAYS R HERE AGAIN!
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 09:52 am
@OmSigDAVID,
LAMENT
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 10:02 am
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

The recent precedent-shattering decision of the court gives corporations the power to rule the country. The decision, alledgedly based on the right of free speech, has been embraced by Republican leaders as a step in the right direction.

http://www.etalkinghead.com/archives/last-weeks-supreme-court-ruling-a-step-towards-corporate-communism-2010-01-23.html


Those corporations essentially ran the country already. This just makes it easier for them.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 10:11 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
LAMENT
U can lament. (I don 't recommend it.)
I choose to CHEER, and be cheerful, in the traditional America.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 10:17 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Thats cuse youre a believer in libertarian chaos. There is a need for order and freedom. Freedom without order, sorter defines you libertarians.

Kinda scary .
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 10:19 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I choose to CHEER, and be cheerful, in the traditional America.
Dave would like a return to the gilded age when no government services to the betterment of our welfare were available. Only the very rich survived to old age and all the rest were merely tools of the industrial robbers.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 10:23 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
I choose to CHEER, and be cheerful, in the traditional America.
Dave would like a return to the gilded age when no government services to the betterment of our welfare were available. Only the very rich survived to old age and all the rest were merely tools of the industrial robbers.



Looks that way.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 10:30 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
I choose to CHEER, and be cheerful, in the traditional America.
Dave would like a return to the gilded age when no government services to the betterment of our welfare were available. Only the very rich survived to old age and all the rest were merely tools of the industrial robbers.



Looks that way.
To some extent, I woud like that. Yes.
Its just a question of legitimate jurisdiction, playing it straight,
according to the Original Constitutional scheme of things (as amended), without deviation.

0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 11:37 am
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

The recent precedent-shattering decision of the court gives corporations the power to rule the country. The decision, alledgedly based on the right of free speech, has been embraced by Republican leaders as a step in the right direction.

http://www.etalkinghead.com/archives/last-weeks-supreme-court-ruling-a-step-towards-corporate-communism-2010-01-23.html

Does this ruling essentially mean that corporations have the same rights as individuals?
Merry Andrew
 
  3  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 11:39 am
It's apparently the end of Abe Lincoln's dream of a government of the people, for the people and by the people.

This -- along with such travesties as the Dred Scott decison and the ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson -- is one of the most shameful decisions the Supremes have ever come out with. I am ashamed and embarrased for my country.

David, it's sad, but your senility gets worse and worse each day.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 11:49 am
Just out of curiosity, were there limits on what individuals could give to campaigns (even in the form of advertising)? What's to prevent mega-rich individuals like Buffet and Gates from guiding the outcome of elections? Are the rules different for corporations and individuals?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 01:36 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne wrote:
Does this ruling essentially mean that corporations have the same rights as individuals?

No.

It only means that the government cannot criminalize speech, or the spending of money to broadcast that speech, simply because the speaker is a corporation. The court's main arguments are two : (1) the classification does nothing to prevent corruption by wealthy individuals, or by groups who have organized into some non-corporate form. (2) the classification is overbroad in that it criminalizes legitimate speech by legitimate groups of speakers, simply because the groups have organized themselves as a corporation.

The Sierra Club is a corporation. The New York Times is a corporation. The World Wildlife Fund is a corporation. Lots of legit advocacy groups are corporations. Congress can't curb their speech simply because they have organized as corporations rather than some other legal form. And that's all the ruling means.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 04:04 pm
@Merry Andrew,
Merry Andrew wrote:
It's apparently the end of Abe Lincoln's dream of a government
of the people, for the people and by the people.
Non-sequitur; believe what u want.




Merry Andrew wrote:
This -- along with such travesties as the Dred Scott decison
Any USSC justice who were not to vote with that holding
woud simply be a charletan and a fake.
Article - 4 Section 2 very clearly requires that result.
The USSC was only doing its job, as distinct from lying.
The justices were not hired to lie; lying is not what thay swore to DO.





Merry Andrew wrote:
and the ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson -- is one of the most shameful decisions
the Supremes have ever come out with.
I am ashamed and embarrased for my country.
A better time to have been ashamed was when the MF law was enacted in 2002,
raping the First Amendment 4 different ways, and overthrowing the Constitution.

I re-iterate (again): in 2002, I kept saying on the radio
and I kept posting in multiple fora that u cannot cut off free speech.
I felt that no one was paying any attention to me and my Constitutional protest.
U were all trying to screw the pooch; u did.
Now, the USSC has defended the pooch 's chastity.








Merry Andrew wrote:
David, it's sad, but your senility gets worse and worse each day.
Government in America was conceived to be, to do,
and to support something very different than what u desire.
America is supposed to be a place of individualism, personal liberty, hedonism and greed for every citizen.
U desire the judiciary to twist, to lie, and to distort that into what YOU admire, disowning our foundational roots.
No, Andy: this is MY country, not yours. Try Cuba or North Korea; u will be happier there.





David
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 04:57 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

Advocate wrote:

The recent precedent-shattering decision of the court gives corporations the power to rule the country. The decision, alledgedly based on the right of free speech, has been embraced by Republican leaders as a step in the right direction.

http://www.etalkinghead.com/archives/last-weeks-supreme-court-ruling-a-step-towards-corporate-communism-2010-01-23.html

Does this ruling essentially mean that corporations have the same rights as individuals?



Yes, basically! Corporations and unions were deemed to have the same rights as individuals do to mount a campaign for a candidate or an issue. The court said their spending money is tantamount to speech under the first amendment.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 05:40 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:
Yes, basically! Corporations and unions were deemed to have the same rights as individuals do to mount a campaign for a candidate or an issue. The court said their spending money is tantamount to speech under the first amendment.

You and Thomas seem to have different answers to this question.

If a corporation is now considered to have the same rights as an individual, then doesn't it logically follow that they should be able to vote in elections, like an individual?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 05:50 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Yes, basically! Corporations and unions were deemed to have the same rights as individuals do
to mount a campaign for a candidate or an issue. The court said their spending money
is tantamount to speech under the first amendment.

You and Thomas seem to have different answers to this question.

If a corporation is now considered to have the same rights as an individual,
then doesn't it logically follow that they should be able to vote in elections, like an individual?

Is that SIGNIFICANT?
Do fear the one vote of the Ford Motor Co. for President or for county sheriff?
and the other vote of General Electric ?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 08:04 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:
The court said their spending money is tantamount to speech under the first amendment.

Please show me where the Court said this in Citizens United v. FEC.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 09:05 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
If a corporation is now considered to have the same rights as an individual, then doesn't it logically follow that they should be able to vote in elections, like an individual?

No. Blacks, women, and people who haven't paid a poll tax have the same rights as individuals, because they are individuals. Nevertheless, the 14th Amendment didn't recognize their right to vote in elections. That's why the US had to enact the 15th, 19th, and 24th amendments to secure this right for them.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 09:47 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
(a) Although the First Amendment provides that “Congress shallmake no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” §441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions. It is a ban notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak, for a PAC is aseparate association from the corporation. Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy"it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people"political speech must prevail against lawsthat would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” WRTL, 551 U. S., at 464. This language provides a sufficient framework for protecting the interests in this case. Premised on mistrust of governmentalpower, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain

preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in thepolitical speech context, the Government may impose restrictions oncertain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this conclusion. Pp. 20"25.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Supreme Court Provides For Corporate Takeover of Nation
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/10/2020 at 01:52:19