| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, just an afterthought: Mr Darkwing duck said that financial companies are entitled to their gains because "they took risks".
Well, IMHO, people who wants to get rich only "by taking risks" should go to Vegas. I have no problem with people who get rich by contributing something useful to society at large, but that casino mindset is truly wasteful.
Stock exchange should come back to what it was thirty years ago ( before reaganomics): an useful tool to get money invested in real economic endeavours, not some wheel of fortune club.
The financial industry now weighs a thousand times more than the real economy it was initially supposed to support. Like some Frankenstein monster, it took a life of its own and grew out of its usefulness to become a rampaging, counterproductive godzilla.
If risk doesn't earn a profit, then noone will take risks.
That means that there will no longer be entrepreneurs. It means that the companies which exist will be overwhelmingly the only companies which will always exist (and, as the various current companies will occassionally die off, their power will get more and more focused into the hands of the few).
To fail to reward risk is a guaranteed way to strengthen the oligarchy - to expand the distance between the "haves" and the "have nots".
And, I'm sorry, but there's no way in hell that I'd support that.
You're totally missing the point. Entrepreneurs DO contribute something useful to society, and should be rewarded for that (and for that only, not because of the risk they did or did not take).
People who get rich from purely speculative endeavours, by opposition to holding stock in real economy businesses, should NOT be entitled to anything just because they "took risks".
For example, you can build a fortune on foodstuff derivatives, such as wheat, which accomplishes nothing except artificially driving the prices up and triggering random food riots in third world countries.
High-speed trading does accomplishes nothing. Speculating on CDS based currencies to drive them into the ground accomplishes nothing. Those practices could be eliminated today without any negative effect.
Let me sum it up : entrepreneurs, yes ; speculation, no. I Hope it's clear.
D&D-themed Occupy New Hampshire!
--The main "facilitator" of the Concord General Assembly worked in a quotation from George R.R. Martin.
--One of the Facebook pages administrators had the Lion House symbol from Legend of the 5 Rings tattooed on his forearm
--At the post-General Assembly visit to the bar, of the assembled 7 people, 5 admitted to being gamers or at least being heavily into RPGs at one point in their life!
Looks like they're going to be plenty to do this winter in Veteran's Park...Occupy Paizo!
Awesome.
Are you posting this on your iPhone?
You pervy old goblin, you.
So, I haven't had a chance to read what's been written since last I checked in, but since last I checked in, Occupy New Hampshire is a go.
There were tons of hot chicks, a journalist I recognized from Counterpunch and a bunch of people who gave me the thumbs up when I talked about the need for international proletarian socialist revolution. In New Hampshire!
I can think of no better indication of the anger that is welling up in this country.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The phrase 'too big to fail' is the single LEAST Adam Smithy Capitalist idea I ever heard of. If it failed, it wasn't big enough. If something fails, giving it money isn't Capitalist.
-I believe what we have is post-capitalism. A system in which the system is free of certain noraml constraints that used to exist. A CEO who turns around a company, like steve jobs or Lee Iacocca deserve a billion dollards. A CEO who moves high security aviation manufacturing jobs to China while still getting govt. contracts should be fed to a grue.
D&D-themed Occupy New Hampshire!
--The main "facilitator" of the Concord General Assembly worked in a quotation from George R.R. Martin.
--One of the Facebook pages administrators had the Lion House symbol from Legend of the 5 Rings tattooed on his forearm
--At the post-General Assembly visit to the bar, of the assembled 7 people, 5 admitted to being gamers or at least being heavily into RPGs at one point in their life!
Looks like they're going to be plenty to do this winter in Veteran's Park...Occupy Paizo!
a lion? how droll. All glory to empress iweko! All glory to the unicorn! Remember the fox! Glory to the new SPIDER CLAN!
In all seriousness, i would like more opinions on the demands made earlier upthread. I think that would go a long way to promoting understanding and get us on the same page.
** spoiler omitted **
Um, no, that wasn't my idea at all...I was thinking more of an Ironsoots campaign to break the imperialist Chelish exploitation of Korvosa.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This movement seem rudderless at them moment;
and, at the moment, very reminiscent of the protests in Latin America in the 1980's.
- if this is a protest against banks who apparently don't have to
play by the same rules, then I like that.
- if this is a protest by poorer people against richer people,
then I don't like that.
.
Everyone has a right to their opinions, but most people don't care
what you think.
D&D-themed Occupy New Hampshire!
Awesome.
Are you posting this on your iPhone?
No. The occupation itself starts Saturday in Manchester. This was a General Assembly meeting in Concord to determine which of the two targeted cities to occupy. Regardless, I do not intend to be a permanent "occupier." I'll leave that to the unemployed students and hippies.
EDIT: Waitaminnit! Was that a joke? If so, hee hee!
You pervy old goblin, you.
I'm not that old! [Runs off after ripe, fresh socialist hussies]
[Runs back]
Back to the D&D theme: One of the guys kind of running the show was a real globe-trotter having spent a decade as some kind of monk (Christian? Buddhist? It didn't come up) in South Korea and the Philippines.
We talked about Rifts.
This movement seem rudderless at them moment;
and, at the moment, very reminiscent of the protests in Latin America in the 1980's.- if this is a protest against banks who apparently don't have to
play by the same rules, then I like that.
It is.
- if this is a protest by poorer people against richer people,
then I don't like that.
It's that, too. Not probably the way you think it is, but yeah, there's a big scam going on here, and people don't like it.
Everyone has a right to their opinions, but most people don't care
what you think.
Until you get out there and try to change things, you're doing nothing. Taking it to the streets works.
It can't *all* be a conspiracy.If it is, I'm gonna be pissed. I was a card-carrying member of the ACLU at 22, I've got three free EFF t-shirts, and Bono has nagged me until I sent off several letters for Amnesty International. Come on, Sekrit Soros Kabal, I've proven myself... let me in!
Wait a minute... come to think of it, I've never gotten a single newsletter for the Gay Agenda either!
Dang it Left Conspiracy Peeps, what gives?!
I bet it's cause I'm a girl, with girl cooties, isn't it?
Circle circle dot dot...
Awesome.
Are you posting this on your iPhone?
OK Alanis. ;)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
D&D-themed Occupy New Hampshire!
--The main "facilitator" of the Concord General Assembly worked in a quotation from George R.R. Martin.
--One of the Facebook pages administrators had the Lion House symbol from Legend of the 5 Rings tattooed on his forearm
--At the post-General Assembly visit to the bar, of the assembled 7 people, 5 admitted to being gamers or at least being heavily into RPGs at one point in their life!
Looks like they're going to be plenty to do this winter in Veteran's Park...Occupy Paizo!
Awesome.
Are you posting this on your iPhone?
You know, there's a difference between 1) stating people should be paid a fair wage and that corporations and banks should be held responsible for their actions, and 2) being anti-corporation altogether. I don't hear any (or, at any rate, very many) people arguing for the dismantling of all corporations - that would be devastating for the unemployment rate and availability of goods. I hear people asking that those running corporations be accountable for their actions and follow sensible regulations.
I don't see any dissonance whatsoever with OWS protesters using products made by corporations. If anything, they'd like to have a chance perhaps to make them, rather than see them all produced overseas.
Before you guys all jump down Hudax's throat, he may have thought I was posting from an occupation. Or he might be just being a wiseass. Or both. Either way, I say: hee hee!
Anyway, so, yeah, non-hierarchical organizational methods are cool, I guess, but all this "the people's mic" and spirit-fingers/jazz-hands nonsense is for the birds. I much prefer Robert's Rules of Order.
But this is awesome.
Break with the Democrats!
|
Anyway, so, yeah, non-hierarchical organizational methods are cool, I guess, but all this "the people's mic" and spirit-fingers/jazz-hands nonsense is for the birds. I much prefer Robert's Rules of Order.
But this is awesome.
Break with the Democrats!
But consensus isn't democracy. Strange to see them conflated.
But, whatever, ain't my place to say.
About the iPhone, I was playing off of brassbaboon's quip about it earlier. I did actually think you were at an occupation. And I was being a wise ass. :)
In all seriousness, i would like more opinions on the demands made earlier upthread. I think that would go a long way to promoting understanding and get us on the same page.
In general I agree with all points but I agree with our commie goblin friend--some could go much farther. But I suppose a beginning is really what's needed at this point.
Even a brief perusal shows it to be a well organized and highly intelligent protest. A stark counterpoint to the “Obama is a Nazi Socialist and my lowest-of-the-last-60-years tax rates are too high” protests of 2009.
1. CONGRESS PASS HR 1489 ("RETURN TO PRUDENT BANKING ACT" http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1489 ). THIS REINSTATES MANY PROVISIONS OF THE GLASS-STEAGALL ACT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act --- Wiki entry summary: The repeal of provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks. Most economists believe this repeal directly contributed to the severity of the Financial crisis of 2007–2011 by allowing Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in commercial banks owned or created by the investment firms. Here's detail on repeal in 1999 and how it happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act#Repeal.
Well, we know who the bad guys were in the crisis: the mortgage-backed securities brokers. Knowing there is no protection between the money in my checking account and those people makes me feel dirty. We would do well to remember part of the fallout of the crisis was the lowering of the amount of money in our bank accounts that is FDIC guaranteed (FDIC was created by the Glass–Steagall Act).
It is unsurprising to note that the corrupt Bank of America opposes the idea of reinstating the Glass–Steagall Act. I am 100% in favor of anything and everything BoA thinks is bad for their business. But aside from my personal bias against them, the reinstatement just makes sense. The Act was created to prevent corruption, then repealed, then corruption happened on a massive global scale. The solution is obvious.Full support on this point. Glad to see congress already had this in the works.
2. USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis in the following notable cases: (insert list of the most clear cut criminal actions). There is a pretty broad consensus that there is a clear group of people who got away with millions / billions illegally and haven't been brought to justice. Boy would this be long overdue and cathartic for millions of Americans. It would also be a shot across the bow for the financial industry. If you watch the solidly researched and awared winning documentary film "Inside Job" that was narrated by Matt Damon (pretty brave Matt!) and do other research, it wouldn't take long to develop the list.
Obama’s policy of not going after these people and others in the Bush administration is one thing that really irks me about him. He has essentially pardoned them without the formality of actually pardoning them. I’m hoping he was just leaving the option open for future pursuit.
I honestly don’t think a valid argument could be made against this point. Full support.(I need to watch this. I heard on NPR Damon walked in and nailed every single take in one take. Damn impressive.)
3. CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION which essentially said corporations can spend as much as they want on elections. The result is that corporations can pretty much buy elections. Corporations should be highly limited in ability to contribute to political campaigns no matter what the election and no matter what the form of media. This legislation should also RE-ESTABLISH THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES IN THE U.S. SO THAT POLITICAL CANDIDATES ARE GIVEN EQUAL TIME FOR FREE AT REASONABLE INTERVALS IN DAILY PROGRAMMING DURING CAMPAIGN SEASON. The same should extend to other media.
On this and point 8, hell yes. These two decisions effectively write the Republican party a blank check, and it’s blatantly obvious. I would be opposed to these corporate benefits even if I were republican, or even if they somehow gave democrats an obvious edge.
On the media, also hell yes. Time to end the American aristocracy. Go further and eliminate campaign contributions entirely. Candidates can make their case in public debate and on their timeslot. It was utterly disgusting to see ad after ad for republican after republican during the 2008 election. And we all know how well that worked out. Just get rid of it.I would go one step further and undo all the Gerrymandering that has been done, as this is nothing more than a blatant way to divide politics along racial and economic lines.
Full support but needs to go further.
4. CONGRESS PASS THE BUFFETT RULE ON FAIR TAXATION SO THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE & CLOSE CORPORATE TAX LOOP HOLES AND ENACT A PROHIBITION ON HIDING FUNDS OFF SHORE. No more GE paying zero or negative taxes. Pass the Buffet Rule on fair taxation so the rich pay their fair share. (If we have a really had a good negotiating position and have the place surrounded, we could actually dial up taxes on millionaires, billionaires and corporations even higher...back to what they once were in the 50's and 60's.
We currently have the lowest tax revenue since 1950. And the highest spending since WWII—although by percentage of GDP we’re still only spending about half what was spent back then. Both of these need to change. Both need to go up dramatically. Tax increases must be concentrated on the rich and especially corporations. Orient all tax audits away from low and middle class families and exclusively toward the rich and corporations. Spending needs to double for at least a year, with the money flowing into infrastructure and jobs. Otherwise we will languish in this mess for years, possibly decades. Orienting infrastructure spending toward alternative energy would be the smartest thing to do, particularly if it’s invested in wind and solar and the development of ways to store and distribute such power.
Full support, but once again, go much farther.5. CONGRESS COMPLETELY REVAMP THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION and staff it at all levels with proven professionals who get the job done protecting the integrity of the marketplace so citizens and investors are both protected. This agency needs a large staff and needs to be well-funded. It's currently has a joke of a budget and is run by Wall St. insiders who often leave for high ticket cushy jobs with the corporations they were just regulating. Hmmm.
Yes, but how?
Obviously making it illegal to ever be employed by anything you regulate.A complete re-staffing is in order. People who fail to do their jobs, or worse abuse their jobs to knowingly and willfully do harm, should lose them.
This point needs more detail, particularly with specific suggestions of what could be done quickly and easily. 1489 could be passed into law tomorrow. “Completely revamp the SEC” leaves too much to the imagination.
6. CONGRESS PASS SPECIFIC AND EFFECTIVE LAWS LIMITING THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELIMINATING THE PRACTICE OF LOBBYISTS WRITING LEGISLATION THAT ENDS UP ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS.
Simple and straightforward. Sever the corporate-congressional connection. Mimic the Glass–Steagall Act in regards to the corruption that comes from the conflict of interest between corporations and legislators being under-regulated. Stop corporations from buying legislation.
7. CONGRESS PASSING "Revolving Door Legislation" LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS THAT THEY ONCE REGULATED. So, you don't get to work at the FDA for five years playing softball with Pfizer and then go to work for Pfizer making $195,000 a year. While they're at it, Congress should pass specific and effective laws to enforce strict judicial standards of conduct in matters concerning conflicts of interest. So long as judges are culled from the ranks of corporate attorneys the 1% will retain control.
A follow-up of point 5. Full support. And agreed, corporate lawyers have a conflict of interest taking political roles and should not be eligible for any such role.
8. ELIMINATE "PERSONHOOD" LEGAL STATUS FOR CORPORATIONS. The film "The Corporation" has a great section on how corporations won "personhood status". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SuUzmqBewg . Fast-forward to 2:20. It'll blow your mind. The 14th amendment was supposed to give equal rights to African Americans. It said you "can't deprive a person of life, liberty or property without due process of law". Corporation lawyers wanted corporations to have more power so they basically said "corporations are people." Amazingly, between 1890 and 1910 there were 307 cases brought before the court under the 14th amendment. 288 of these brought by corporations and only 19 by African Americans. 600,000 people were killed to get rights for people and then judges applied those rights to capital and property while stripping them from people. It's time to set this straight.
I am continually appalled that this law ever saw the light of day. Corporations aren’t people. Any lobotomy patient knows this. It’s complete fiction and a blatant abuse of law. Here’s the sum total of corporate rights:
They have the right to a name, so long as it’s not already taken.They have the right to a tax ID number, and the right to legal tax deductions (which should be few).
They have the right to do business and own capital. They only have this right so the owners don’t get screwed if they have to file bankruptcy.
They have the right to file bankruptcy.
That’s it. That’s where the comparison to personhood ends.
REPEAL!
Whew. I’m gonna go supplement my BO with patchouli and then trade some of my hemp jewelry for more granola for my backpack.
But this is awesome.
That is kind of sad. What is the purpose of that?
Someone from the super-secret OWS headquarters needs to phone the Atlanta branch and tell them to stop embarrassing us.
About this:
3. CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION which essentially said corporations can spend as much as they want on elections. The result is that corporations can pretty much buy elections. Corporations should be highly limited in ability to contribute to political campaigns no matter what the election and no matter what the form of media. This legislation should also RE-ESTABLISH THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES IN THE U.S. SO THAT POLITICAL CANDIDATES ARE GIVEN EQUAL TIME FOR FREE AT REASONABLE INTERVALS IN DAILY PROGRAMMING DURING CAMPAIGN SEASON. The same should extend to other media.On this and point 8, hell yes. These two decisions effectively write the Republican party a blank check, and it’s blatantly obvious. I would be opposed to these corporate benefits even if I were republican, or even if they somehow gave democrats an obvious edge.
On the media, also hell yes. Time to end the American aristocracy. Go further and eliminate campaign contributions entirely. Candidates can make their case in public debate and on their timeslot. It was utterly disgusting to see ad after ad for republican after republican during the 2008 election. And we all know how well that worked out. Just get rid of it.
I would go one step further and undo all the Gerrymandering that has been done, as this is nothing more than a blatant way to divide politics along racial and economic lines.
Full support but needs to go further.
First
Congress can't enact legislation to reverse decisions of the Supreme Court. Legislation limited that spending and the SCotUS said it was unconstitutional because it would violate the constitution because that is what the SCotUS says it does. A bit redundant but true nonetheless.Second
Write the Republican party a blank check? It does just as much so for the Democratic party. Unions now have a completely unfettered ability to support the Democratic party.
That is kind of sad. What is the purpose of that?
Someone from the super-secret OWS headquarters needs to phone the Atlanta branch and tell them to stop embarrassing us.
I'm not in the least embarrassed. I wouldn't have voiced my concerns in the same hippie-ridiculous way, but I have no problem with Democratic Congressmen being barred from speaking at OWS rallies.
As for John Lewis himself, yes, he's a well-respected veteran of the Civil Rights Movement and I'd have to salute that, although I admit to not knowing his exact CV. Nevertheless, in the same vein as my comments about Elizabeth Warren above, the Democrats don't rope you back into the party by sending the Eisenhower Dems to the socialist/hippie/unemployed rally.
Break with the Democrats!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the Supreme Court won't reverse its ruling on corporate personhood then we need to overturn Marbury vs. Madison. If the Supreme Court, 9 men and women, unelected yet appointed for life, can interpret laws and indeed the constitution itself to mean whatever they like, they have too much power. The fact that there is no legal mechanism in place to remove them from office proves that there is a gross imbalance in our checks and balances.
Look, thing one is to call for a Constitutional convention and amend the 14th amendment, if the Judicial Branch won't play ball.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
About this:
Union stuff
Comrade Jeff's pretty much right. Unions are allowed to collect money from members for the specific purpose of lobbying and education (in the Teamsters, we have a DRIVE fund) but this money is supposed to be separate from, say, the pension fund and the membership dues.
I say "supposed to" because we all know how corrupt unions are.
Regardless, yes, every election that rolls around, the hall is jammed with volunteer staffers calling people on the phone and knocking on doors.
I don't have much to add to what you're talking about, but I have an involuntary reflex to post every time I see the word "union".
About this:
Union stuff
Comrade Jeff's pretty much right. Unions are allowed to collect money from members for the specific purpose of lobbying and education (in the Teamsters, we have a DRIVE fund) but this money is supposed to be separate from, say, the pension fund and the membership dues.
I say "supposed to" because we all know how corrupt unions are.
Regardless, yes, every election that rolls around, the hall is jammed with volunteer staffers calling people on the phone and knocking on doors.
I don't have much to add to what you're talking about, but I have an involuntary reflex to post every time I see the word "union".
But, I believe they are now legally allowed to give in a manner they were not prior to the decision. They can give to specific candidates as a union rather than individuals. I bring this up because when I worked as a steelworker, it was a closed shop and everyone paid 1.3% of their gross to the shop, I worked with many Republicans who opposed the campaign choices of the union. (The union had "volunteers" performing calls for the Democratic party.) Now, unless I'm mistaken, they can use their money to support candidates. So, in order to hold a job, one is required to monetarily support the union which can take that money to support candidates many of their members do not wish to support.
But, I believe they are now legally allowed to give in a manner they were not prior to the decision. They can give to specific candidates as a union rather than individuals. I bring this up because when I worked as a steelworker, it was a closed shop and everyone paid 1.3% of their gross to the shop, I worked with many Republicans who opposed the campaign choices of the union. (The union had "volunteers" performing calls for the Democratic party.) Now, unless I'm mistaken, they can use their money to support candidates. So, in order to hold a job, one is required to monetarily support the union which can take that money to support candidates many of their members do not wish to support.About this:
Union stuff
Comrade Jeff's pretty much right. Unions are allowed to collect money from members for the specific purpose of lobbying and education (in the Teamsters, we have a DRIVE fund) but this money is supposed to be separate from, say, the pension fund and the membership dues.
I say "supposed to" because we all know how corrupt unions are.
Regardless, yes, every election that rolls around, the hall is jammed with volunteer staffers calling people on the phone and knocking on doors.
I don't have much to add to what you're talking about, but I have an involuntary reflex to post every time I see the word "union".
I don't know about other unions, but this came up with a good friend of mine who is a high school teacher and thus a member of a teacher's union. In his case he can opt out of the portion of his union membership dues that goes to political contributions. That amount, annually, of his 40k-ish salary, is about $13.
If the Supreme Court won't reverse its ruling on corporate personhood then we need to overturn Marbury vs. Madison. If the Supreme Court, 9 men and women, unelected yet appointed for life, can interpret laws and indeed the constitution itself to mean whatever they like, they have too much power. The fact that there is no legal mechanism in place to remove them from office proves that there is a gross imbalance in our checks and balances.
Look, thing one is to call for a Constitutional convention and amend the 14th amendment, if the Judicial Branch won't play ball.
You can't overturn Marbury vs Madison. Well, technically the Supreme Court could, but they won't.
You could amend the Constitution to prevent the Court from striking down laws as unconstitutional, but I'm not sure what that would actually mean?
What would the courts do with someone charged with violating a local law banning firearms?
Reversing Marbury vs Madison would mean the Constitution had no legal force.There is a legal mechanism for removing Justices from office. They can be impeached on essentially the same terms as any elected official.
I wouldn't be at all opposed to having them subject to the same ethical and disclosure rules as other judges.
You can overturn Marbury vs. Madison...if you get the right justices on the bench. A cart/horse problem, I admit, but they could remove this ability in perpetuity.
The executive branch is in charge of enforcing the constitution and federal laws, not the judicial branch. In one case you have the judicial branch saying "you can't make that law, it's unconstitutional" and a state refusing to comply, what do you do? In the other you have the executive branch saying "you can't make that law, it's unconstitutional" and a state refusing to comply. What happens in either case if a state refused to comply? How does having one branch or another in charge change that situation?
The Constitution allows for supreme court justices to be impeached and removed from office in the same manner of a president, but if it's up to the supreme court to interpret what is meant by "good behavior" in article 3, then how do you get one out? It goes against the very idea of checks and balances, which is the entire argument FOR Marbury vs. Madison. It makes one's head spin!
Why haven't the Democrats moved to remove the justices who voted in favor of Citizens United?
You could amend the Constitution to prevent the Court from striking down laws as unconstitutional, but I'm not sure what that would actually mean?
You shouldn't have to amend the constitution to prevent the court from doing this because it is not a power granted them by the constitution or by any law.
Perhaps progress marches slower when our society is forced to reach a consensus on such issues rather than be decided by fiat on this Supreme Court, but it seems in these times that the Court is instead an obstruction to such progress and its role in how our government functions should be reevaluated.
As for John Lewis himself, yes, he's a well-respected veteran of the Civil Rights Movement and I'd have to salute that, although I admit to not knowing his exact CV.
Oh shiznit! The old mind might be sluggish after years of substance abuse but I finally remembered who John Lewis was and it makes this story all the more ironic.
Lewis was the leader of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (the youth group of MLK's Southern Christian Leadership Council EDIT: Conference) during the famous "I have a dream"-speech March on Washington.
Lewis had prepared a speech that was highly critical of the Democrats. The White House got wind of this, and exerted pressure through King and (I think) Bayard Rustin to get Lewis to delete the offending paragraphs.
Now he's a Democrat and the OWS-crowd (in Atlanta!) "blocks" him.
Hee hee! and Break with the Democrats!
.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
200+ years of case law and legal analysis beg to differ with your conclusion.
You shouldn't have to amend the constitution to prevent the court from doing this because it is not a power granted them by the constitution or by any law.
Not sure where you're pulling that from. It was a decision BY the judicial branch ABOUT the judicial branch and has not been contested since the initial decision. It has become part of the basic structure of our government despite not being spelled out in the Constitution.
I put it to you, do you believe that 5 people in an unelected position, appointed for life, should be able to decide that corporations are people? Or, to drudge up an old topic, decide a Presidential election as they had done in 2000? What's to keep them from deciding, really, anything they want to? They have no electorate to answer to.
Why haven't the Democrats...
I try to make no claims I can't substantiate, but has anyone else seen the story that the Koch Brothers (?--maybe someone else) wined and dined Clarence Thomas for a couple of grand soon before the Citizens United decision?
Again, I make no claims to the merit of the story, I just saw the headline somewhere.
|
200+ years of case law and legal analysis beg to differ with your conclusion.
You shouldn't have to amend the constitution to prevent the court from doing this because it is not a power granted them by the constitution or by any law.Not sure where you're pulling that from. It was a decision BY the judicial branch ABOUT the judicial branch and has not been contested since the initial decision. It has become part of the basic structure of our government despite not being spelled out in the Constitution.
I put it to you, do you believe that 5 people in an unelected position, appointed for life, should be able to decide that corporations are people? Or, to drudge up an old topic, decide a Presidential election as they had done in 2000? What's to keep them from deciding, really, anything they want to? They have no electorate to answer to.
Name a free and functioning democracy without a strong independant judiciary?
|
|
Why haven't the Democrats...I try to make no claims I can't substantiate, but has anyone else seen the story that the Koch Brothers (?--maybe someone else) wined and dined Clarence Thomas for a couple of grand soon before the Citizens United decision?
Again, I make no claims to the merit of the story, I just saw the headline somewhere.
1991 Time Magazine Article:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,973826,00.html#ixzz1DzuvQ4 Rz
Both Scalia and Thomas have attended Koch brothers events, if you google it you'll find a lot of the more left news sources ranting. I believe there is also some sort of judicial recall petition (not sure what you americans would call it) coming from Congress.
Comrade, when you are out occupying keep an eye out for agents provocateur.
Thank you, comrade, for the warning.
The issue came up at the General Assembly and I turned to the organizers and said, "I want you to know right now that I am not an agent provocateur, but I am a communist who believes in armed revolution."
They took it pretty well.
Why haven't the Democrats...I try to make no claims I can't substantiate, but has anyone else seen the story that the Koch Brothers (?--maybe someone else) wined and dined Clarence Thomas for a couple of grand soon before the Citizens United decision?
Again, I make no claims to the merit of the story, I just saw the headline somewhere.
There is talk about censuring Thomas due to his not reporting income that Ginni received from the Heritage Foundation. I've heard your rumor also though I'm too lazy to research it. His ethics have always been suspect.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Not sure where you're pulling that from. It was a decision BY the judicial branch ABOUT the judicial branch and has not been contested since the initial decision. It has become part of the basic structure of our government despite not being spelled out in the Constitution.
Yeah...almost as if people accepted the decision and thought it was correct, and then proceeded as if it were correct and based further decisions on it and operated the government in accordance with that decision, while, at the same time, having the capacity and multiple opportunities to amend the Constitution and clarify that what you say it means is really what it means.
Weird, huh? Maybe the generations of Americans operating the government never had the opportunity to speak with such an esteemed and learned legal scholar, such as yourself. I'm sure if they'd been presented with such amazing arguments as "that decision was wrong" that they would've changed their mind and amended the Constitution.
I put it to you, do you believe that 5 people in an unelected position, appointed for life, should be able to decide that corporations are people? Or, to drudge up an old topic, decide a Presidential election as they had done in 2000? What's to keep them from deciding, really, anything they want to? They have no electorate to answer to.
Let me put it to you. Do you believe I'm going to answer arhetorical question which (a) is poortly articulated, (b) confuses individual opinions on individual matters with the broad principles upon which judicial decisions are made, and (c) is basically pretty irrelevant to the basic facts noted above (i.e., that the authority of the court has been established and agreed upon, no matter how inconvenient it may be to your particular personal ideology in certain specific instances)?
But, I believe they are now legally allowed to give in a manner they were not prior to the decision. They can give to specific candidates as a union rather than individuals. I bring this up because when I worked as a steelworker, it was a closed shop and everyone paid 1.3% of their gross to the shop, I worked with many Republicans who opposed the campaign choices of the union. (The union had "volunteers" performing calls for the Democratic party.) Now, unless I'm mistaken, they can use their money to support candidates. So, in order to hold a job, one is required to monetarily support the union which can take that money to support candidates many of their members do not wish to support.
I don't know for a fact, but I don't think that is right, or, at least, that's not how it goes down in the Teamsters--or, again, how it's supposed to go down. The previous President of the IBT, Ron Carey, got taken out by the feds for exactly the kind of campaign-finance chicanery that we're talking about, although I'd hasten to add that he was finally exonerated of all charges.
EDIT: I just lost all relation to the timestream continuity. Ignore all references to Ron Carey as that happened way before Citizens United.
Either way, I, personally, am opposed to the union's giving their money to the Democrats. 'Cuz I hate 'em!
Why haven't the Democrats...I try to make no claims I can't substantiate, but has anyone else seen the story that the Koch Brothers (?--maybe someone else) wined and dined Clarence Thomas for a couple of grand soon before the Citizens United decision?
Again, I make no claims to the merit of the story, I just saw the headline somewhere.
I heard that the Koch Brothers, (or maybe Goldfinger) had him implanted with a microexplosive in his brain that, with one call from a special red cell phone, will activate, shred his Circle of Willis and make him bleed the f%$$ out if he doesn't play ball.
But, again, this is all hearsay. Don't know if it's admissable.
I take it, then, that you haven't heard the story.
There's circles within circles, man. This thing's got angles that'd make Euclid scratch his head.
We're just scratching the surface. And there's a layer of candyapple red under the hastily sprayed primer.
Yeah...almost as if people accepted the decision and thought it was correct, and then proceeded as if it were correct and based further decisions on it and operated the government in accordance with that decision, while, at the same time, having the capacity and multiple opportunities to amend the Constitution and clarify that what you say it means is really what it means.
Because things that have already existed for a long time are always morally and legally circumspect. Like slavery, or colonialism. Things don't need to be reexamined because, hey, if they weren't supposed to be that way, they wouldn't. Spare me.
What I'm calling for is a reexamination of these principles, and all you're giving me is personal attacks. My question was not rhetorical but a genuine one? What way is there to eliminate corporate personhood, and ensure that it is not later reestablished, other than overturning Marbury vs. Madison and/or a separate constitutional amendment? Which of these is more likely?