"Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision."
Once again, the Dems have to clean up after stupid Republikan decisions. As usual, the Republikan DO NOTHING party will be clueless as to what needs to be done since they lack any vision so the Democratic Party will have to enact legislation over the usual Republikan filibuster.
I truly believe some people in the far right fringes of the republican party want this country to break apart unless they keep wealth and they keep power,
Because lying Obama decided to be a dick and refused to act in a bipartisan manner, Republicans had to kill his shitty health care bill. Deal with it.
the Dems gave in to every Republican demand and the current Senate bill is a corporate wet dream. Call them pussies or sold out pieces of shit if you want, but don't say they're not bipartisan.
100% WRONG Capitalocracy. Because arrogant Obama was so convinced he had a super majority in Congress, he decided to be a partisan prick. Incompetent Obama refused to consider tort reform and inter-State commerce, so the people put an end to his shitty bill.
The heavily Roman Catholic Supreme Court opens the floodgate for RC 'corporations' (bishops discretionary accounts, ngo/non profit corps, RC CEO's) to buy politicians openly.
Obama's dog and pony show is laughable, considering he gave the RCC the swing vote on the Supreme Court with the placement of Sotomayor and the fact that his cabinet (and historic Republican presidential cabinets as well) is predominantly Catholic.
Subversion, counter reformation and inquisition...writ global.
Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review (NO current justice had this, the highest, distinction), Columbia, and constitutional professor for 12 years. When you choose to ignore obvious evidence and say irrational things like Obama is far far less intelligent than the justices other than Sotomayor (the only Hispanic) and doesn't know constitutional law, ignoring facts and all evidence to the contrary can be explained by the fact that you're a racist. Its crystal clear.
Lying Obama's position Editor in Cheif of law review materialized through affirmative action and was not merit based. Proof of his failure is the fact that he published NOTHING while on law review. That's like somebody bragging they were sent to the Olympic games after they failed to compete.
As far as the Constitution goes, lying Obama fails consistently. Notice how he got DC v. Heller wrong and then tried to reverse himself. He looked like an idiot because he is an idiot.
@RadarGuidedVermin The more you say, the more your racism is apparent. It kills you that there are really smart black people, huh? Its a new world, buddy. White trash aren't supreme anymore. Hahaha
@Crackpot: Obama is incompetent and unqualified. The fact that you would suggest otherwise is proof you're fucking stupid. Your precious Obama is not the Messiah. He lied to you. Deal with it, loser.
... proving that Obama is a liar, that under him unemployment is now 10%, that he blew more money in his first year than any other President in history, that he has nothing to show for it, that he FAILED in almost every endeavor, that he understands NOTHING about foreign policy, that he has allowed Iran to go nuclear which will lead to WWIII. Lying Obama FAILS in every way! You can't even defend him. All you can do is cry because your Messiah turned out to be a liar and totally incompetent.
@Crackpot, that's because you're stupid. Incompetent Obama lies constantly. Lie #1: "If you vote for my spending package, unemployment will NEVER raise above 8% ... Lie #687: "I will televise on CSPAN all of the health care conferences." ... Lie #1023: "I will go through every bill line-by-line, and cut out all pork spending."
The list is endless. No matter how much you cry like a little girl, Obama is a CONFIRMED liar. Deal with it.
@RadarGuidedVermin OBAMA'S LIES ARE CONFIRMED??? Why? Because YOU said it??? I knew you would fail to find the quote because he never said it. You lied. You lie about Obama because of your racist hatred.
@RadarGuidedVermin Republicans and racist trash like yourself always use terms like lie, socialist, communist, fascist without understanding what those terms actually mean. Direct me to the speech or interview where Obama actually says on employment what you have put in quotes. You won't be able to because he didn't say that. But facts don't matter to a racist like you, obviously.
@RadarGuidedVermin Obama is too smart to say unemployment will NEVER raise above 8%. He was going by the advice and projections of economists and economists are always careful to not say NEVER because they are dealing with educated guesses. Are you Joe Wilson's dumber brother?
Pack your bags People. Your country just took a shit down your neck. billion dollar corporations now own Washington. Obama. im sorry i voted for you now. you are not doing what you promised.
"Of the people, by the corporations, and for the corporations."
The new Supreme Court decision will allow a corporation to run false attack ads against anyone they wish. That means they can now EXTORT every politician in the U.S. to do whatever they want for profit.
If you think you're getting screwed by health insurance companies, Wall Street, and credit card companies now -- just wait. All consumer protection will be the first to go.
Because the N.Y. Times or conservative newspapers run an editorial is irrelevant. They DON'T run ATTACK ADS on TV.
Any corporation can now tell legislators they'll be the target of relentless attack ads if they vote AGAINST corporate wishes
Credit card & insurance companies, banks & Wall Street can now dictate to legislators & EXTORT any politician in America. If they object, they're on the HIT LIST. They dont even need to do it, just threaten.
"All of the majority's theoretical arguments turn on a proposition with undeniable surface appeal but little grounding in evidence or experience, 'that there is no such thing as too much speech.' [quoting Scalia] If individuals in our society had infinite free time to listen to and contemplate every last bit of speech uttered by anyone, anywhere; and if broadcast advertisements had no special ability to influence elections ..."
"... apart from the merits of their arguments (to the extent they make any); and if legislators always operated with nothing less than perfect virtue; then I suppose the majority's premise would be sound. In the real world, we have seen, corporate domination of the airwaves prior to an election may decrease the average listener's exposure to relevant viewpoints, and it may diminish citizens' willingness and capacity to participate in the democratic process." -- Justice Stevens (Sec. IV, Part 1)
Justice Kennedy wrote: When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.
Justice Kennedy is wrong because he fails to properly account for the overwhelming and thoroughly documented PUBLIC INTEREST in limiting the speech of corporations -- for all the reasons expounded by the Court for at least 50 years.
The ruling of the majority was basically an unjust power grab by five justices -- who trampled on judicial restraint and precedent, thumbing their noses at ordinary citizens.
The right to free speech is not absolute. (Yelling, "Fire!" in a theater is ...
... a classic example of speech restriction.) Justice Stevens describes -- in detail -- the public interest in anticorruption, antidistortion, and shareholder protection.
But the "public interest" is anathema to the hyper-individualistic ideology of Libertoons, who have what Stevens characterized as a "blinkered and aphoristic approach to the First Amendment" that would be laughable if it weren't so ultimately destructive of the LIBERTY that they supposedly advocate.
"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach,..."
"When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought.
This is unlawful.
The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.
The ability to "think for ourselves" in a political context is severely impaired when the marketplace of ideas in inundated, overwhelmed, drowned in an ocean of corporate speech (propaganda) over the public airwaves.
That FACT -- well documented in the findings of precious court cases -- is what the "blinkered and aphoristic" opinions of Kennedy and Scalia ignored.
@substanti8:The issue at stake in the case was whether, consistent with the First Amendment, the government could criminalize speech that criticized a public official who was also a candidate for elective office, 60 days before a general election and 30 days before a primary. Should the fact that an activist citizens' organization is incorporated allow the government to bar their speech, especially when it matters most?
Before this latest ruling, that corporation would be allowed to contribute to candidates through Political Action Committees. Furthermore, ever INDIVIDUAL within the corporation was free to contribute directly or to buy their own political advertising. The government never "barred" their speech.
@substanti8 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission IS the case we are discussing. We are NOT talking about $ contributions. The Court's decision struck down a provision of the McCain-Feingold Act that banned for-profit and not-for-profit corporations and unions from broadcasting electioneering communications in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general elections.Citizens United, sought to run tv commercials promoting its film Hillary: The Movie.
During the election Obama took in $747 million dollars and McCain $351 million while $100s of millions were donated to Obama over the internet that could not be tracked but much of that money came from foreigners, then Obama flipped flop on public campaign financing despite McCain calling for it. Now Obama tells lies about the Supreme Court because now all the groups he has been demonizing can fight back. This admin is the most ill prepared, juvenile, propagandist, lying government ever seen.
This administration? You must be a year old! Where you living in a cave during the last nightmarish 8 years. ANY President would have to work overtime to fuck up as bad as bush w. did. Good God Almighty!
As far as the US Supreme Court, now they are worthless! These are the same assholes that appointed bush w. President in 2000. They are the ones that should have term limits. Scalia is the biggest pig dick-wad of them all!
The Pres falsely claimed that the High Court ruling would open the floodgates for special interests to spend unlimited amounts in support of candidates. The ruling did nothing of the sort; it did not even address contributions to candidates. The opinion with which the Pres so disagrees with allowed for corporations to be able to exercise their rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution, to spend their lawful money to disseminate political advocacy through such medium as movies.
During the election Obama took in $747 million dollars and McCain $351 million while $100s of millions were donated to Obama over the internet that could not be tracked but much of that money came from foreigners, then Obama flipped flop on public campaign financing despite McCain calling for it. Now Obama tells lies about the Supreme Court because now all the groups he has been demonizing can fight back. This admin is the most ill prepared, juvenile, propagandist, lying government ever seen.
Obama had a lot of nerve lecturing the supreme court about their decision. His campaign was bankrolled by big corporations, unions, and foreign interestor did that slip his mind?
you are 100% correct...this whole thing is ridiculous. do people not realize that just because Exonn donates millions to a canidate, that DOESNT mean that victory in the election is garunteed??? in theory, it is impossible for the corporations to buy the next election, through and through the people will ultimately decide who ends up in office - not $70billion donated from walmart
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I am very excited to vote for a corporation for our senator in texas.....the 2 brain-damaged ones we have need replacing. Maybe we can elect Senator TXU to replace Cornyn. (Since they have the same rights as people, why can't they run for office?)And can corporations get the death penalty when their product kills someone, or, usually in their case, a bunch of people? Inquiring minds would like to know.
As usual, under-educated Obama opened his big, fat yap and ended up sticking his foot right in it. Barak simply doesn't have the noodle to take on the Supreme Court.
He just wants the constitution ignored as usual. It's pretty obvious that Obama never read the constitution and or doesn't care what it says. Which makes him a typical republicrat.
@1508inf it is interesting that you brought up corporations.remember the 18 months that ohDUMBa spent on the campaign trail?over and over he sld people that he was all about helping MAIN ST.idiots like you bought that bull.when he actually was sworn into office his 1st act was to give WALL st.300 BILLION with no strings attachted.his stupid theory was that lending wuld be vastly increased.0 more lending occured and his cronies got their payoff for donating billions to the DNC.ohDUMBa=0.
ok now you've done it.you have no idea what you are talking about and you worship hannity and glen beck.youkiss the ground limbaugh walks on and you know what is so tragic young stud?it's that you know no other way to get your information and the very people you are supporting support the corporations that in turn would just assume let you and your family die if they could simply save a buck.You poor guy are probably living in the sticks out in kentucky and have no other way of gettin info
ha ha just wait and see what you righties condoned when the supreme court broke the constitution..just wait till you guys get just what you asked for.the tragedy is that we tried to warn you and you ignored it and now we're all fucked
haha,when bush took office we had like a hundred billion dollar surplus and when he left we had more than a trillion or two deficit.and that was afterv 8 years of rippin us off.and you expect obama to just fix it in one year.and without raising taxes.ha ha what fools.you buy that shit evil motherfucken piece of shit bohner tells you
i hate this country.what are you talking about?don't you know what we've done to so many innocent people because of corporate greed?omg it's disgusting.i am embarrased to call myself an american!this country is evil.and it's gonna get worse.
Lying Obama opened his fat yap and looked like a fool. He obviously didn't know what he was talking about. That's right, your Messiah, lying Obama, is an incompetent fool.
@Youcrackpot: Not even close. Lying Obama has proven that he does not understand the meaning and spirit of the Constitution, and he can't even give a speech without a teleprompter. Lying Obama is FAR FAR less intelligent than any one of the Supreme Court justices, except maybe Sotomayor.
The Pres falsely claimed that the High Court ruling would open the floodgates for special interests to spend unlimited amounts in support of candidates. The ruling did nothing of the sort; it did not even address contributions to candidates. The opinion with which the Pres so disagrees with allowed for corporations to be able to exercise their rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution, to spend their lawful money to disseminate political advocacy through such medium as movies.
So we can sit here all night and throw shit back and forth across the isle Dems v/s Repubs, because that's exactly what they want. While we're fighting over wether the President has an American birth certificate or not, they are inserting a giant corporate international penis up our asses, that will see this fucking country finished. Now, if you wanna take it up the ass then do it, but if you wanna change, call your Senator and tell them to fly right, or you're going to revolt.
Congress is in the pockets of corporations. The Senate, an unlawful, non-popular, representation of just what, I still have yet to figure out, control the laws. Now the Supreme Court upholds those fucked up laws. Corporations are immune to seizure of property and yet, if you break the law, the government can come in and take your shit. Do you honestly think you are anything more than a damn social security number? This is isn't Obama's fault, it's ours.
@JurisArcane very true, I just hope the people will pull the plug out of the back of their heads, or they will just keep taking it up the back side if they like. In all truth they would rather sit back and see what is going to happen, then fight for anything that is not about, black vs white, male vs female, gay vs straight, rich vs poor, and keeping up with the Jones while everything is falling apart round them.
You nailed it bro. And its that sort of mentality from Americans that have gotten us where we are. People pick a candidate, and if that candidate wins, most say no more about what that candidate does when elected, and that's the problem. No one wants to say "hey, this jerk isn't doing a friggin thing for me, why did I vote for him/her?"
We're screwed lol. Peace in life man, and hope you find some happiness amidst the realty that is our bubble illusion
Corporations are NOT individuals and don't deserve the rights that were granted to individuals by the Constitution, including freedom of speech. We need campaign finance reform that will totally prohibit corporations from donating anything to campaigns. After this decision, corporations officially run America. Corporations are getting individual rights, while individuals are losing them. God help us.
@sladerazor wrong our real enemy are the companies, banks, corporations, and riches among us. We are in a Orwellian and Brave New World Nightmare, they have decided it is time to take everything from us, they are in full control of our lives now, and if you want to eat, sleep in a house, drive a car, have a job, or do anything but work all day long for pennies on the dollars or they will make all our lives a nightmare. Obama did not do that, and not even one Republican has stood up to stop them
This is the jackass that's going to tell us about special interest groups? He can go fuck himself the guy gave tax money to his buddies who gave their support to his campaign. So if I donate to a guy that's okay but if a group of us with similar interests donate that is bad, wtf America!
THe jackass is the american people for not forcing Obwan Obama to support their interests. Americans have to learn that voting, demostrations and civilized actions dont work. I have seen people go into the street battling, as in france, to overturn these types of decisions. Why arent americans organized and learning and changing.
Well when you have a 12 year schooling process that tells you the system works and that you should just go along with it, it takes awhile to reverse that in peoples minds. I totally agree with you.
@funktroop3r I read an interesting book by E.D. Hirsch jr. about the shift in this nation from an education based on knowledge and curriculum, to a "child based" system. The child based system preaches that set curriculum is harmful to childrens' development. Dewey, of the decimal system, called the curricular system "Fascist". Upon deeper reflection I recalled that my k-12 textbooks asked questions like "In your opinion, why was Washington a good leader?", instead of what his policies were.
@mstraney James Madison wrote of the need for an educated public as fundamental to the continuation of the republic. Massachusetts law required towns with more than 50 homes to have a school by 1647. Dedham, MA founded the first free tax-supported public school in 1644. There has been serious deterioration because of a widespread decline in the fundamental knowledge about civics for example, that is necessary for our government to function.
What a lying sack of trash! It's under him special intrests group have pushed gay marriage... This administration is for sale to the highest bidder. And that is not the american middle class. Promise them jobs give them tyrannical government and steal there freedoms. Deliver them and the world communist one sided propaganda news. Thanks but no thanks, to the illegal alien president O'douchebag
Dude. Obamas not the one to Blame for us not having jobs. It's Bush. the repubs had 8 years for our economy to have even mor of a surplus than we had when clinton left office, but instead it was bush put us in trillion dollars worse in debt. so dont blame Obama, blame bush dude.
The GOP pulled off a great scam. They used fox news and other rightwing fascist propaganda machines to misdirect the people.Using abortion and other wedge issues to get the FASCISTS APPOINTED TO THE COURT.
Predatory corporations already own Washington. The new Supreme Court decision will allow a corporation to run false attack ad campaigns against anyone they wish. That means they can now EXTORT every politician in the U.S. to do anything they want for profit.
You think you're getting screwed by health insurance companies, Wall Street, and credit card companies now. Just wait. All consumer protection will be the first to go.
The only chance for the US now is for one of those psychos on the SC to die and a rational human being appointed to replace them so this insanity can be reversed, before the country implodes.
The other two branches of the Federal governmant could overthrow this new radical legislation, yes legislation, by the third branch if they really want to.
genmeagher: No, he won't stop them. They're his "workers". Thousands of election law violations, many leading to convictions, along with video evidence of multiple ACORN employees at chapters all around the country volunteering their services in aiding and abetting other crimes up to and including child prostitution. Just business as usual (Chicago politics) in Obamas America. "It's all good." And CEO's like Oprah Winfrey can make movies & political endorsements- she's a democrat.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
God, I hate ignorance. The acorn workers convicted of voter FRAUD registration were turned in by acorn. They were folks too lazy to do the work and went through phone books and made up names and addresses. Acorn checks all of them and turns them into the feds when they find graft. There has never been a case of voter fraud. Get it?or can your little mind comprehend this?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Oh yeah, who went to the D.M. where child sex slaves are sold and came back with a buttload of viagra? the great rush limbaugh. Why do you think he had viagra?
Well actually, he can. If the economy improves (He and his administration are working feverishly to make this happen), and he gets elected a second time, there is a good chance he can appoint another judge or two that better reflects his views. Kind of like what Dub' ya (Bush) did.
Oh please these guys are a joke. Such outrage my my my my. The Obama campaign received millions through Corporate donors they just called it bundling. Talk about control. Both Citigroup Inc. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. were a part of it along with the rest of wall street. Obama collected a total of $130,000 from AIG in 2008, while McCain accepted a total of $59,499. So please stop political BS. All these donors got bailout money including Soros for his Brazilian oil Co. so Brazil can drill oil
@2012vote clearly you are to stupid to see the big picture of unabated corporate lobbying. a bullet through the eye. do you ever think you'll know when it's coming?
I made up my mind. i'll take the lesser of two evils. I'm with Obama on this one.
This decision bites.
Maybe if they make it so that corporations can only support a candidate their shareholders can all agree to. And they should make them disclose exactly who they support and how much they gave. If they could make those stipulations, this wouldn't be as bad.
Well, the supreme court has ruled a long time ago that corporations are incorporated into the constitutional definition of the word "person", and were granted 14th amendment rights. Technically, they should be granted their first amendment rights as well. Free speech. That's good stuff.
But then again, this gives them too much power and influence. Corporatism would replace our democracy. That sucks.
And there is still the debate over corporate personhood.
True, the supreme court upheld the ban on direct corporate contributions set into effect from a 1907 case, on the grounds that it was reasonable to prevent corruption.
The problem I see with this is that in purpose and effect, the decision fosters almost as much corruption. Media expenditures often encompass most of the total cost of a campaign. This gives corps and unions a dangerous amount of influence over elected officials. These entities can now use this as leverage in lobbying efforts.
That prior decision was a bad one as well. Corporations have enough political resources as it is without this kind of protection. The media is already controlled by corporations. We need to take the money out of the electoral process and put the people back in, not the other way around.
First off, It's our republic, not our democracy. This cat is supposed to be a constitutional scholar? Which constitution the united States? Don't seem like he knows what the hell he is talking about.
Second, Obama, you're top cop in this country. File a grand jury subpoena against all their supreme butts. The grand jury will investigate them from head to toe, from birth to now and if there is any wrong doing it'll come out.
Your just paying lip service to the people of this great republic.
Correction: we are a constitutional republic and a representative democracy- a combination of both. Do "you" know what you are talking about? A president is not a cop, and has no constitutional power to be one. The only check the executive is granted through the constitution over the judicial is the pres. power to appoint judges- that's it. Madison explicitly writes in his federalist papers how the judicial must be independent from any control from the executive or legislative.
Independence from control does not imply a lack of checks and balances.
Article I section 8 and Article III section 1 confer to congress the power to create and define the jurisdiction(both original and appellate) of all federal courts inferior to the supreme court.
Secondly Article III section 2 grants congress the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court.
The original jurisdiction of SCOTUS is limited by Art. III sect. 2 to cases w/ an ambassador,
The power to create lower courts under the supreme court and congressional limits to appellate jurisdiction are both *legislative* checks on the judicial; I was telling the other guy off about *executive* checks to the judicial branch.
And independence does not mean lack of checks and balances, I know, and I never said otherwise. Fed 47 (i think) talks about how each branch should be independent, but not so far removed, to be able to check each other's power.
(contd) public Minister, consul, or state as a party in the case. This means that the SCOTUS cannot hear cases not involving one of the above parties, without it having been tried in a lower court.
Since the congress can define both types of jurisdiction for lower courts, it can ensure that those courts don't try the case. effectively preventing the SCOTUS from trying it for lack of jurisdiction(74 US 506).
Roosevelt tried to "pack" the courts in 1937. Of course an amendment trumpt the SCOTUS
savemyplaylist If you mean I was trying to show off, you are wrong. My point was and is, do something. Don't just stand up and say the supreme court are bad boys.
If you weren't talking about me, please, forgive the reply.
I absolutely do know what I'm talking about, but nobody knows everything. That includes you. We are not a combination of a democracy and a republic, our electoral college votes for the president, senators are supposed to be appointed, etc. etc. Congress makes laws, the Judicial interprets laws, and the Executive enforces law. Just because Madison wrote it does not mean that it was enacted. Also, any two sovereigns can file for a grand jury investigation on anyone. Nice try, glad to see you care.
We are a combination of constitutional republic and representative democracy. Representative democracy is where people elect officials to represent them. There is direct election of senators now and has always been for the house.
The republicanism invokes civic participation. And we are bound by a constitution.
Do you know what the federalist papers are and why they are so important?
What you talk about deals w/ the criminal justice system. Under what charges would you indict them?
You keep talking about the federalist papers, try reading the anti-federalist papers too. That will help you complete the picture. If you want to be a true patriot, and I believe you do, study, study, study. Read about Ben Franklin, Jefferson, Washington and John Adams.
You keep quoting Madison. Madison was a shill for the King, this is well known and accepted. Most of all forget what your taught in school, mostly horse crap. Best wishes
The federalist papers are regarded as the best understanding of our constitution. The anti-federalist papers were written in response to the fed papers. As a counter response, hamilton and madison wrote many more than they had originally planned, responding to the criticisms. I've read and studied all of those you mention, but you leave out many other important ones: Hamilton, Pickney, Morris, Henry, Patterson, and Sherman.
Madison was originally federalist, but was not for the king at all, you ignorant fool. Just how much have you read about our "father of the constitution"? Later on in his life, he switched over to the anti-federalist side in repsonse to the central bank, authoring many criticisms in the national gazette, the main anti-fed paper.
Isn't this just balancing the already out of control funding candidates get from unions?
I say both or neither. we must be fair.
Constitutionally, this whole corporate personhood debate is pretty complicated. I believe that where the bill of rights does say person, 1st, 2nd, 6th, and others, the word is used in the individual pertinence. Therefore I believe this decision, as well as Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific. Corporations do not vote and cannot run for office. Not a person.
Wow, I sounded GROSS. I meant to say 1st, 2nd and 6th amendments, and that those decisions are unconstitutional. Fucking 500 count limit.
To expand my point:
Corporations are comprised of individuals, who each have their own voice. If a lobby or collective wants to express their interests, they should do so using their own individual voices, not granted extra voice. It's like a super person. Corporations should not be protected under the first amendment. Only the individuals who make them up.
I pray it ends up being neither. I also find the claim of corporate personage highly dubious, and self-contradictory. This decision creates many (IMO dangerous) ambiguities in the law. I'm just waiting for some ballsy CEO to sue the shareholders on behalf of the corporate person for freedom from ownership under the 13th amendment.
I misspoke, I meant Alexander Hamilton . Sry for that. Who is now known to have penned the majority of the federalist papers.
As for being the "father of the constitution", I understand that argument, but remember Jefferson penned it and IMO is more deserving of that title, than Madison.
I wonder, wutdaFU3K , if your not more interested in engaging in a pissing contest, than bringing our country back to the way the founders' intended?
You did not misspeak, you were mistaken. Jefferson wrote the words to the constitution, but for the most part, the ideas came from madison. He was the most prepared out of all of the delegates of the convention with mountains of notes and research done beforehand.
What do you mean "who is now known...". We have known who authored each paper for ages now.
Hamilton was pro-british and did in fact want to model our system after the british parliament, but his views changed during the convention. He actually wrote most of the papers dealing with the limitations and powers of the executive, and arguing for the constitution. When he was appointed washington's secretary of the treasury, he made so many contributions to our government, he had a whole era named after him. But he left the office by his own will, saying that his work has been finished.
So Hamilton was not for the king, and should be admired/ respected as one of our nation's most influential founding fathers. He's on the $10 bill you know.
I'm am not interested in a pissing contest. You only make me frustrated when you say something that's completely wrong.
A'lot of irrelevant talk about Acorn, unions or this is "a blow to democrats." It is about CORPORATIONS. Go read the decision yourselves. Justice Thomas's ruling is very amusing in a child like way. Corps. give to the party that gives to them. It may be republican or democrat or whatever. Remember, this flies in the face of what a republican and a democrat (McCain Feingold) tried to guard our country against. "Free Speech" is a reification fallacy.
And the US media does a terrible job of covering the court. We are always notified AFTER a critical decision is made. Maybe that's because they don't want to upset the apple-cart, i.e., media corporations benefit BIG TIME from this decision! That is American media in a nutshell. We need a media that is working for The People!
Republikans are idiots: CONFIRMED
youcrackpot 2 years ago
Yahoo article headline today:
"Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision."
Once again, the Dems have to clean up after stupid Republikan decisions. As usual, the Republikan DO NOTHING party will be clueless as to what needs to be done since they lack any vision so the Democratic Party will have to enact legislation over the usual Republikan filibuster.
youcrackpot 2 years ago
Once again the democrats tried to abolish free speech. Once again they were unsuccessful.
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago
Fuck Republicans.
lamrof 2 years ago
I truly believe some people in the far right fringes of the republican party want this country to break apart unless they keep wealth and they keep power,
lamrof 2 years ago
Because lying Obama decided to be a dick and refused to act in a bipartisan manner, Republicans had to kill his shitty health care bill. Deal with it.
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago
the Dems gave in to every Republican demand and the current Senate bill is a corporate wet dream. Call them pussies or sold out pieces of shit if you want, but don't say they're not bipartisan.
Capitalocracy 2 years ago
100% WRONG Capitalocracy. Because arrogant Obama was so convinced he had a super majority in Congress, he decided to be a partisan prick. Incompetent Obama refused to consider tort reform and inter-State commerce, so the people put an end to his shitty bill.
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago
@ radar
Racist
youcrackpot 2 years ago
Crackpot, you voted for and worship a FAILED President. That makes you an idiot.
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago
The heavily Roman Catholic Supreme Court opens the floodgate for RC 'corporations' (bishops discretionary accounts, ngo/non profit corps, RC CEO's) to buy politicians openly.
Obama's dog and pony show is laughable, considering he gave the RCC the swing vote on the Supreme Court with the placement of Sotomayor and the fact that his cabinet (and historic Republican presidential cabinets as well) is predominantly Catholic.
Subversion, counter reformation and inquisition...writ global.
abbesieyes 2 years ago
This is the cause. What is the intended effect? Yes we need to change the law, but not with a constitutional convention. We would lose it all then!
plalelal 2 years ago
The bottom of the sun just touched the horizon in the history of America. It was a great country until these Republicans brought it down.
youcrackpot 2 years ago
Thank lying Obama for a ballooning deficit, 10%+ unemployment, and a nuclear Iran. Lying Obama is incompetent and totally unfit to lead.
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago
@RadarGuidedVermin:
Ok, so you hate Obama. Everything you have posted about him is an obvious lie so we will have to ignore your comments.
I suggest you go on some racist rightwing website, (I am sure you know of many), where you can bounce your whacky views off sympathetic people.
youcrackpot 2 years ago
@youcrackpot
I never said I hated Obama, and I never said anything racist. This makes you fucking stupid.
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@RadarGuidedVermin
Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review (NO current justice had this, the highest, distinction), Columbia, and constitutional professor for 12 years. When you choose to ignore obvious evidence and say irrational things like Obama is far far less intelligent than the justices other than Sotomayor (the only Hispanic) and doesn't know constitutional law, ignoring facts and all evidence to the contrary can be explained by the fact that you're a racist. Its crystal clear.
youcrackpot 2 years ago
@Crackpot
Lying Obama's position Editor in Cheif of law review materialized through affirmative action and was not merit based. Proof of his failure is the fact that he published NOTHING while on law review. That's like somebody bragging they were sent to the Olympic games after they failed to compete.
As far as the Constitution goes, lying Obama fails consistently. Notice how he got DC v. Heller wrong and then tried to reverse himself. He looked like an idiot because he is an idiot.
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago 2
@RadarGuidedVermin The more you say, the more your racism is apparent. It kills you that there are really smart black people, huh? Its a new world, buddy. White trash aren't supreme anymore. Hahaha
youcrackpot 2 years ago
@Crackpot: Obama is incompetent and unqualified. The fact that you would suggest otherwise is proof you're fucking stupid. Your precious Obama is not the Messiah. He lied to you. Deal with it, loser.
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago 2
@RadarGuidedVermin
Keep going. You're proving my point with every one of your posts.
youcrackpot 2 years ago
... proving that Obama is a liar, that under him unemployment is now 10%, that he blew more money in his first year than any other President in history, that he has nothing to show for it, that he FAILED in almost every endeavor, that he understands NOTHING about foreign policy, that he has allowed Iran to go nuclear which will lead to WWIII. Lying Obama FAILS in every way! You can't even defend him. All you can do is cry because your Messiah turned out to be a liar and totally incompetent.
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago 2
@RadarGuidedVermin I didn't see a single thing he lied about in your last little rant (post).
youcrackpot 2 years ago
@Crackpot, that's because you're stupid. Incompetent Obama lies constantly. Lie #1: "If you vote for my spending package, unemployment will NEVER raise above 8% ... Lie #687: "I will televise on CSPAN all of the health care conferences." ... Lie #1023: "I will go through every bill line-by-line, and cut out all pork spending."
The list is endless. No matter how much you cry like a little girl, Obama is a CONFIRMED liar. Deal with it.
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago
@RadarGuidedVermin You're lying about what he said or what he said was not a lie. Nice try.
youcrackpot 2 years ago
You lose, dipshit, Obama's lies are confirmed.
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago
@RadarGuidedVermin OBAMA'S LIES ARE CONFIRMED??? Why? Because YOU said it??? I knew you would fail to find the quote because he never said it. You lied. You lie about Obama because of your racist hatred.
youcrackpot 2 years ago
Obama's lie about DC v. Heller: CONFIRMED
Obama's lie about 8% max unemployment: CONFIRMED
Obama's lie about putting health care debates on CSPAN: CONFIRMED
Obama's lie about cutting all pork from bills: CONFIRMED
Obama's lie about bringing transparency to government: CONFIRMED
The list is endless. Your Messiah is incompetent and worthless. Deal with it.
Sorry dipshit, you lose.
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago
@RadarGuidedVermin excellent post and 1000% valid.please keep the truth going.ohdumba is a total 0.a total disaster for our country.
varmittyawza 2 years ago
@RadarGuidedVermin Republicans and racist trash like yourself always use terms like lie, socialist, communist, fascist without understanding what those terms actually mean. Direct me to the speech or interview where Obama actually says on employment what you have put in quotes. You won't be able to because he didn't say that. But facts don't matter to a racist like you, obviously.
youcrackpot 2 years ago
Sorry, dipshit, the race baiting doesn't work. Try again.
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago
@RadarGuidedVermin Obama is too smart to say unemployment will NEVER raise above 8%. He was going by the advice and projections of economists and economists are always careful to not say NEVER because they are dealing with educated guesses. Are you Joe Wilson's dumber brother?
youcrackpot 2 years ago
Too late, dipshit, lying Obama already said it.
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago
You are a stupid fuck.
lamrof 2 years ago
I'm not the one jerking off to an incompetent President that lies constantly. Don't forget your paper towels, loser.
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago
Correction... "Corporations now Legally own Washington" Im moving to Canada...
Davidbzm01 2 years ago
haha, I just said the same thing on the same video on another site, I'll see you there!
amorefati 2 years ago
Pack your bags People. Your country just took a shit down your neck. billion dollar corporations now own Washington. Obama. im sorry i voted for you now. you are not doing what you promised.
Davidbzm01 2 years ago
"Of the people, by the corporations, and for the corporations."
The new Supreme Court decision will allow a corporation to run false attack ads against anyone they wish. That means they can now EXTORT every politician in the U.S. to do whatever they want for profit.
If you think you're getting screwed by health insurance companies, Wall Street, and credit card companies now -- just wait. All consumer protection will be the first to go.
We haven't seen anything yet.
goog2k 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Because the N.Y. Times or conservative newspapers run an editorial is irrelevant. They DON'T run ATTACK ADS on TV.
Any corporation can now tell legislators they'll be the target of relentless attack ads if they vote AGAINST corporate wishes
Credit card & insurance companies, banks & Wall Street can now dictate to legislators & EXTORT any politician in America. If they object, they're on the HIT LIST. They dont even need to do it, just threaten.
Corporatocracy USA!!!
It's scary!
goog2k 2 years ago
ohdumba=0
LEWFROST2 2 years ago
you poor naive person
1508inf 2 years ago
so after he says this he holds a meeting with special interest groups and lobyist. hahahahah
theodross 2 years ago 3
law. cornell. edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html
"All of the majority's theoretical arguments turn on a proposition with undeniable surface appeal but little grounding in evidence or experience, 'that there is no such thing as too much speech.' [quoting Scalia] If individuals in our society had infinite free time to listen to and contemplate every last bit of speech uttered by anyone, anywhere; and if broadcast advertisements had no special ability to influence elections ..."
substanti8 2 years ago
"... apart from the merits of their arguments (to the extent they make any); and if legislators always operated with nothing less than perfect virtue; then I suppose the majority's premise would be sound. In the real world, we have seen, corporate domination of the airwaves prior to an election may decrease the average listener's exposure to relevant viewpoints, and it may diminish citizens' willingness and capacity to participate in the democratic process." -- Justice Stevens (Sec. IV, Part 1)
substanti8 2 years ago
Justice Kennedy wrote: When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.
dontletithappen 2 years ago
Justice Kennedy is wrong because he fails to properly account for the overwhelming and thoroughly documented PUBLIC INTEREST in limiting the speech of corporations -- for all the reasons expounded by the Court for at least 50 years.
The ruling of the majority was basically an unjust power grab by five justices -- who trampled on judicial restraint and precedent, thumbing their noses at ordinary citizens.
The right to free speech is not absolute. (Yelling, "Fire!" in a theater is ...
substanti8 2 years ago
... a classic example of speech restriction.) Justice Stevens describes -- in detail -- the public interest in anticorruption, antidistortion, and shareholder protection.
But the "public interest" is anathema to the hyper-individualistic ideology of Libertoons, who have what Stevens characterized as a "blinkered and aphoristic approach to the First Amendment" that would be laughable if it weren't so ultimately destructive of the LIBERTY that they supposedly advocate.
substanti8 2 years ago
Justice Kennedy said IN THE MAJORITY OPINION:
"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach,..."
"When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought.
This is unlawful.
The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.
dontletithappen 2 years ago
The ability to "think for ourselves" in a political context is severely impaired when the marketplace of ideas in inundated, overwhelmed, drowned in an ocean of corporate speech (propaganda) over the public airwaves.
That FACT -- well documented in the findings of precious court cases -- is what the "blinkered and aphoristic" opinions of Kennedy and Scalia ignored.
substanti8 2 years ago
@substanti8:The issue at stake in the case was whether, consistent with the First Amendment, the government could criminalize speech that criticized a public official who was also a candidate for elective office, 60 days before a general election and 30 days before a primary. Should the fact that an activist citizens' organization is incorporated allow the government to bar their speech, especially when it matters most?
dontletithappen 2 years ago
No, that's a straw man.
Before this latest ruling, that corporation would be allowed to contribute to candidates through Political Action Committees. Furthermore, ever INDIVIDUAL within the corporation was free to contribute directly or to buy their own political advertising. The government never "barred" their speech.
substanti8 2 years ago
@substanti8 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission IS the case we are discussing. We are NOT talking about $ contributions. The Court's decision struck down a provision of the McCain-Feingold Act that banned for-profit and not-for-profit corporations and unions from broadcasting electioneering communications in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general elections.Citizens United, sought to run tv commercials promoting its film Hillary: The Movie.
dontletithappen 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
During the election Obama took in $747 million dollars and McCain $351 million while $100s of millions were donated to Obama over the internet that could not be tracked but much of that money came from foreigners, then Obama flipped flop on public campaign financing despite McCain calling for it. Now Obama tells lies about the Supreme Court because now all the groups he has been demonizing can fight back. This admin is the most ill prepared, juvenile, propagandist, lying government ever seen.
dontletithappen 2 years ago
This administration? You must be a year old! Where you living in a cave during the last nightmarish 8 years. ANY President would have to work overtime to fuck up as bad as bush w. did. Good God Almighty!
As far as the US Supreme Court, now they are worthless! These are the same assholes that appointed bush w. President in 2000. They are the ones that should have term limits. Scalia is the biggest pig dick-wad of them all!
phillipmarch22 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Pres falsely claimed that the High Court ruling would open the floodgates for special interests to spend unlimited amounts in support of candidates. The ruling did nothing of the sort; it did not even address contributions to candidates. The opinion with which the Pres so disagrees with allowed for corporations to be able to exercise their rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution, to spend their lawful money to disseminate political advocacy through such medium as movies.
dontletithappen 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
During the election Obama took in $747 million dollars and McCain $351 million while $100s of millions were donated to Obama over the internet that could not be tracked but much of that money came from foreigners, then Obama flipped flop on public campaign financing despite McCain calling for it. Now Obama tells lies about the Supreme Court because now all the groups he has been demonizing can fight back. This admin is the most ill prepared, juvenile, propagandist, lying government ever seen.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
and also......obama, please stop reading off teleprompters....good lord
kudjo24 2 years ago
kudjo24 buh clinton reagan all read off teleprompters also. you sound as dumb as rush.
eriet1 2 years ago
Obama had a lot of nerve lecturing the supreme court about their decision. His campaign was bankrolled by big corporations, unions, and foreign interestor did that slip his mind?
davidfbruce 2 years ago 7
you are 100% correct...this whole thing is ridiculous. do people not realize that just because Exonn donates millions to a canidate, that DOESNT mean that victory in the election is garunteed??? in theory, it is impossible for the corporations to buy the next election, through and through the people will ultimately decide who ends up in office - not $70billion donated from walmart
kudjo24 2 years ago
but all presidents were. But it wasn't unlimited funds, thats his arguement.
noixe68 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I am very excited to vote for a corporation for our senator in texas.....the 2 brain-damaged ones we have need replacing. Maybe we can elect Senator TXU to replace Cornyn. (Since they have the same rights as people, why can't they run for office?)And can corporations get the death penalty when their product kills someone, or, usually in their case, a bunch of people? Inquiring minds would like to know.
glennis3 2 years ago
As usual, under-educated Obama opened his big, fat yap and ended up sticking his foot right in it. Barak simply doesn't have the noodle to take on the Supreme Court.
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago 3
He just wants the constitution ignored as usual. It's pretty obvious that Obama never read the constitution and or doesn't care what it says. Which makes him a typical republicrat.
wrjamescom 2 years ago
Lying Obama is anti-Constitution, anti-freedom, anti-American and about as liberal as they come.
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago 2
and you ignorant but it's ok you'll see.you will be slashed by your own views.the corporations will squash you like a bug and you helped them do it
1508inf 2 years ago
@1508inf it is interesting that you brought up corporations.remember the 18 months that ohDUMBa spent on the campaign trail?over and over he sld people that he was all about helping MAIN ST.idiots like you bought that bull.when he actually was sworn into office his 1st act was to give WALL st.300 BILLION with no strings attachted.his stupid theory was that lending wuld be vastly increased.0 more lending occured and his cronies got their payoff for donating billions to the DNC.ohDUMBa=0.
LEWFROST2 2 years ago
it just sad you guys worship hannity ,limbaugh and beck.really sad
1508inf 2 years ago
If you have something to say, then pull Olbermann's cock out of your mouth and say it, you mumbling fool.
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago
ok now you've done it.you have no idea what you are talking about and you worship hannity and glen beck.youkiss the ground limbaugh walks on and you know what is so tragic young stud?it's that you know no other way to get your information and the very people you are supporting support the corporations that in turn would just assume let you and your family die if they could simply save a buck.You poor guy are probably living in the sticks out in kentucky and have no other way of gettin info
1508inf 2 years ago
1508inf, you'd be far more successful in getting your point across if you pulled Olbermann's cock out of your mouth before you spoke.
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago
ha ha just wait and see what you righties condoned when the supreme court broke the constitution..just wait till you guys get just what you asked for.the tragedy is that we tried to warn you and you ignored it and now we're all fucked
1508inf 2 years ago
haha,when bush took office we had like a hundred billion dollar surplus and when he left we had more than a trillion or two deficit.and that was afterv 8 years of rippin us off.and you expect obama to just fix it in one year.and without raising taxes.ha ha what fools.you buy that shit evil motherfucken piece of shit bohner tells you
1508inf 2 years ago
@1508inf one last thing.who hates our country more,ohDUMBa or bitter michelle?i say its a draw.
LEWFROST2 2 years ago
i hate this country.what are you talking about?don't you know what we've done to so many innocent people because of corporate greed?omg it's disgusting.i am embarrased to call myself an american!this country is evil.and it's gonna get worse.
1508inf 2 years ago
@1508inf if you hate america than you voted for your guy for sure.who hates our country more ohdumba or bitter michelle?i think its a draw.
LEWFROST2 2 years ago
Well next time vote for Ron Paul, jesus.
amorefati 2 years ago
Comment removed
1508inf 2 years ago
Lying Obama opened his fat yap and looked like a fool. He obviously didn't know what he was talking about. That's right, your Messiah, lying Obama, is an incompetent fool.
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago
You apparently are ignorant of Obama's educational background. Obama is AT LEAST AS educated as ANY of the Supreme Court justices.
youcrackpot 2 years ago
@Youcrackpot: Not even close. Lying Obama has proven that he does not understand the meaning and spirit of the Constitution, and he can't even give a speech without a teleprompter. Lying Obama is FAR FAR less intelligent than any one of the Supreme Court justices, except maybe Sotomayor.
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago 2
what about the first amendment!
what about illegals getting constitutional rights
josephdupont 2 years ago 2
The Pres falsely claimed that the High Court ruling would open the floodgates for special interests to spend unlimited amounts in support of candidates. The ruling did nothing of the sort; it did not even address contributions to candidates. The opinion with which the Pres so disagrees with allowed for corporations to be able to exercise their rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution, to spend their lawful money to disseminate political advocacy through such medium as movies.
dontletithappen 2 years ago
You dont get it do you. The CEOs of those corporations get to show there opinion. But what about all the workers that support other parties??
OnlyTbone 2 years ago
So we can sit here all night and throw shit back and forth across the isle Dems v/s Repubs, because that's exactly what they want. While we're fighting over wether the President has an American birth certificate or not, they are inserting a giant corporate international penis up our asses, that will see this fucking country finished. Now, if you wanna take it up the ass then do it, but if you wanna change, call your Senator and tell them to fly right, or you're going to revolt.
JurisArcane 2 years ago
Look people, here it is, let me tell you.
Congress is in the pockets of corporations. The Senate, an unlawful, non-popular, representation of just what, I still have yet to figure out, control the laws. Now the Supreme Court upholds those fucked up laws. Corporations are immune to seizure of property and yet, if you break the law, the government can come in and take your shit. Do you honestly think you are anything more than a damn social security number? This is isn't Obama's fault, it's ours.
JurisArcane 2 years ago
@JurisArcane very true, I just hope the people will pull the plug out of the back of their heads, or they will just keep taking it up the back side if they like. In all truth they would rather sit back and see what is going to happen, then fight for anything that is not about, black vs white, male vs female, gay vs straight, rich vs poor, and keeping up with the Jones while everything is falling apart round them.
proverb311031 2 years ago
You nailed it bro. And its that sort of mentality from Americans that have gotten us where we are. People pick a candidate, and if that candidate wins, most say no more about what that candidate does when elected, and that's the problem. No one wants to say "hey, this jerk isn't doing a friggin thing for me, why did I vote for him/her?"
We're screwed lol. Peace in life man, and hope you find some happiness amidst the realty that is our bubble illusion
JurisArcane 2 years ago
Yea man I wish people would have just fucking took the time to listen to Ron Paul
amorefati 2 years ago
Yeah no shit bro.
JurisArcane 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The long Legged Mack Daddy Is trying to intimadate the US Supreame Court so the do not hear his Citizenship case.
2setufree 2 years ago
@2setufree Are you joking? The case is over and has been ruled on for days now!
mstraney 2 years ago 2
Corporations are NOT individuals and don't deserve the rights that were granted to individuals by the Constitution, including freedom of speech. We need campaign finance reform that will totally prohibit corporations from donating anything to campaigns. After this decision, corporations officially run America. Corporations are getting individual rights, while individuals are losing them. God help us.
Joe77477 2 years ago
People giving money to groups like ACORN are pulling the country down........James O'keefe is a hero
darkfur35 2 years ago
OBAMA = EPIC FAIL!
sladerazor 2 years ago
@sladerazor wrong our real enemy are the companies, banks, corporations, and riches among us. We are in a Orwellian and Brave New World Nightmare, they have decided it is time to take everything from us, they are in full control of our lives now, and if you want to eat, sleep in a house, drive a car, have a job, or do anything but work all day long for pennies on the dollars or they will make all our lives a nightmare. Obama did not do that, and not even one Republican has stood up to stop them
proverb311031 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A bright day is upon us. The Supreme Court has expanded democracy by allowing
corporations unlimited election purchasing power. Special interest is the new black.
ConservativeHealth 2 years ago
This is the jackass that's going to tell us about special interest groups? He can go fuck himself the guy gave tax money to his buddies who gave their support to his campaign. So if I donate to a guy that's okay but if a group of us with similar interests donate that is bad, wtf America!
funktroop3r 2 years ago
funktroop,
THe jackass is the american people for not forcing Obwan Obama to support their interests. Americans have to learn that voting, demostrations and civilized actions dont work. I have seen people go into the street battling, as in france, to overturn these types of decisions. Why arent americans organized and learning and changing.
Marly61 2 years ago
Well when you have a 12 year schooling process that tells you the system works and that you should just go along with it, it takes awhile to reverse that in peoples minds. I totally agree with you.
funktroop3r 2 years ago
@funktroop3r I read an interesting book by E.D. Hirsch jr. about the shift in this nation from an education based on knowledge and curriculum, to a "child based" system. The child based system preaches that set curriculum is harmful to childrens' development. Dewey, of the decimal system, called the curricular system "Fascist". Upon deeper reflection I recalled that my k-12 textbooks asked questions like "In your opinion, why was Washington a good leader?", instead of what his policies were.
mstraney 2 years ago
@mstraney James Madison wrote of the need for an educated public as fundamental to the continuation of the republic. Massachusetts law required towns with more than 50 homes to have a school by 1647. Dedham, MA founded the first free tax-supported public school in 1644. There has been serious deterioration because of a widespread decline in the fundamental knowledge about civics for example, that is necessary for our government to function.
mstraney 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Has this idiot ever heard of SEPARATION OF POWERS???????
He is an arrogant SOB.
justabill61 2 years ago
What a lying sack of trash! It's under him special intrests group have pushed gay marriage... This administration is for sale to the highest bidder. And that is not the american middle class. Promise them jobs give them tyrannical government and steal there freedoms. Deliver them and the world communist one sided propaganda news. Thanks but no thanks, to the illegal alien president O'douchebag
jaingxu 2 years ago
Dude. Obamas not the one to Blame for us not having jobs. It's Bush. the repubs had 8 years for our economy to have even mor of a surplus than we had when clinton left office, but instead it was bush put us in trillion dollars worse in debt. so dont blame Obama, blame bush dude.
noixe68 2 years ago
The GOP pulled off a great scam. They used fox news and other rightwing fascist propaganda machines to misdirect the people.Using abortion and other wedge issues to get the FASCISTS APPOINTED TO THE COURT.
accountdeficit 2 years ago
Predatory corporations already own Washington. The new Supreme Court decision will allow a corporation to run false attack ad campaigns against anyone they wish. That means they can now EXTORT every politician in the U.S. to do anything they want for profit.
You think you're getting screwed by health insurance companies, Wall Street, and credit card companies now. Just wait. All consumer protection will be the first to go.
We haven't seen anything yet.
goog2k 2 years ago
It is your job as a citizen to sort out the BS from the truth. Not some remote far off bureaucrat, usually in the pocket of those already in power.
travisalger 2 years ago
I guess we are all equal now. Doesn't matter republican, democrat, or whatever. We are all equally SCREWED!
qigong1001 2 years ago
The only chance for the US now is for one of those psychos on the SC to die and a rational human being appointed to replace them so this insanity can be reversed, before the country implodes.
hornetobiker 2 years ago
The other two branches of the Federal governmant could overthrow this new radical legislation, yes legislation, by the third branch if they really want to.
But will the Poltroons and slaves do so?
DrSidel 2 years ago
What about ACORN and all the trash of their illk? Hey Barry, are you going to stop them?
genmeagher 2 years ago
@genmeagher you dumb bastard. the word is ILK. sort of, well, LIKE YOU!!! fuck your mother's asshole.
tedbohne 2 years ago
So answer the question. What about ACORN and all the similar trash? I'm waiting on your answer Mr. tenured prick.
genmeagher 2 years ago
Acorn was cleared as an organization, those involved were fired, and the pompous ass James O'keefe was recently arrested for wiretapping.
mstraney 2 years ago
genmeagher: No, he won't stop them. They're his "workers". Thousands of election law violations, many leading to convictions, along with video evidence of multiple ACORN employees at chapters all around the country volunteering their services in aiding and abetting other crimes up to and including child prostitution. Just business as usual (Chicago politics) in Obamas America. "It's all good." And CEO's like Oprah Winfrey can make movies & political endorsements- she's a democrat.
dontletithappen 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
God, I hate ignorance. The acorn workers convicted of voter FRAUD registration were turned in by acorn. They were folks too lazy to do the work and went through phone books and made up names and addresses. Acorn checks all of them and turns them into the feds when they find graft. There has never been a case of voter fraud. Get it?or can your little mind comprehend this?
glennis3 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh yeah, who went to the D.M. where child sex slaves are sold and came back with a buttload of viagra? the great rush limbaugh. Why do you think he had viagra?
glennis3 2 years ago
Obama is just pissed cause he cant control this. At least this has to be reported.
2012vote 2 years ago
Well actually, he can. If the economy improves (He and his administration are working feverishly to make this happen), and he gets elected a second time, there is a good chance he can appoint another judge or two that better reflects his views. Kind of like what Dub' ya (Bush) did.
Ha, ha!
BIGBOY2TON 2 years ago
Oops!
"make THAT happen"
BIGBOY2TON 2 years ago
@2012vote , AHHH but snipers CAN!!
tedbohne 2 years ago
Oh please these guys are a joke. Such outrage my my my my. The Obama campaign received millions through Corporate donors they just called it bundling. Talk about control. Both Citigroup Inc. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. were a part of it along with the rest of wall street. Obama collected a total of $130,000 from AIG in 2008, while McCain accepted a total of $59,499. So please stop political BS. All these donors got bailout money including Soros for his Brazilian oil Co. so Brazil can drill oil
2012vote 2 years ago
@2012vote clearly you are to stupid to see the big picture of unabated corporate lobbying. a bullet through the eye. do you ever think you'll know when it's coming?
tedbohne 2 years ago
And, hell, our children didn't need that damn Bill of Rights, anyway.
mandostyle59 2 years ago
Obama is full of shit! This case was based on a guy who was running anti Hitlary ads, that's why this corporate shill of a president is upset.
savemyplaylist 2 years ago
I agree with him for once.
Wasn't he bought-in himself though?
MangaChocobo 2 years ago
Seriously, allowing corporations to help in elections, is leading to a totalitarian rule.
AzranTheWarlock 2 years ago 4
I made up my mind. i'll take the lesser of two evils. I'm with Obama on this one.
This decision bites.
Maybe if they make it so that corporations can only support a candidate their shareholders can all agree to. And they should make them disclose exactly who they support and how much they gave. If they could make those stipulations, this wouldn't be as bad.
wutdaFU3K 2 years ago 3
Damn, I cant pick which side I'm on. I keep going back and forth.
wutdaFU3K 2 years ago
Why, out of curiousity? do you mean between supporting the decision or opposing?
mstraney 2 years ago
I think too much.
wutdaFU3K 2 years ago
Yeah, me too, but what has you on the fence, so to speak?
mstraney 2 years ago
Well, the supreme court has ruled a long time ago that corporations are incorporated into the constitutional definition of the word "person", and were granted 14th amendment rights. Technically, they should be granted their first amendment rights as well. Free speech. That's good stuff.
But then again, this gives them too much power and influence. Corporatism would replace our democracy. That sucks.
And there is still the debate over corporate personhood.
wutdaFU3K 2 years ago
True, the supreme court upheld the ban on direct corporate contributions set into effect from a 1907 case, on the grounds that it was reasonable to prevent corruption.
The problem I see with this is that in purpose and effect, the decision fosters almost as much corruption. Media expenditures often encompass most of the total cost of a campaign. This gives corps and unions a dangerous amount of influence over elected officials. These entities can now use this as leverage in lobbying efforts.
mstraney 2 years ago
That prior decision was a bad one as well. Corporations have enough political resources as it is without this kind of protection. The media is already controlled by corporations. We need to take the money out of the electoral process and put the people back in, not the other way around.
ChrisF116 2 years ago 2
For those who just want to wait it out to see what will happen:
Why don't we just look at the guilded age before the progressive era. Robber barons anyone? We'd just be going back to that.
wutdaFU3K 2 years ago
First off, It's our republic, not our democracy. This cat is supposed to be a constitutional scholar? Which constitution the united States? Don't seem like he knows what the hell he is talking about.
Second, Obama, you're top cop in this country. File a grand jury subpoena against all their supreme butts. The grand jury will investigate them from head to toe, from birth to now and if there is any wrong doing it'll come out.
Your just paying lip service to the people of this great republic.
tkcomputerservice 2 years ago
@tkcomp.
Correction: we are a constitutional republic and a representative democracy- a combination of both. Do "you" know what you are talking about? A president is not a cop, and has no constitutional power to be one. The only check the executive is granted through the constitution over the judicial is the pres. power to appoint judges- that's it. Madison explicitly writes in his federalist papers how the judicial must be independent from any control from the executive or legislative.
wutdaFU3K 2 years ago
Independence from control does not imply a lack of checks and balances.
Article I section 8 and Article III section 1 confer to congress the power to create and define the jurisdiction(both original and appellate) of all federal courts inferior to the supreme court.
Secondly Article III section 2 grants congress the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court.
The original jurisdiction of SCOTUS is limited by Art. III sect. 2 to cases w/ an ambassador,
mstraney 2 years ago
The power to create lower courts under the supreme court and congressional limits to appellate jurisdiction are both *legislative* checks on the judicial; I was telling the other guy off about *executive* checks to the judicial branch.
And independence does not mean lack of checks and balances, I know, and I never said otherwise. Fed 47 (i think) talks about how each branch should be independent, but not so far removed, to be able to check each other's power.
wutdaFU3K 2 years ago
(contd) public Minister, consul, or state as a party in the case. This means that the SCOTUS cannot hear cases not involving one of the above parties, without it having been tried in a lower court.
Since the congress can define both types of jurisdiction for lower courts, it can ensure that those courts don't try the case. effectively preventing the SCOTUS from trying it for lack of jurisdiction(74 US 506).
Roosevelt tried to "pack" the courts in 1937. Of course an amendment trumpt the SCOTUS
mstraney 2 years ago
Packing courts was just an abuse of executive power over the judicial(the only power the pres. has- appointing), which was why it was limited.
Why are you debating me? I haven't said anything incorrect nor have i disagreed w/ you on anything.
wutdaFU3K 2 years ago
Comment removed
mstraney 2 years ago
Sorry if I came across as combative.
mstraney 2 years ago
@wutdaFU3K
He's trying to show off, but makes no point in the process.
savemyplaylist 2 years ago
savemyplaylist If you mean I was trying to show off, you are wrong. My point was and is, do something. Don't just stand up and say the supreme court are bad boys.
If you weren't talking about me, please, forgive the reply.
tkcomputerservice 2 years ago
I absolutely do know what I'm talking about, but nobody knows everything. That includes you. We are not a combination of a democracy and a republic, our electoral college votes for the president, senators are supposed to be appointed, etc. etc. Congress makes laws, the Judicial interprets laws, and the Executive enforces law. Just because Madison wrote it does not mean that it was enacted. Also, any two sovereigns can file for a grand jury investigation on anyone. Nice try, glad to see you care.
tkcomputerservice 2 years ago
We are a combination of constitutional republic and representative democracy. Representative democracy is where people elect officials to represent them. There is direct election of senators now and has always been for the house.
The republicanism invokes civic participation. And we are bound by a constitution.
Do you know what the federalist papers are and why they are so important?
What you talk about deals w/ the criminal justice system. Under what charges would you indict them?
wutdaFU3K 2 years ago
@wutdaFU3K
Your talking out of ignorance, but that's o.k.
You keep talking about the federalist papers, try reading the anti-federalist papers too. That will help you complete the picture. If you want to be a true patriot, and I believe you do, study, study, study. Read about Ben Franklin, Jefferson, Washington and John Adams.
You keep quoting Madison. Madison was a shill for the King, this is well known and accepted. Most of all forget what your taught in school, mostly horse crap. Best wishes
tkcomputerservice 2 years ago
The federalist papers are regarded as the best understanding of our constitution. The anti-federalist papers were written in response to the fed papers. As a counter response, hamilton and madison wrote many more than they had originally planned, responding to the criticisms. I've read and studied all of those you mention, but you leave out many other important ones: Hamilton, Pickney, Morris, Henry, Patterson, and Sherman.
wutdaFU3K 2 years ago
Madison was originally federalist, but was not for the king at all, you ignorant fool. Just how much have you read about our "father of the constitution"? Later on in his life, he switched over to the anti-federalist side in repsonse to the central bank, authoring many criticisms in the national gazette, the main anti-fed paper.
wutdaFU3K 2 years ago
You guys.
Isn't this just balancing the already out of control funding candidates get from unions?
I say both or neither. we must be fair.
Constitutionally, this whole corporate personhood debate is pretty complicated. I believe that where the bill of rights does say person, 1st, 2nd, 6th, and others, the word is used in the individual pertinence. Therefore I believe this decision, as well as Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific. Corporations do not vote and cannot run for office. Not a person.
wutdaFU3K 2 years ago
Wow, I sounded GROSS. I meant to say 1st, 2nd and 6th amendments, and that those decisions are unconstitutional. Fucking 500 count limit.
To expand my point:
Corporations are comprised of individuals, who each have their own voice. If a lobby or collective wants to express their interests, they should do so using their own individual voices, not granted extra voice. It's like a super person. Corporations should not be protected under the first amendment. Only the individuals who make them up.
wutdaFU3K 2 years ago
I pray it ends up being neither. I also find the claim of corporate personage highly dubious, and self-contradictory. This decision creates many (IMO dangerous) ambiguities in the law. I'm just waiting for some ballsy CEO to sue the shareholders on behalf of the corporate person for freedom from ownership under the 13th amendment.
mstraney 2 years ago
@ wutdaFU3K
I misspoke, I meant Alexander Hamilton . Sry for that. Who is now known to have penned the majority of the federalist papers.
As for being the "father of the constitution", I understand that argument, but remember Jefferson penned it and IMO is more deserving of that title, than Madison.
I wonder, wutdaFU3K , if your not more interested in engaging in a pissing contest, than bringing our country back to the way the founders' intended?
tkcomputerservice 2 years ago
You did not misspeak, you were mistaken. Jefferson wrote the words to the constitution, but for the most part, the ideas came from madison. He was the most prepared out of all of the delegates of the convention with mountains of notes and research done beforehand.
What do you mean "who is now known...". We have known who authored each paper for ages now.
wutdaFU3K 2 years ago
Hamilton was pro-british and did in fact want to model our system after the british parliament, but his views changed during the convention. He actually wrote most of the papers dealing with the limitations and powers of the executive, and arguing for the constitution. When he was appointed washington's secretary of the treasury, he made so many contributions to our government, he had a whole era named after him. But he left the office by his own will, saying that his work has been finished.
wutdaFU3K 2 years ago
So Hamilton was not for the king, and should be admired/ respected as one of our nation's most influential founding fathers. He's on the $10 bill you know.
I'm am not interested in a pissing contest. You only make me frustrated when you say something that's completely wrong.
wutdaFU3K 2 years ago
Corporate America is evil until you try and have a poor person hire you. More proof this President despises corporate activity he can't control.
staciepaul 2 years ago
A'lot of irrelevant talk about Acorn, unions or this is "a blow to democrats." It is about CORPORATIONS. Go read the decision yourselves. Justice Thomas's ruling is very amusing in a child like way. Corps. give to the party that gives to them. It may be republican or democrat or whatever. Remember, this flies in the face of what a republican and a democrat (McCain Feingold) tried to guard our country against. "Free Speech" is a reification fallacy.
qigong1001 2 years ago
Thank you President Obama. You are a man of great courage for standing up to the corporate overlords.
JayPhilosopher 2 years ago
The battle is over.
The USA will be run by corporations henceforth.
DillonX 2 years ago
And the US media does a terrible job of covering the court. We are always notified AFTER a critical decision is made. Maybe that's because they don't want to upset the apple-cart, i.e., media corporations benefit BIG TIME from this decision! That is American media in a nutshell. We need a media that is working for The People!
DKPS22 2 years ago 4