Ruling by the Supremes

[Peter Lemkin]

http://freespeechforpeople.org/

:heeeelllllooooo:

"American citizens have repeatedly amended the Constitution to defend democracy when the Supreme Court acts in collusion with democracy's enemies, whether they are slavemasters, states imposing poll taxes on voters, or the opponents of woman suffrage. Today, the Court has enthroned corporations, permitting them not only all kinds of special economic rights but now, amazingly, moving to grant them the same political rights as the people. This is a moment of high danger for democracy so we must act quickly to spell out in the Constitution what the people have always understood: that corporations do not enjoy the political and free speech rights that belong to the people of the United States."

- Professor Jamin Raskin, constitutional law expert at American University's Washington College of Law and Maryland state senator

Yes.

Yes. And if this is not done is it logical to conclude that the constitution is no longer a living breathing document? And if the constitution is no longer a living document, then...

......then the whole 'thing' (show, deal, gig, megillah) is dead as Jack Kennedy was by 12:35 pm 11/22/63.....and, not by coincidence, by some of the same forces.......

[Myra Bronstein]

http://freespeechforpeople.org/

:heeeelllllooooo:

"American citizens have repeatedly amended the Constitution to defend democracy when the Supreme Court acts in collusion with democracy's enemies, whether they are slavemasters, states imposing poll taxes on voters, or the opponents of woman suffrage. Today, the Court has enthroned corporations, permitting them not only all kinds of special economic rights but now, amazingly, moving to grant them the same political rights as the people. This is a moment of high danger for democracy so we must act quickly to spell out in the Constitution what the people have always understood: that corporations do not enjoy the political and free speech rights that belong to the people of the United States."

- Professor Jamin Raskin, constitutional law expert at American University's Washington College of Law and Maryland state senator

Yes.

Yes. And if this is not done is it logical to conclude that the constitution is no longer a living breathing document? And if the constitution is no longer a living document, then...

......then the whole 'thing' (show, deal, gig, megillah) is dead as Jack Kennedy was by 12:35 pm 11/22/63.....and, not by coincidence, by some of the same forces.......

Yeah. Or dead as a...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218

:ridinghorse:

[Peter Lemkin]

Some are fighting back!
http://www.movetoamend.org/ :congrats:

On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.
We Move to Amend.
We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:
Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.
Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.
Signed by 36,998 and counting . . .

[Myra Bronstein]

Some are fighting back!
http://www.movetoamend.org/ :congrats:

On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.
We Move to Amend.
We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:
Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.
Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.
Signed by 36,998 and counting . . .

Excellent! Thanks for the link Peter.

I hope it's not a false flag.

Just in case I wouldn't put all eggs in that basket. I couldn't help but notice certain names there: Thom Hartman, Howard Zinn. Yet there are trustworthy ones too (Lori Price).

The powers that be certainly anticipated a backlash so it's logical to assume they are already taking measures to neutralize it.

There needs to be swarms, decentralization, so that if one is false flag others continue to move forward.

[Peter Lemkin]

Some are fighting back!
http://www.movetoamend.org/ :congrats:

On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.
We Move to Amend.
We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:
Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.
Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.
Signed by 36,998 and counting . . .

Excellent! Thanks for the link Peter.

I hope it's not a false flag.

Just in case I wouldn't put all eggs in that basket. I couldn't help but notice certain names there: Thom Hartman, Howard Zinn. Yet there are trustworthy ones too (Lori Price).

The powers that be certainly anticipated a backlash so it's logical to assume they are already taking measures to neutralize it.

There needs to be swarms, decentralization, so that if one is false flag others continue to move forward.

No, its the real deal and those are real names signing it. I just heard someone on the internet name another ten other such sites....its a revolution [I hope!]

[Myra Bronstein]

Some are fighting back!
http://www.movetoamend.org/ :congrats:

On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.
We Move to Amend.
We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:
Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.
Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.
Signed by 36,998 and counting . . .

Excellent! Thanks for the link Peter.

I hope it's not a false flag.

Just in case I wouldn't put all eggs in that basket. I couldn't help but notice certain names there: Thom Hartman, Howard Zinn. Yet there are trustworthy ones too (Lori Price).

The powers that be certainly anticipated a backlash so it's logical to assume they are already taking measures to neutralize it.

There needs to be swarms, decentralization, so that if one is false flag others continue to move forward.

No, its the real deal and those are real names signing it. I just heard someone on the internet name another ten other such sites....its a revolution [I hope!]

Ok, good. You understand my point about the need for a decentralized approach though?

If people would please post links or other info on related activism then we'll compile them... somewhere so we'll have a handy list of resources. Maybe in a sticky.

[Ed Jewett]

Bruce, somehow I missed your "entry" to DPF so let me extend now and here a hearty welcome. I too stopped voting some years ago, probably for similar reasons. I'd guess there are three elements with which some of us look at the range of topics covered here and elsewhere: 1) the simple, deep and detailed research to figure who did what to whom; 2) the ongoing monitoring of the world and news and op-ed to see what's going down now; and 3) having some discussion with someone somewhere as to what can be done about it. Many of the founders and principals at DPF are heavily into category #1 and, to a large extent, I'm not qualified to do much but read, try to follow along, and wash their coffee cups so they can keep working. My personal orientation tends to category #2, because of my initial interest in news, documentary film, and the like. Increasingly, I am moving into category #3 if only for my children and theirs. I don't hold out much hope for changing or stopping the inexorable trends we see through politics, petitioning, or -- alas -- even civil disobedience. There is something to be said for a discussion at the small-group local interpersonal level for figuring out how to sustain, survive (and I don't refer to militia-based survivalism) and thrive in a world gone mad and dominated by others. Category #3 is a topic for a different thread, even a different web site, as I'm not sure it's one in coherence with the intent and focus of the DPF founders. Even Category #2 might be outside the normal realm except as it pertains to the same sinister inputs, modes and methods. At any rate, welcome... Any meaningful, respectful discussion is valid because it is apparent that the powers that be don't even want us to know, read or discuss anything except that which meets with their approval.

Ed, This is a thought provoking post. I love your summary. And I hope that DPF is a place for "having some discussion with someone somewhere as to what can be done about" current problems. Speaking strictly for myself, I'd like to be more focused on solutions and action and strategy. Even if the odds of success are slim I think sustained effort is important, if for no other reason than to keep our souls from withering.

Thank you, Myra. I've sent more than one e-mail to Magda speaking to my very positive impressions of this place and its founders and being desirous of having you all over for a good dinner with libation of choice and good music to facilitate such interaction, the latest impetus having been Charles Dargo's recent (and continued) demonstration of moral/cognitive leadership and direction. I've also fantasized about a conference or an online conference, recognizing the costs and difficulties in same.

I agree that the emphasis should be on "solutions, action and strategy."

I've tried to have such conversations face-to-face and online, but most folks are too bummed out, or in depression, or in denial, or don't see the need, or the reason for my intensity, or haven't (and won't) read the kinds of information I read. I am also recently energized because I've just finished reading "Resistance and Contemplation" by the author of "JFK and the Unspeakable". Elsewhere, as you all have already discovered and I am increasingly cognizant of, before you can have meaningful dialogue, you have to fend off or weed out intrusion and ignorance and mal-intent.

There's that old saying "There is no place just like this place anywhere near this place... so this must be the place."

[Bruce Clemens]

Ed, thank you for the kind welcome. I too feel honored to "clean up the dishes" for the ladies and gents on this forum who are contributing so much. I have learned more about the real world from what you all do here than 17 years of education and 30 years in the work force has ever provided.

I am still struggling as to what, if anything, meaningful an individual can do to turn this around. But this place at least gives me encouragement; there are other fellow travelers on this journey.

Best,
Bruce

[Magda Hassan]

There is the possibility if there is enough momentum behind this that the whole concept of ''Corporate Personhood' could be put to the test and found wanting. That would be nice :rock:

[Adele Edisen]

In all of this it seems to me that basic definitions should be made as to "person", "citizen", "voter", "corporation", "union", "group", and so on.

When comparing a definition of a "person" as a biological organism of the human species who is mortal, and created by the merging of genetic materials from two other human beings*, then to try to ascribe such definitions to a cinstructred entity created for the legitimate and sole purpose of doing business and making profits, say, seems absolutely ridiculous.

A "corporation" may exist for centuries or for forever, if need be; it may never cease. It is clearly not a biological organism. It only exists as a document of incorporation for its legal existence. The physical aspects of a corporation may be land, buildings, machinery, and intellectual properties of ideas, formulas, and products it may manufacture, etc., just to throw out some examples.

Such physical things cannot think, nor vote. Human beings can perform such actions. They are the only ones who can function in a democracy to govern themselves.

Since corporations, as documents of incorporation or as physical entities even, cannot, corporations cannot have the same rights of Freedom of Speech guaranteed by the Bill of Rights because they cannot think nor speak. Speech is clearly a form of human communication through the medium of spoken or written llanguage.

Corporations may employee persons as managers and other employees, and somwe managers or owners or shareholders may functioin as representatives of a corporationm, but they are not "the": coirporation itself.