Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
But if 2/3's of the States get together, they can change the law at the federal level.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
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
How about we will give up Citizens United when ALL UNIONS get out of politics and donations of members dues to subversives!
...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.
I wouldn't feel comfortable with any law that would stifle freedom of speech by any one. I can understand why the democrats would want it though. They have the unions and most of the news outlets in their back pockets. They have the public school system and major colleges that are are rife with liberal academia. So yes, the democrats would just love to stifle the first amendment.
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"
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"
Absolutely correct, if "those" = foreign citizens who haven't sworn the Oath or if "those" don't allow me to speak by virtue of monopolizing the venues wherein people speak by their great wealth buying all the prime time slots.
Yes, absolutely yes. I believe in democracy. What you are advocating is something completely different. You are advocating an oligarchy rule by the priveleged and you are advocating penetration of our secure national internal affairs and democratic rule by foreign interests. You bet I'm against that. I'm a patriot.
And you're a Teabagger who can't understand simple concepts. OBAMA IS A WAR CRIMINAL. What part of that means "I support Obama" to you?You didn't take any time to think about it, either.Leave it to you to derail your own thread. You lose.
"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.
You don't have any facts to back up your thread. You thus have to deflect to another issue to gain any leverage. I thought about it. I've educated myself on the Bundy situation for the past almost three weeks. I've already told you he broke the law. But apparently you don't read.
And besides, what's the "law of the land" to you? Obama's flouting the law all the time, and where exactly are you, oh champion of law and order? He's wanting to grant clemency to drug offenders and illegal immigrants; he keeps changing Obamacare... my gosh, should you actually care about the law as it is written, let me know.
Ahh, but I'm an imbecile. No, you're a hypocrite.
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
Bpy, are you dumb. Read the OP very very slowly with the aid of someone who has a 9th grade comprehension ability.
It would be amazing if Conservatives can read this and understand it:I wouldn't feel comfortable with any law that would stifle freedom of speech by any one. I can understand why the democrats would want it though. They have the unions and most of the news outlets in their back pockets. They have the public school system and major colleges that are are rife with liberal academia. So yes, the democrats would just love to stifle the first amendment.
The New Media Monopoly describes the cartel of five giant media conglomerates who now control the media on which a majority of Americans say they most rely. These five are not just large though they are all among the 325 largest corporations in the world they are unique among all huge corporations: they are a major factor in changing the politics of the United States and they condition the social values of children and adults alike.
These five huge corporations Time Warner, Disney, Murdochs News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) own most of the newspapers, magazines, books, radio and TV stations, and movie studios of the United States.
These Big Five (with General Electrics NBC a close sixth) do not manufacture automobiles, or clothing, or nuts and bolts. They manufacture politics and social values. The media conglomerates have been a major force in creating conservative and far right politics in the country. They have almost single-handedly as a group, in their radio and television dominance, produced a coarse and vulgar culture that celebrates the most demeaning characteristics in the human psyche greed, deceit, and cheating as a legitimate way to win (as in the various reality shows).
It is not just national economics that is at stake though their power has led to the governments somnolence of anti-trust action. Nor is it just the neglect of broadcast media giantism by the government agencies that by law are still required to operate in the public interest. The public interest is to have the countrys largest broadcasting system in the world provide diversity in news, opinion, and commentary that serves all Americans, right, left, and independent, as well as access to their local stations as well as true choices in national programs.
What is at stake is American democracy itself. A country without all the significant news, points of view, and information its citizens need to be informed voters is risking the loss of democratic rights. Voters without genuine choices and without the information they need to choose what meets their own needs and wishes has produced something alarming: on Election Day our voters are forced to vote for what is the narrowest political choices among all industrial democracies of the world.
Ben Bagdikian - Author | Journalist | Media Critic
And you're a Teabagger who can't understand simple concepts. OBAMA IS A WAR CRIMINAL. What part of that means "I support Obama" to you?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.
You don't have any facts to back up your thread. You thus have to deflect to another issue to gain any leverage. I thought about it. I've educated myself on the Bundy situation for the past almost three weeks. I've already told you he broke the law. But apparently you don't read.
And besides, what's the "law of the land" to you? Obama's flouting the law all the time, and where exactly are you, oh champion of law and order? He's wanting to grant clemency to drug offenders and illegal immigrants; he keeps changing Obamacare... my gosh, should you actually care about the law as it is written, let me know.
Ahh, but I'm an imbecile. No, you're a hypocrite.
As for pardoning drug offenders, it's about time because the drug war was started by lies. PURE LIES. Started by a disgraced criminal right after his own special committee told him to legalize marijuana, but you won't read the Shafer Commission's report because you're a Teabagger. If you read the Shafer Commission report, you will know that drug offenders should have been granted clemency in 1972. That's a fact. Are you capable of processing facts?
Try harder or stop trying.
I stand behind my post.It would be amazing if Conservatives can read this and understand it:I wouldn't feel comfortable with any law that would stifle freedom of speech by any one. I can understand why the democrats would want it though. They have the unions and most of the news outlets in their back pockets. They have the public school system and major colleges that are are rife with liberal academia. So yes, the democrats would just love to stifle the first amendment.
The New Media Monopoly describes the cartel of five giant media conglomerates who now control the media on which a majority of Americans say they most rely. These five are not just large though they are all among the 325 largest corporations in the world they are unique among all huge corporations: they are a major factor in changing the politics of the United States and they condition the social values of children and adults alike.
These five huge corporations Time Warner, Disney, Murdochs News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) own most of the newspapers, magazines, books, radio and TV stations, and movie studios of the United States.
These Big Five (with General Electrics NBC a close sixth) do not manufacture automobiles, or clothing, or nuts and bolts. They manufacture politics and social values. The media conglomerates have been a major force in creating conservative and far right politics in the country. They have almost single-handedly as a group, in their radio and television dominance, produced a coarse and vulgar culture that celebrates the most demeaning characteristics in the human psyche greed, deceit, and cheating as a legitimate way to win (as in the various reality shows).
It is not just national economics that is at stake though their power has led to the governments somnolence of anti-trust action. Nor is it just the neglect of broadcast media giantism by the government agencies that by law are still required to operate in the public interest. The public interest is to have the countrys largest broadcasting system in the world provide diversity in news, opinion, and commentary that serves all Americans, right, left, and independent, as well as access to their local stations as well as true choices in national programs.
What is at stake is American democracy itself. A country without all the significant news, points of view, and information its citizens need to be informed voters is risking the loss of democratic rights. Voters without genuine choices and without the information they need to choose what meets their own needs and wishes has produced something alarming: on Election Day our voters are forced to vote for what is the narrowest political choices among all industrial democracies of the world.
Ben Bagdikian - Author | Journalist | Media Critic
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"
Absolutely correct, if "those" = foreign citizens who haven't sworn the Oath or if "those" don't allow me to speak by virtue of monopolizing the venues wherein people speak by their great wealth buying all the prime time slots.
Yes, absolutely yes. I believe in democracy. What you are advocating is something completely different. You are advocating an oligarchy rule by the priveleged and you are advocating penetration of our secure national internal affairs and democratic rule by foreign interests. You bet I'm against that. I'm a patriot.
I'll bet you do.I stand bebeInd my post.
I'll bet you do.I stand behind my post.
