Citizens United (Worst bill in American History?)

[AntiParty]

Citizen United says that Corporations are people. Yet there is law stating that Corporations can't force employee's to vote a particular way. They can show them political information but can't FORCE all the people in a Corporation to vote a certain way.

The problem is that all Corporations statistically have voters that don't agree with the Corporation's vote. Not all of the workers vote for the same party.

Yet Citizens United is taking money from people and using it to manipulate a campaign, no matter what party.

Discuss.

 

[KNB]

If corporations are people then they can fight their own wars.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

If corporations weren't legally defined as "Persons" that federal would have no claim over our 14th Amendment corporate citizenship (birth registration, your name in capitol letters).

§ 1-201. General Definitions. | UCC - Uniform Commercial Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

(27) "Person" means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, public corporation, or any other legal or commercial entity.

Don't believe Cornell University, or that video?

Listen to the words of President Andrew Johnson:
Veto for the first Reconstruction Act March 2 1867 < Andrew Johnson < Presidents < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond

The power thus given to the commanding officer over all the people of each district is that of an absolute monarch. His mere will is to take the place of all law. The law of the States is now the only rule applicable to the subjects placed under his control, and that is completely displaced by the clause which declares all interference of State authority to be null and void. He alone is permitted to determine what are rights of person or property, and he may protect them in such way as in his discretion may seem proper. It places at his free disposal all the lands and goods in his district, and he may distribute them without let or hindrance to whom he pleases. Being bound by no State law, and there being no other law to regulate the subject, he may make a criminal code of his own; and he can make it as bloody as any recorded in history, or he can reserve the privilege of acting upon the impulse of his private passions in each case that arises. He is bound by no rules of evidence; there is, indeed, no provision by which he is authorized or required to take any evidence at all. Everything is a crime which he chooses to call so, and all persons are condemned whom he pronounces to be guilty. He is not bound to keep and record or make any report of his proceedings. He may arrest his victims wherever he finds them, without warrant, accusation, or proof of probable cause. If he gives them a trial before he inflicts the punishment, he gives it of his grace and mercy, not because he is commanded so to do. .

It is plain that the authority here given to the military officer amounts to absolute despotism. But to make it still more unendurable, the bill provides that it may be delegated to as many subordinates as he chooses to appoint, for it declares that he shall

"punish or cause to be punished."

Such a power has not been wielded by any monarch in England for more than five hundred years. In all that time no people who speak the English language have borne such servitude. It reduces the whole population of the ten States-all persons, of every color, sex, and condition, and every stranger within their limits-to the most abject and degrading slavery. No master ever had a control so absolute over the slaves as this bill gives to the military officers over both white and colored persons. .

I come now to a question which is, if possible still more important. Have we the power to establish and carry into execution a measure like this? I answer, Certainly not, if we derive our authority from the Constitution and if we are bound by the limitations which it imposes.

This proposition is perfectly clear, that no branch of the Federal Government - executive, legislative, or judicial - can have any just powers except those which it derives through and exercises under the organic law of the Union. Outside of the Constitution we have no legal authority more than private citizens, and within it we have only so much as that instrument gives us. This broad principle limits all our functions and applies to all subjects. It protects not only the citizens of States which are within the Union, but it shields every human being who comes or is brought under our jurisdiction. We have no right to do in one place more than in another that which the Constitution says we shall not do at all. If, therefore, the Southern States were in truth out of the Union, we could not treat their people in a way which the fundamental law forbids.

Some persons assume that the success of our arms in crushing the opposition which was made in some of the States to the execution of the Federal laws reduced those States and all their people -the innocent as well as the guilty- to the condition of vassalage and gave us a power over them which the Constitution does not bestow or define or limit. No fallacy can be more transparent than this. Our victories subjected the insurgents to legal obedience, not to the yoke of an arbitrary despotism.

Wait until you find out what the "organic" law of the Union is.

I don't normally post these things on this forum, because it creates such a shit-storm of denial when everyone realizes what a lie and trap they live in. The federal courts had no choice but to admit that "corporations" are people, otherwise the federal government would have lost all authority over its 14th Amendment incorporated citizens. Did you ever wonder what collateral is backing the US debt?

 

[The Rabbi]

Citizen United says that Corporations are people. Yet there is law stating that Corporations can't force employee's to vote a particular way. They can show them political information but can't FORCE all the people in a Corporation to vote a certain way.

The problem is that all Corporations statistically have voters that don't agree with the Corporation's vote. Not all of the workers vote for the same party.

Yet Citizens United is taking money from people and using it to manipulate a campaign, no matter what party.

Discuss.

Another Lo-Lo poster.
Citizens United was a court case,not a bill.
Corporations have been persons since Taft was on the Supreme Court.

 

[OKTexas]

Citizen United says that Corporations are people. Yet there is law stating that Corporations can't force employee's to vote a particular way. They can show them political information but can't FORCE all the people in a Corporation to vote a certain way.

The problem is that all Corporations statistically have voters that don't agree with the Corporation's vote. Not all of the workers vote for the same party.

Yet Citizens United is taking money from people and using it to manipulate a campaign, no matter what party.

Discuss.

First, it's not a bill, it was a supreme court decision.

Second your post makes no sense. A corporation spend it's own money on political contributions not the employees money, so the employees have no say in the matter, no should they. Unions on the other hand contribute their members money without the members getting any say, and they have been doing it long before citizens united.

 

[The Rabbi]

Citizen United says that Corporations are people. Yet there is law stating that Corporations can't force employee's to vote a particular way. They can show them political information but can't FORCE all the people in a Corporation to vote a certain way.

The problem is that all Corporations statistically have voters that don't agree with the Corporation's vote. Not all of the workers vote for the same party.

Yet Citizens United is taking money from people and using it to manipulate a campaign, no matter what party.

Discuss.

First, it's not a bill, it was a supreme court decision.

Second your post makes no sense. A corporation spend it's own money on political contributions not the employees money, so the employees have no say in the matter, no should they. Unions on the other hand contribute their members money without the members getting any say, and they have been doing it long before citizens united.

When you deal with low information/low intelligence posters like that you can't use complicated words or concepts. Try to relate it to ice cream so they can understand.

 

[Machaut]

Citizen United says that Corporations are people. Yet there is law stating that Corporations can't force employee's to vote a particular way. They can show them political information but can't FORCE all the people in a Corporation to vote a certain way.

The problem is that all Corporations statistically have voters that don't agree with the Corporation's vote. Not all of the workers vote for the same party.

Yet Citizens United is taking money from people and using it to manipulate a campaign, no matter what party.

Discuss.

You go in three different directions here, which did you intend this thread to take? I'm not sure exactly what it is you want us to discuss.

You start off like you're going to attack the idea that corporations are people, then you say that corporations can't force their employees to vote a certain way, and that's a problem because these employees "statistically" disagree with their employers. To wrap it all up, you say that CU is taking money from "people"--I'm unsure of whether or not your use of this word includes corporations--and is engaging in bi-partisan campaigning, establishing their independence from a particular party and loyalty to their principles.

 

[The Rabbi]

Corporations--bad!

Money--bad!

Obama--good!

Democrats--Yay!

That pretty much sums up most posts by liberals here.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I didn't' even realize he called it a Bill instead of court decision LOLOLOL. Although my entire post was about the courts LOLOL.


At least this particular sock account has been discredited. Screen shot it. The true user, probably Paintmyhouse, will have to make a new fifth sock account.

 

[Billy000]

Why is it so hard for the right to believe that Citizens United was approved so certain greedy rich people can overpower everyone else's political voice?

CU is one of the worst political travesties of modern time.

 

[ABikerSailor]

If corporations are people, then why don't they pay the same amount of taxes that the regular people (i.e. the middle class), pay?

Corporations pay a lot less in taxes than what the middle class does.

If they're truly people of this country, why do they get special considerations?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Why is it so hard for the right to believe that Citizens United was approved so certain greedy rich people can overpower everyone else's political voice?

CU is one of the worst political travesties of modern time.

Who raised more money last election cycle, Democrats or Republicans?

 

[Billy000]

Why is it so hard for the right to believe that Citizens United was approved so certain greedy rich people can overpower everyone else's political voice?

CU is one of the worst political travesties of modern time.

Who raised more money last election cycle, Democrats or Republicans?

This was a case proposed by the rightwing. I don't give a shit which party contributed more. It's wrong. You really think I'm going to defend democrats?

 

[The Rabbi]

Why is it so hard for the right to believe that Citizens United was approved so certain greedy rich people can overpower everyone else's political voice?

CU is one of the worst political travesties of modern time.

Another lo-lo chimes in.

Which rich greedy people were that?
How would they overpower everyone else's political voice?

 

[KNB]

If money equals speech, those with the most money will have the loudest voices.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Citizen United says that Corporations are people. Yet there is law stating that Corporations can't force employee's to vote a particular way. They can show them political information but can't FORCE all the people in a Corporation to vote a certain way.

The problem is that all Corporations statistically have voters that don't agree with the Corporation's vote. Not all of the workers vote for the same party.

Yet Citizens United is taking money from people and using it to manipulate a campaign, no matter what party.

Discuss.

How is that different than what the unions do?

 

[RKMBrown]

Citizen United says that Corporations are people. Yet there is law stating that Corporations can't force employee's to vote a particular way. They can show them political information but can't FORCE all the people in a Corporation to vote a certain way.

The problem is that all Corporations statistically have voters that don't agree with the Corporation's vote. Not all of the workers vote for the same party.

Yet Citizens United is taking money from people and using it to manipulate a campaign, no matter what party.

Discuss.

Corporations in and of themselves are nothing more than a contract, a piece of paper, a group of individuals.

What other types of groups do you want to ban from the right to free speech? Family groups? Should I be banned from free speech if I have a family? Or only banned from free speech if I am associated with a corporation? What about other types of groups? Unions? Committees? What types of groups do you want to ban from free speech?

Owners of corporations are allowed to spend their money, yes or no?

 

[g5000]

Citizen United says that Corporations are people.

Nope. It doesn't. That is a meme invented by ignorant liberals.

Here's a crazy idea. Read the decision for yourself!

 

[The Rabbi]

Citizen United says that Corporations are people.

Nope. It doesn't. That is a meme invented by ignorant liberals.

Here's a crazy idea. Read the decision for yourself!

Wow, good going. Even a shmuck can get off a good one every now and then.

 

[Avatar4321]

Citizen United says that Corporations are people. Yet there is law stating that Corporations can't force employee's to vote a particular way. They can show them political information but can't FORCE all the people in a Corporation to vote a certain way.

The problem is that all Corporations statistically have voters that don't agree with the Corporation's vote. Not all of the workers vote for the same party.

Yet Citizens United is taking money from people and using it to manipulate a campaign, no matter what party.

Discuss.

Your first line tells me you've never read the opinion. Talk to me when you bother to educate yourself instead of just parroting what others say.