Citizen's United Vs The Intent of the Formation of the United States

Behold the source of what ails ye:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

 

Does anyone here think that it is legal for Prince Talal to be a de facto citizen of the US through Citizen's United?

It isn't. The language of the Articles of Confederation is very clear and specific about this. The companies of which he belongs as part of the body of, a very large part in some cases, may not participate as "citizens" in US elections or any other type of internal influence or governance.

 

C'mon! Prince Talal is no more a de facto citizen because he's connected to a corporation than some English citizen who comes over here (like Paul McCartney did) and gets up on stage or before a microphone and says what a wonderful president Obama would make. Their impact may or may not be negligible but both are free to express themselves in this nation.

There is no rational basis to restrict freedom of expression purely because it comes from a business apparatus like a corporation. And there is no rational basis to muzzle one corporation (like Citizen's United) and let another corporation (Time or CNN or NY Times) run completely unfettered.

 

Paul McCartney didn't give aid to families of suicide bombers and he is not a foreign Prince. He did not pass himself off as a citizen of the US. Citizenship, no matter what, cannot be granted to foreign rulers or noblemen. Period. Inside or outside of elections. Citizen's United granted de facto citizenship to Prince Talal. And since his citizenship, in any form or influence is illegal, "Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts, George V Hotel in Paris, Fairmont Raffles International Inc., Mövenpick Hotels & Resorts, Songbird Estates (Canary Wharf), Apple Inc., Time Warner, News Corp., Walt Disney, Euro Disney, PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble, Motorola, Hewlett Packard and Eastman Kodak, among others" may not participate in the democratic process as "citizens".

As put forth by Article I, Section 9 of the Articles of Confederation, they may not participate as citizens of this country because part of their "body" is not and can never be considered a citizen.

 

Tell it to the Supreme Court...

 

What happens to a Supreme Court Justice who undoes the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution with a decision?

We have checks and balances for a reason. And we are at war. This gives our President special powers to Act when he sees that a breach has been created in national security.

He may, for instance, order that no foreigner may be allowed to take part in any governance or internal policies. And that would include corporations with foreign stockholders. For they are foreigners if any part of their body owes allegiance to a foreign land.

 

Money has a way of finding work arounds for anything. I could come up with ten ways to work around anything you propose, everyone one of them would be legal or so deeply enmeshed in a gray area that challenges would be difficult.

 

lol so we shouldnt have laws for rich people because they will just find loopholes?

that makes more sense than trying to close loopholes?

 

No, that's not what I said, but we both know that you can't stop the money with or without laws. There is no solution to the problem. Corporations have a specific interest as do unions, they organize themselves to pursue such interests, but in truth they would be powerless against citizens that did much the same, but our citizens are apathetic and whine instead of acting.

 

Corporations are a cooperative venture owned by many people but is the interests of the corporation and thereby its owners equal to the interests of the people at large. If unions have the rights granted to its members then the corporation has the rights granted to its owners.

 

You can stop corporations with or without laws...

It just takes balls. President Obama has the tools. He simply needs to Act on Article 1, Section 9 of the Articles of Confederation.

No foreign nobleman may be granted US citizenship. There's no gray area there. It's very simple. If Prince Talal owns through his holding company or otherwise interest in US businesses, then those businesses are not eligible for citizenship, "Citizen's United" or not. Citizen's United does not, by clear and legal definition, sourced from the Highest Law of the Land, cover any of the businesses mentioned under the Prince's influence/ownership.

Period. There is no gray area there.

 

If it takes balls a beta male like Obama will never get it done. Your delusions are becoming humorous.

 

Ordinarily I would agree with you. But the DNC has too much riding on ridding the gigantic money-power influences of the GOP to win elections. So there's that pressure. And Obama has said repeatedly that Citizen's United he holds the highest contempt for. If there was any one Act he would perform, he may surprise all of us and create new wartime law that forbids inclusion of any company with foreign holdings, or at the very least foreign nobility holdings, or at the very very least, those companies with foreign nobility holdings that have acted to abet our enemies. Like Prince A. Bin Talal of New Corp and two dozen other companies in the US he's an [illegal] "citizen" of.

Here is another citation from the Articles of Confederation "Title of Nobility Clause". with respect to foreign nobility becoming a citizen:

"Holding any office of profit or trust under them". Would that include leaders elected by monies donated by Prince Talal? Yes, I think it would.

Points and authorities on Articles being the Supreme Law [trumping SCOTUS?]

 

Delving deeper into the question, does the Supreme Court have the power to alter the Articles or any clauses therein to their liking? I was under the impression that POTUS handles all matters of foreign affairs. Since Prince Talal is a foreign dignitary, matters involving his influence in internal US affairs may be under POTUS jurisdiction.

From the previous post: "Inviolably" >> prohibiting violation; secure from destruction, violence, infringement, or desecration: an inviolable sanctuary; an inviolable promise.

This means that SCOTUS can't touch it or alter it. Nobody can.

 

It's really irrelevant who the stockholders are.
Every large corporation today is essentially a multinational entity and their interests are not those of their country anymore.
Coupled with their religious devotion to the bottom line, you end up with organizations that will do whatever it takes to maximize their profits at the expense of their workers, their country, and the environment.
This is why regulations exist, and why no corporation should be allowed to funnel money to any political party in any country.
At least unions try to influence the political landscape in favor of the workers who live in the country.

 

It is COMPLETELY relevant. Foreign dignitaries may not become citizens. Non-citizens may not act in our democracy and governance. The electoral process is the cornerstone of that function.

Overuled.

Any citizen who swears allegiance to, or actually IS a foreign King is not a citizen. By definition. Period. So all of Prince Talal's companies may not participate in the enjoyment of "Citizens United".

And this is determined and set forth as the Highest Law of Our Land in the immutable [inviolable] Articles of Confederation of the United States that sets for the very basic parameters of the functions of the United States of America. And hence the title to this thread..

SCOTUS is trumped by the Highest Law of the Land. SCOTUS does not enjoy the authority to fundamentally alter our system of democracy. They can interpret the outer rings of that core, but they may not affect the core itself.

 

A problem for Prince Talal having say as a "new Citizen" via Citizen's United is that he has not taken the oath of allegiance. We require the Oath because otherwise insidious individuals might not be seeking citizenship enjoyment for the purposes of maintaining the solvency and integrity and security of the United States of America. It is very important. People can be deported if INS feels they are in breach of the Oath:

Prince Talal has not renounced his nobility. His friends and countrymen still call him "royal".

For that matter, any foreign "citizen" so pronounced by Citizen's United has circumvented the process of the INS and is illegally allowed to participate in our democracy via a proxy: the company they hold sway & stock in.

So Citizen's United has allowed citizenry without the INS and vital Oath requirements. Furthermore, I highly doubt Prince Talal would join the armed services in the US and take up arms for its cause.

There are direct violations of longstanding and Higher Law that SCOTUS has attempted to reverse with Citizen's United that need to be considered.

 

Nobody wants to touch this "Prince Talal is a Citizen" thing with a ten foot pole eh?

..lol... I didn't think so..

 

Who cares about Talal? Why waste time discussing an insignificant person?

 

A foreign Prince who has given aid to our enemies in time of war, owning such a large swath of companies in the US that have erroneously been declared "Citizens" by SCOTUS and by doing so have extended citizenship to this Prince is not an 'insignificant subject.

It is in direct violation of the immutable Articles of Confederation and against INS rules for citizenship.

And if done knowingly by SCOTUS who demonstrates knowledge of the INS existing or of our rules of citizenship, and by knowing this Prince was an Al Qaida-supporter, we could be talking about Treason. At the very least we are talking about legal miscarraige and gross ignorance of the laws they're supposed to be intrepreting. Only the mandates set forth in the Articles are described at their end as "inviolable". "prohibiting violation; secure from destruction, violence, infringement, or desecration". They form the bedrock of the intent of this nation.

That means that SCOTUS may not interpret them. Their jurisdiction is the Constitution. Now unless the Constitution has a clause about revising allowing foreign Prince's to hold sway in US internal affairs, the Articles apply. They overreached their delegated authority. Through the FCC President Obama may forbid any advertising done on behalf of a foreign Prince posing illegally as a citizen through the body of a corporation. So in that way POTUS can check SCOTUS' overreach. And he should do so immediately. Anything less will lose him and the dem Senators next year's election by making them look like belly-urinators in the face of such a bold and damaging assault on the foundation he swore to Uphold in the Presidential Oath he took when swearing in to Office. I'm tired of people taking our Oaths lightly. It's the reason this country is dissolving at the seams BTW. Either you stand for something or you stand for nothing.

 

Leftys believe the Constitution is something to be destroyed, not preserved.

Thats why they elected Obama, He freakn hates the constitution, as do most other commies....


PS F George Soros

 

No he doesn't burning in hell lady.

He rather likes the Constitution. And he hates Citizen's United which is the greatest affront to the bedrock of our democracy since the formation of the United States in the 18th Century. Hands down.

Allowing a foreign Prince, who has abetted the enemy in time of war to affect the internal democratic process, the epitome of which is the vote, by posing as a citizen, illegally, is not only a criminal act; it may very well be treasonous.

Aiding one who aides the enemy is treason. Particularly when its end product is the distortion or ruin of this country internally. The FCC is the instrument through which Obama can right this wrong. I suggest that he will look very weak indeed if he doesn't use it.

 

If a single Justice violates the Constitution, Congress can impeach him or her. Its right in the Constitution.

If the Court makes a ruling that you or I believe is unconstitutional, we can try pass an amendment to overturn that ruling.

That too is in the Constitution.

"We have checks and balances for a reason. And we are at war. This gives our President special powers to Act when he sees that a breach has been created in national security."

Technically- we are not at war. Again, the Constitution says that only Congress can declare war, and Congress has declined to officially declare war.

What you are proposing are essentially dictatorial powers for the office of the President.

I disagree with the Citizen's United Ruling, but what you are suggesting is far, far worse.

 

No it is't dictatorial. BESTOWING CITIZENSHIP UPON A FOREIGN PRINCE IS ILLEGAL PER INS RULES AND PER THE US CONSTITUTION AND THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. It VIOLATES THE BEDROCK OF OUR DEMOCRACY.

It is the single most destructive act a body could inflict upon our separate sovereign nation: to bestow powers of internal influence upon a foreign Prince. A Prince, no less, who has showered families of Al Qaida suicide bombers with 'reward cash'. That is, 'aiding and abetting' the enemy. Which is Al Qaida. Unless you want to argue that we have not declared war on Al Qaida?

OK, now that we are on the same page...

POTUS would not be acting in any dictatorial fashion whatsoever to preserve the Highest Law in the land; to which he swore Oath to uphold and protect upon entering office. In fact, if Obama did not use each and every means availible to him to thwart such an affront on our democratic bedrock, he would be in an impeachable position as to the edicts of that Oath.

He not only should use the FCC to shut down the mouth of the potentially-seditious Prince Talal through his various "corporate [illegal] citizen bodies", he MUST use the FCC and anything else he can think of or get his hands on to shut down Prince Talal's influences in our domestic internal affairs and electoral processes. Or else he should be impeached.

You know very well that conspirators with SCOTUS' illegal act are in a blocking position in Congress. Ergo, the three-way checks and balances. POTUS is not impotent, at least not in theory. He doesn't enjoy the luxury of pretending Prince Talal "hasn't" been ordained "an esteemed supercitizen" around the laws of the INS and the Constitution. He MUST ADDRESS THIS GROTESQUE AND DISFIGURING OVERREACH BY SCOTUS, or be removed from the Office he does not deserve Title to hold.

 

Citizen's United: The Other Branch of Immigration and Naturalization Service. Here is the Oath to which all men and women not naturally born here must take if they want citizenship and ability to participate in American democracy: [Except those people made citizens by Citizen's United].

And in spite of all that folks: Prince Talal is now invited to participate in internal American democracy via his money flowing into affecting campaigns/the vote/the bedrock of our democracy. Prince Talal is now, in practice and fact a US citizen without having to have been naturalized. Way to go SCOTUS. Say, is giving aid/leverage to someone who gave aid to the enemy also considered treason?