CA SB 1272 - Overturn Citizens United

[martybegan]

It would apply limits on campaign financing to all natural persons. It says that.

So the board of directors of a corporation is made up of robots?

 

[martybegan]

Does the name "Cliven Bundy" ring any bells in your head?

Take your time to really think about it.

Leave it to you to derail your own thread. You lose.

You didn't take any time to think about it, either.

"The courts are the law of the land." That's your point? And yet you support Cliven Bundy who refuses to accept the law of the land. And I lose? Yeah, you're a Teabagger. Good job, imbecile.

What he is doing is ignoring the courts. The government now has to enforce its decree, and Bundy is threatening to defend himself and his property. There are consequences for ignoring the courts, and Bundy has decided either to fight it, or he thinks the government will back down.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Leland, Leland, Leland!

 

[Edgetho]

Only two ways: a Constitutional Amendment can overturn a Supreme Court Ruling.

The Supreme Court itself can overturn a prior ruling.

I'm surrounded by idiots.

No wonder I'm angry all the time. Can't find a single dem in here that I can debate who's in possession of an above room temperature IQ.

People come in here, throw shit all over the board and don't understand the most basic of principles on how this Country works.

Typical dimocrap. Dumb as a bag of farts

You may now commence with the lies, the ad hominem attacks and accusations (racist, homophobe, misogynist, voter suppression....)

I'm out of this stupid fucking thread

 

[Silhouette]

Only two ways: a Constitutional Amendment can overturn a Supreme Court Ruling.

The Supreme Court itself can overturn a prior ruling.

Just so hard to take you seriously with that streaming video. I'm surprised the site allows it really. It is at once racist, denigrating to women and pornographic. Also, the girl looks quite young so it's bordering on child exploitation. Really, I suggest you remove it. It is as evil as a thing can be.

As to your points, a good attorney or even a bad one could argue very simply how Citizen's United is in violation of our Constitutional provisions that require foreigners to naturalize and swear an Oath of allegiance to the US and forsake their own country of origin before they are recognized or can act as US citizens. The most fundamental way a person can "act as a US citizen" is by their vote. If foreigners are essentially allowed to buy elections, then rich arab oil princes, slimey Russian zillionaires and clever Chinese "businessmen" can infiltrate our internal affairs and tool this country to their liking. They will never be short on greedy, selfish, traitorous narcissists actual "US citizens" willing to take a buck to do their bidding in the legislative or even the executive branch...possibly eventually even the judicial...

Yes, a lawschool flunky could force the Supreme Court back on its heel on this one. It would force the Supreme Court to examine the Constitutional statutes regarding naturalization and make it recognize that corporations cannot become citizens without each and every member of them, especially major stockholders, being naturalized. It doesn't stop treason and sedition from foreign shores. After all, Rupert Murdoch naturalized. But it does tend to stave it off and make naturalized citizens think twice since they can be stripped and deported for great offenses against the US internally.

When the Supreme Court upheld Citizens United I couldn't just visualize the Founding Fathers turning over in their graves...I could feel them turning over in their graves. It was so palpable that it made my flesh crawl...

 

[martybegan]

Only two ways: a Constitutional Amendment can overturn a Supreme Court Ruling.

The Supreme Court itself can overturn a prior ruling.

Just so hard to take you seriously with that streaming video. I'm surprised the site allows it really. It is at once racist, denigrating to women and pornographic. Also, the girl looks quite young so it's bordering on child exploitation. Really, I suggest you remove it.

As to your points, a good attorney or even a bad one could argue very simply how Citizen's United is in violation of our Constitutional provisions that require foreigners to naturalize and swear an Oath of allegiance to the US and forsake their own country of origin before they are recognized or can act as US citizens. The most fundamental way a person can "act as a US citizen" is by their vote. If foreigners are essentially allowed to buy elections, then rich arab oil princes, slimey Russian zillionaires and clever Chinese "businessmen" can infiltrate our internal affairs and tool this country to their liking. They will never be short on greedy, selfish, traitorous narcissists actual "US citizens" willing to take a buck to do their bidding in the legislative or even the executive branch...possibly eventually even the judicial...

Yes, a lawschool flunky could force the Supreme Court back on its heel on this one. It would force the Supreme Court to examine the Constitutional statutes regarding naturalization and make it recognize that corporations cannot become citizens without each and every member of them, especially major stockholders, being naturalized. It doesn't stop treason and sedition from foreign shores. After all, Rupert Murdoch naturalized. But it does tend to stave it off and make naturalized citizens think twice since they can be stripped and deported for great offenses against the US internally.

How is a non-nip boob upshot even remotely pornographic? And showing a hot Hispanic chick is racist? Wouldn't a white racist not even be attracted to that? And she appears to be pretty happy, singing along. Jeez stop being offended by everything.

as for the rest of it, what are you yammering about?

 

[Silhouette]

How is a non-nip boob upshot even remotely pornographic? And showing a hot Hispanic chick is racist? Wouldn't a white racist not even be attracted to that? And she appears to be pretty happy, singing along. Jeez stop being offended by everything.

as for the rest of it, what are you yammering about?

I stand by what I said.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Only two ways: a Constitutional Amendment can overturn a Supreme Court Ruling.

The Supreme Court itself can overturn a prior ruling.

I'm surrounded by idiots.

No wonder I'm angry all the time. Can't find a single dem in here that I can debate who's in possession of an above room temperature IQ.

People come in here, throw shit all over the board and don't understand the most basic of principles on how this Country works.

Typical dimocrap. Dumb as a bag of farts

You may now commence with the lies, the ad hominem attacks and accusations (racist, homophobe, misogynist, voter suppression....)

I'm out of this stupid fucking thread

No, you are angry all the time because you are mental.

 

[martybegan]

How is a non-nip boob upshot even remotely pornographic? And showing a hot Hispanic chick is racist? Wouldn't a white racist not even be attracted to that? And she appears to be pretty happy, singing along. Jeez stop being offended by everything.

as for the rest of it, what are you yammering about?

I stand by what I said.

Then you need to get a life. Also, with that rack, I'd be 99% sure she's of age.

That gif is beauty in motion.

 

[The Rabbi]

Only two ways: a Constitutional Amendment can overturn a Supreme Court Ruling.

The Supreme Court itself can overturn a prior ruling.

Just so hard to take you seriously with that streaming video. I'm surprised the site allows it really. It is at once racist, denigrating to women and pornographic. Also, the girl looks quite young so it's bordering on child exploitation. Really, I suggest you remove it. It is as evil as a thing can be.

As to your points, a good attorney or even a bad one could argue very simply how Citizen's United is in violation of our Constitutional provisions that require foreigners to naturalize and swear an Oath of allegiance to the US and forsake their own country of origin before they are recognized or can act as US citizens. The most fundamental way a person can "act as a US citizen" is by their vote. If foreigners are essentially allowed to buy elections, then rich arab oil princes, slimey Russian zillionaires and clever Chinese "businessmen" can infiltrate our internal affairs and tool this country to their liking. They will never be short on greedy, selfish, traitorous narcissists actual "US citizens" willing to take a buck to do their bidding in the legislative or even the executive branch...possibly eventually even the judicial...

Yes, a lawschool flunky could force the Supreme Court back on its heel on this one. It would force the Supreme Court to examine the Constitutional statutes regarding naturalization and make it recognize that corporations cannot become citizens without each and every member of them, especially major stockholders, being naturalized. It doesn't stop treason and sedition from foreign shores. After all, Rupert Murdoch naturalized. But it does tend to stave it off and make naturalized citizens think twice since they can be stripped and deported for great offenses against the US internally.

When the Supreme Court upheld Citizens United I couldn't just visualize the Founding Fathers turning over in their graves...I could feel them turning over in their graves. It was so palpable that it made my flesh crawl...

That's because you're an enemy of free speech and the First Amemdment. Your argument is nonsensical. Literally. It makes no sense. It is a word salad of phrases that have no meaning.
Edgtho is frustrated because the knowledge base of liberals here approaches zero, only where misinformation prevents it from actually getting there.
He is right of course on how to overturn Citizens. He is right on most things.

 

[Vigilante]

LOL. Apparently the OP doesn't know what the Supremacy Clause is. All courts and states are bound by Constitutionally enacted law, and including Supreme Court rulings. That initiative is unconstitutional. You cannot start an initiative which overturns a Supreme Court ruling. States cannot themselves pass laws which conflict or overturn federal laws or Supreme Court rulings. It violates the Supremacy Clause:

Article VI, Clause 2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Is the US Supreme Court the law of the land

Does the name "Cliven Bundy" ring any bells in your head?

Take your time to really think about it.

Why we even listen to anything this piece of shit has to say? Check out what he said about the Boston Tea Party Patriots in the bottom of my sig. This guy is a sick, diseased retard!

 

[Little-Acorn]

CA SB 1272 - Overturn Citizens United


The leftist fanatics have long been appalled by the fact that people who oppose them are free to speak too.

They can't refute them, so they'll never stop their efforts to cut off the speech of those who disagree, by any means they can find.

 

[Vigilante]

How about we will give up Citizens United when ALL UNIONS get out of politics and donations of members dues to subversives!

 

[Silhouette]

...a good attorney or even a bad one could argue very simply how Citizen's United is in violation of our Constitutional provisions that require foreigners to naturalize and swear an Oath of allegiance to the US and forsake their own country of origin before they are recognized or can act as US citizens. The most fundamental way a person can "act as a US citizen" is by their vote. If foreigners are essentially allowed to buy elections, then rich arab oil princes, slimey Russian zillionaires and clever Chinese "businessmen" can infiltrate our internal affairs and tool this country to their liking. They will never be short on greedy, selfish, traitorous narcissists actual "US citizens" willing to take a buck to do their bidding in the legislative or even the executive branch...possibly eventually even the judicial...

Yes, a lawschool flunky could force the Supreme Court back on its heel on this one. It would force the Supreme Court to examine the Constitutional statutes regarding naturalization and make it recognize that corporations cannot become citizens without each and every member of them, especially major stockholders, being naturalized. It doesn't stop treason and sedition from foreign shores. After all, Rupert Murdoch naturalized. But it does tend to stave it off and make naturalized citizens think twice since they can be stripped and deported for great offenses against the US internally.

When the Supreme Court upheld Citizens United I couldn't just visualize the Founding Fathers turning over in their graves...I could feel them turning over in their graves. It was so palpable that it made my flesh crawl...

That's because you're an enemy of free speech and the First Amemdment. Your argument is nonsensical. Literally. It makes no sense. It is a word salad of phrases that have no meaning.
Edgtho is frustrated because the knowledge base of liberals here approaches zero, only where misinformation prevents it from actually getting there.
He is right of course on how to overturn Citizens. He is right on most things.

I believe that actual born or naturalized citizens have a right to free speech. But not in a way that drowns out the voices of others because of how much money they have. In a democracy, you don't hand one person a loud speaker and then duct tape the rest of the folks mouths shut, figuratively speaking.

Citizen's United gives wholly unfair advantage to the priveleged. That's a thing our founding fathers escaped England to make sure never happened again. It's the impetus behind every word they wrote in the Constitution.

And yes, extending citizenship to a corporation means that its major stockholders immediately gain access to the internal policies and legislating in our country. If they be foreigners, beholden to foreign kingdoms with foreign interests in conflict with the US's best interests, [as many of them are BTW], then we are hitting the founding fathers in the gut a second time. The only thing they worried about more than kingships drowning out the masses and effectively staunching democracy thereby, was the threat of foreign meddling, sedition and treason to the US.

Literally Citizen's United is like dealing two death-blows to the nucleus of our nation. That's exactly how I would argue it in court.

 

[JakeStarkey]

When three billionaires donated ten times more in 2012 contributions than all unions?

 

[JakeStarkey]

...a good attorney or even a bad one could argue very simply how Citizen's United is in violation of our Constitutional provisions that require foreigners to naturalize and swear an Oath of allegiance to the US and forsake their own country of origin before they are recognized or can act as US citizens. The most fundamental way a person can "act as a US citizen" is by their vote. If foreigners are essentially allowed to buy elections, then rich arab oil princes, slimey Russian zillionaires and clever Chinese "businessmen" can infiltrate our internal affairs and tool this country to their liking. They will never be short on greedy, selfish, traitorous narcissists actual "US citizens" willing to take a buck to do their bidding in the legislative or even the executive branch...possibly eventually even the judicial...

Yes, a lawschool flunky could force the Supreme Court back on its heel on this one. It would force the Supreme Court to examine the Constitutional statutes regarding naturalization and make it recognize that corporations cannot become citizens without each and every member of them, especially major stockholders, being naturalized. It doesn't stop treason and sedition from foreign shores. After all, Rupert Murdoch naturalized. But it does tend to stave it off and make naturalized citizens think twice since they can be stripped and deported for great offenses against the US internally.

When the Supreme Court upheld Citizens United I couldn't just visualize the Founding Fathers turning over in their graves...I could feel them turning over in their graves. It was so palpable that it made my flesh crawl...

That's because you're an enemy of free speech and the First Amemdment. Your argument is nonsensical. Literally. It makes no sense. It is a word salad of phrases that have no meaning.
Edgtho is frustrated because the knowledge base of liberals here approaches zero, only where misinformation prevents it from actually getting there.
He is right of course on how to overturn Citizens. He is right on most things.

I believe that actual born or naturalized citizens have a right to free speech. But not in a way that drowns out the voices of others because of how much money they have. In a democracy, you don't hand one person a loud speaker and then duct tape the rest of the folks mouths shut, figuratively speaking.

Citizen's United gives wholly unfair advantage to the priveleged. That's a thing our founding fathers escaped England to make sure never happened again. It's the impetus behind every word they wrote in the Constitution.

And yes, extending citizenship to a corporation means that its major stockholders immediately gain access to the internal policies and legislating in our country. If they be foreigners, beholden to foreign kingdoms with foreign interests in conflict with the US's best interests, [as many of them are BTW], then we are hitting the founding fathers in the gut a second time. The only thing they worried about more than kingships drowning out the masses and effectively staunching democracy thereby, was the threat of foreign meddling, sedition and treason to the US.

Literally Citizen's United is like dealing two death-blows to the nucleus of our nation. That's exactly how I would argue it in court.

Just so.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

LOL. Apparently the OP doesn't know what the Supremacy Clause is. All courts and states are bound by Constitutionally enacted law, and including Supreme Court rulings. That initiative is unconstitutional. You cannot start an initiative which overturns a Supreme Court ruling. States cannot themselves pass laws which conflict or overturn federal laws or Supreme Court rulings. It violates the Supremacy Clause:

Article VI, Clause 2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Is the US Supreme Court the law of the land

Telling how you and others on the right don't know what the Supremacy Clause is when Republicans propose "nullifying" Federal firearms laws.

 

[Edgetho]

When three billionaires donated ten times more in 2012 contributions than all unions?

Fakey, unless you present iron clad statistics I'm going to call you a lying fuck.

Which you are, because those statistics don't exist.

 

[martybegan]

...a good attorney or even a bad one could argue very simply how Citizen's United is in violation of our Constitutional provisions that require foreigners to naturalize and swear an Oath of allegiance to the US and forsake their own country of origin before they are recognized or can act as US citizens. The most fundamental way a person can "act as a US citizen" is by their vote. If foreigners are essentially allowed to buy elections, then rich arab oil princes, slimey Russian zillionaires and clever Chinese "businessmen" can infiltrate our internal affairs and tool this country to their liking. They will never be short on greedy, selfish, traitorous narcissists actual "US citizens" willing to take a buck to do their bidding in the legislative or even the executive branch...possibly eventually even the judicial...

Yes, a lawschool flunky could force the Supreme Court back on its heel on this one. It would force the Supreme Court to examine the Constitutional statutes regarding naturalization and make it recognize that corporations cannot become citizens without each and every member of them, especially major stockholders, being naturalized. It doesn't stop treason and sedition from foreign shores. After all, Rupert Murdoch naturalized. But it does tend to stave it off and make naturalized citizens think twice since they can be stripped and deported for great offenses against the US internally.

When the Supreme Court upheld Citizens United I couldn't just visualize the Founding Fathers turning over in their graves...I could feel them turning over in their graves. It was so palpable that it made my flesh crawl...

That's because you're an enemy of free speech and the First Amemdment. Your argument is nonsensical. Literally. It makes no sense. It is a word salad of phrases that have no meaning.
Edgtho is frustrated because the knowledge base of liberals here approaches zero, only where misinformation prevents it from actually getting there.
He is right of course on how to overturn Citizens. He is right on most things.

I believe that actual born or naturalized citizens have a right to free speech. But not in a way that drowns out the voices of others because of how much money they have. In a democracy, you don't hand one person a loud speaker and then duct tape the rest of the folks mouths shut, figuratively speaking.

Citizen's United gives wholly unfair advantage to the priveleged. That's a thing our founding fathers escaped England to make sure never happened again. It's the impetus behind every word they wrote in the Constitution.

And yes, extending citizenship to a corporation means that its major stockholders immediately gain access to the internal policies and legislating in our country. If they be foreigners, beholden to foreign kingdoms with foreign interests in conflict with the US's best interests, [as many of them are BTW], then we are hitting the founding fathers in the gut a second time. The only thing they worried about more than kingships drowning out the masses and effectively staunching democracy thereby, was the threat of foreign meddling, sedition and treason to the US.

Literally Citizen's United is like dealing two death-blows to the nucleus of our nation. That's exactly how I would argue it in court.

Otherwise known as "I want to shut up those who disagree with me"

 

[martybegan]

LOL. Apparently the OP doesn't know what the Supremacy Clause is. All courts and states are bound by Constitutionally enacted law, and including Supreme Court rulings. That initiative is unconstitutional. You cannot start an initiative which overturns a Supreme Court ruling. States cannot themselves pass laws which conflict or overturn federal laws or Supreme Court rulings. It violates the Supremacy Clause:

Article VI, Clause 2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Is the US Supreme Court the law of the land

Telling how you and others on the right don't know what the Supremacy Clause is when Republicans propose "nullifying" Federal firearms laws.

Considering the 2nd amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right of the people to bear arms, and of the states having militias, there is no supremacy issue.