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

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Silhouette, Sep 18, 2011.

  1. Silhouette

    Silhouette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    8,431
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."

    Wise words.

    I submit the Declaration of Independence as a summation of the intent of the entirety of the formation of the United States. It has specific grievances against England and England's oppression. Anything stated as oppressive in the DoI is not a mere interpretation of Intent, but a factual and specific guideline of it and all that follows [See the American Constitution].

    Footnotes 1-9 in the following post

     
  2. Silhouette

    Silhouette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    8,431
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

    Column 1
    Georgia:
    Button Gwinnett
    Lyman Hall
    George Walton

    Column 2
    North Carolina:
    William Hooper
    Joseph Hewes
    John Penn
    South Carolina:
    Edward Rutledge
    Thomas Heyward, Jr.
    Thomas Lynch, Jr.
    Arthur Middleton

    Column 3
    Massachusetts:
    John Hancock
    Maryland:
    Samuel Chase
    William Paca
    Thomas Stone
    Charles Carroll of Carrollton
    Virginia:
    George Wythe
    Richard Henry Lee
    Thomas Jefferson
    Benjamin Harrison
    Thomas Nelson, Jr.
    Francis Lightfoot Lee
    Carter Braxton

    Column 4
    Pennsylvania:
    Robert Morris
    Benjamin Rush
    Benjamin Franklin
    John Morton
    George Clymer
    James Smith
    George Taylor
    James Wilson
    George Ross
    Delaware:
    Caesar Rodney
    George Read
    Thomas McKean

    Column 5
    New York:
    William Floyd
    Philip Livingston
    Francis Lewis
    Lewis Morris
    New Jersey:
    Richard Stockton
    John Witherspoon
    Francis Hopkinson
    John Hart
    Abraham Clark

    Column 6
    New Hampshire:
    Josiah Bartlett
    William Whipple
    Massachusetts:
    Samuel Adams
    John Adams
    Robert Treat Paine
    Elbridge Gerry
    Rhode Island:
    Stephen Hopkins
    William Ellery
    Connecticut:
    Roger Sherman
    Samuel Huntington
    William Williams
    Oliver Wolcott
    New Hampshire:
    Matthew Thornton
    ************

    1. "Deriving their just powers from consent of the governed." Since there is a direct and irrefutable proportionate relationship in a political body known as $$ = power, amassing a pool of people-for-profit as "one citizen" is completely unfair. It dilutes the voice of each one person [outside the corporation] by increasing that corporation's ability to outcompete any other voice in pure $$. Non-profits by their very nature must rely on an increasingly meager influx of cash to compete to represent other voices for the general Welfare. Over time, this system is geared to favor for-profit corporations who, in real terms, will come to buy more and more influence in Congress, the Supreme Court and Potus and thereby will become de facto "Kings" [an oligarchy] over our land. This process has been going on for some time and is nearly completed actually. Citizen's United was the manifestation of the final blow.

    2. We must throw off this tyranny and install new guards against it in the future. I recommend trying the Supreme Court justices who voted in favor of Citizen's United for treason. And then adding an amendment to the Constitution that forbids using money or anything of value to lobby.

    3. This quote establishes the United States of America's de facto intent with regards to Citizen's United. It is saying "We regard tyrants like King George, who by virtue of being King, is wealthy and powerful over us, exemplified by that concentration in the crown, to be the antithesis of what the United States stands for." So "concentrated wealth and power and its influence" become the antithesis of the intent of the founding fathers for the governance of the United States. In plain terms, Citizen's United is one of the highest acts of treason against the United States that anyone could commit. It completely usurps the Will to spread power evenly and fairly among the people to govern themselves and returns it to a cetralized and organized focus of power over the masses by the few.

    4. By enacting Citizen's United and allowing value-for-votes lobbying to continue unchecked, the Supreme Court has taken this newly-legitimized treasonous usurping of the very bedrock of our democracy, and stripped the voices of the masses to be heard in Congress via the elected representatives. I was going to say "via their elected representatives" but when the voices of the powerful and centralized tyrants [for-profit corporations] are amplified as to drown out all others [eventually], any Representative will be Their representative and not that of the masses.

    5. This one is self-explanatory. The only reason a Supreme Court Justice would commit treason at such a high level would be if s/he was being compensated. Look for the Supreme Court to be wearing logos of businesses in the near future on their robes...like rodeo riders or NASCAR drivers. [or watch visionary Mike Judge's "Idiocracy" if you want to laugh at the painful truth as we go down the tubes together..]

    6. This one is the most (*)(*)(*)(*)ing of all. This sentence alone shows how corporations can and do introduce foreign rule in that their stockholders always include the ranks and Will of foreingers. FOREIGNERS MAY NOT PARTICIPATE IN OUR GOVERNANCE. Since all stockholders vote in their corporations' Will and function, and through that vote they impose their will on that Will and function, that means that as a part of the body that makes up "one super corporate citizen", a foreign person or persons are bending our internal policies to their liking. TREASON DEFINED. If Fox News, for example, is allowed to influence our internal policy, or any of the other scores of companies Prince Bin Talal of Saudi Arabia owns here in the US, and since he is a MAJOR VOICE in Newscorp, parent of Fox, that means that a FOREIGN MONARCH IS DE FACTO DETERMINING INTERNAL POLICY IN THE US. Go ahead and burn the Constitution. It is now worthless.

    7. "Altering fundamentally the forms of our Government". That is IN FACT what SCOTUS has done. And it is HIGH TREASON.

    8. "A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.." Not only a prince, THE prince Bin Talal as in the case of many US companies currently engaged in drowning out the voices of the many to focus and concentrate power of the few via corporate Influence.

    9. "Unwarrantable jurisidiction over us". That says it all right there.

    Wrapping up, the Declaration of Independance sets forth the Intent and Will of the formation of our nation as it was conceived and set forth under Law. The DoI is not an independant document, though that is in its Title. It is in fact the very bottom of bedrock of the intent of our political system. To place a crack in that bedrock is the highest form of treason there can possibly be.

    An Barack Obama, our president and esteemed constitutional scholar, sits on his hands as every drop of blood ever spilled to form and preserve this great underlying bedrock was all for naught.
     
  3. webrockk

    webrockk Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    25,361
    Likes Received:
    9,081
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Precedent for the Citizen's United ruling was established over a hundred years ago.
     
  4. randlepatrickmcmurphy

    randlepatrickmcmurphy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    Messages:
    5,797
    Likes Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is simply no way you can convince people that corporations are also people. That is simply a lie predicated by the wealthy ruling elite and a right wing activist SCOTUS. The last nail in the coffin of US democracy was pounded home the day that idiotic and damaging decision was handed down.
     
  5. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First of all I think the 'Citizen's United' ruling was incredibly stupid.

    But everything else you posted I essentially disagree with.

    The Constitution defines Treason. Read it sometime. We disagree with the Supreme Courts decision, but it is a decision not treason.

    The answer is in the Constitution. Pass an amendment specifying that Corporations(and Unions and other organizations) are not 'person's' and do not have the right to make political contributions.

    Matter of fact, forbid all but individual contributions.
     
  6. CarlB

    CarlB New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,047
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It was wrong then and it's wrong now. Businesses are clearly not people.
     
  7. webrockk

    webrockk Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    25,361
    Likes Received:
    9,081
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree. What I object to is leftists who have, as a vehicle for political expediency, attempted to attach the Citizen's United ruling to a modern, conservative leaning Surpreme Court....when they were simply following established, Constitutional precedent.
     
  8. algranny

    algranny New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,253
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Then please define what businesses are? Single structured entities that run alone without people? I agree with the poster than unions and businesses should be banned from political campaigns. Most progressives have no problem with unions being allowed to contribute others union dues without consent. If it is allowed for unions, it should also be allowed for businesses.

    Spirit of competition!
     
  9. Til the Last Drop

    Til the Last Drop Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2010
    Messages:
    9,069
    Likes Received:
    384
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The worst thing, if investigating the last names Bush and Clinton, you will find their family names are those who fought for the British. In the last 22 years, they had the presidency for 20 of them. One of MANY of the current blasphemies of modern American politics.
     
  10. Silhouette

    Silhouette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    8,431
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If a person is a foreigner and a stockholder in a company, and they vote in regular policy decision-making of that company, and that company gets recognition as "An American Citizen" then "Citizen's United" is treason defined as follows:

    With Prince A. Bin Talal of Saudi Arabia and the control in American companies he exerts, we have an especially illegal situation. Let's look at some convictions for Treason to establish precedent, while we're on the subject of it.

    [think of a cable news network that has tried to incite violence at rallies during time of civil unrest while at war in the past couple of years..]

    Now here comes the sticky problem for POTUS. Prince A. Bin Talal has been reported to have given relief monies to suicide bombers from Al Qaida.

    "Aid and Comfort"

    The Prince of Saudi Arabia exerts his influence in the broadcasting world. He is the second largest stockholder, influencer and part-US corporate citizen of News Corp. American Federal Law prohibits foreign monarchs from EVER having citizenship. Even if they are friendly towards the US. Talal's aid to the enemy in time of war doesn't qualify as "friendly".

    Prince Talal is known or should have been known by SCOTUS to not qualify as a citizen. Yet he was ordained a "citizen" by Citizen's United in full violation of the Articles of the Confederation. Specifically, Article I, Section 9.

    If you are unclear on the foreign Prince's intentions and collusions as to our sworn enemies in this time of war, here's more..

    SCOTUS, by ratifying Citizen's United into law, did this knowing that a foreign noble would be granted citizenship and allowed to unduly influence internal policy and governance.

    Ergo, giving him aid in this way, SCOTUS Justices guilty of assenting to this knowingly are by definition, guilty of treason.

    1. SCOTUS' intent was to assign citizenship to companies.

    2. SCOTUS knew and knows that companies are made up of foreign citizens, some of them nobility and some of them not friendly to the national security of the US.

    3. If it can be proven that an assenters within SCOTUS to Citizen's United knew of Prince Talal's Royal standing/stockholdership, then they at the very least illegally-granted citizenship to a foreign nobel in violation of the Articles of the Confederation.

    4. If they knew of or had reason to know of Prince Talal's giving aid and comfort to families of Al Qaida suicide bombers, then they are clearly guilty of collusion to allow internal access of a known enemy or advertised enemy-sympathizer to influence internal policy in the US.

    Now granted, they'll probably get off the hook for stupidity. But Citizen's United is Unconstitutional. It is "against the constitution [makeup] of American Law".

    Prince Talal may not now or ever be a citizen of the United States. And yet via Citizen's United, he was granted that title and influence. That DISPROPORTIONATE influence..
     
  11. Never Left

    Never Left Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    30,220
    Likes Received:
    410
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree with the first part, but the second, not so much. Freedom and liberty and a free market are the cornerstone of our republic.
     
  12. Never Left

    Never Left Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    30,220
    Likes Received:
    410
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree! All political campaigns should be open to all and taxpayer funded. The people will sort it all out.
     
  13. Clint Torres

    Clint Torres New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    0
    OP: your postings are convincing and the evidence is apparent. Perhaps a little to complex for simple minds. I agree with your suppositions, but history never repeats itself. In the USA slow simple minded 12yo adults don't understand more than 2 consepts at a time. Hence they may not know history, but they also make the same mistakes over and over again, expecting different outcomes.

    By the way: Chicken Hawk refers to a Dick Cheney, Rumsfeild, and Wolfowitz. AKA people in politics who would never serve in the military, but will send others off to die in war. Your interpretation is likely from the Urban Dictonary. If you check the term Chicken Head, you may find the term more appropriate for politicians who are owned by corporations.
     
  14. Til the Last Drop

    Til the Last Drop Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2010
    Messages:
    9,069
    Likes Received:
    384
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I don't think it is a matter of anyone doubting the OP. It is just no one is surprised by state sanctioned treason anymore. The definition of treason was wrote when men still fought on horseback. We have people in government collaborating with secret cabals made up of foreign individuals left and right. What is best for our nation is the last thing on anyone in D.C.'s mind. 300 million people waiting for someone else to do something about it is the problem.
     
  15. Clint Torres

    Clint Torres New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    0
    True, treason can also be interpreted and spun by the media to candy it up. Just like they did with the condition of Desertion during war. One of the major war deserters was George W, who was missing and AWOL from Alabama National Guard. Seems like the uSA and it's broadcast media just let that one slide. If it was WWII, his actions would have been punishible by firing squad. If George and Dick could get away with these kinds of crimes, I wouldn't doubt they did treason also.
     
  16. Dispondent

    Dispondent Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    34,260
    Likes Received:
    8,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And unions? They are people too but all we ever hear is whining about corporations. Bloody hypocrites.
     
  17. Til the Last Drop

    Til the Last Drop Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2010
    Messages:
    9,069
    Likes Received:
    384
    Trophy Points:
    83
    ALL collectives should not be counted as individuals. I would sacrifice unions on that level in a heart beat to remove such power from corporations, especially since unions are neutered by globalism.
     
  18. Dispondent

    Dispondent Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    34,260
    Likes Received:
    8,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We only hear about the evils of the corporations, until both are discussed equally all the yammering about corporations is nothing but hypocrisy by liberals. Personally I don't have a problem with the ruling, the money will get spent one way or another to influence the elections, that won't ever change. Money talks, and no law will prevent that.
     
  19. Til the Last Drop

    Til the Last Drop Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2010
    Messages:
    9,069
    Likes Received:
    384
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ahh, but here is the deal. If you force bribes under the table, the more timid will refuse, especially if examples are made. One of the major problems in America is we have 2 justice systems, white collar and blue collar. Since the media, like the state, became a tool of the elite, basically the ethics and independence of either entity long gone, we don't even get those rare incidences where bad form is exposed. And if it is exposed, due to grassroots exposure through such mediums as the internet, as soon as attentions are turned all are pardoned. People NEED to come to grips with the fact we are under a dictatorship of a selected few, our system only exists in a dream, our government in effect nothing more than administrators and wardens of the prison. America has been compromised. Every inch tainted.
     
  20. Silhouette

    Silhouette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    8,431
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is a remedy. And it follows this post.
     
  21. Silhouette

    Silhouette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    8,431
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Foreign dignitaries and noblity, particularly royalty MAY NOT EVER BE US CITIZENS.

    But Citizen's United has made a foreign Prince a de facto citizen.

    POTUS can do something about that. Thank goodness for checks and balances.

    The Oath of Office and Article I Section 9 of the Articles of Confederation compel the President to act to defend the high Law of the land.

    We cannot have a foreign Prince having US citizenship. Period. Even if the guy was a saint. But we have plenty of evidence that shows he is anything but acting in the interest of the US national security. Quite the opposite. How many hours of footage from Fox News sponsoring and inciting violence in the civilian population during war do you need to see before you conclude that Prince Talal's News Corp is outside the realm of free speech and into the territory of incitement?

    No vehicle, even a corporate umbrella "as citizen" may bestow citizenship or sway to an outside nobility to internal US affairs and governance.
     
  22. Silhouette

    Silhouette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    8,431
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    POTUS could Pen an Act that says "No corporation who has any foreigners as stockholders may act as a "corporate citizen" since all who participate in US democracy must be 100% pure and wholly US citizens." Foreign stockholders affect internal policies of corporations. And corporations by extension affect internal policies of this nation by "citizenship". Ergo foreigners are being granted rights that do not belong to them as expressly outlined in the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation.

    Since Prince Talal's citizenship is especially repugnant and illegal, and since he has aided and abetted our enemy in time of war, and since his influence is so profound through corporations he holds major interest in in the US, I'd think this could justify as an Act to preserve national security.

    When we're not at war the Act could perhaps be relaxed, but never in the case of foreign dignitaries. Ever.

    For instance..
     
  23. Dispondent

    Dispondent Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    34,260
    Likes Received:
    8,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Who said anything about bribes, that's a bit crass, maybe unions would do that, but I'd expect more from corporations. Simply put any law you can come up with there will be a work around within days. The workarounds would probably be set up in a complex manner to catch but easy to carry out.
     
  24. Silhouette

    Silhouette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    8,431
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You can't "work around" Article I, Section 9 of the Articles of Confederation.

    No foreign dignitary may be a US citizen under any circumstances, including holding influence/stock in a US corporation, even under the best of intentions or times.. Of which neither apply to Prince Talal of Saudi Arabia who currently owns major stock in:

    So none of those companies can qualify for "citizen's united" status, by definition of the Articles of Confederation.
     
  25. Yosh Shmenge

    Yosh Shmenge New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    22,146
    Likes Received:
    408
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This will get no one anywhere. In the context in which the ruling was made, it was absolutely appropriate. To hold corporations to a different standard than media or the unions in regards to political speech.
     

Share This Page