[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Historical Title: The Li'l Sammy Alito HIstory Lesson 'o The Day The following is provided free of charge for Supreme Court ASSociate Justices who are a tad clueless about US election laws... The Tillman Act (1907) Roosevelt used his Presidential stature to influence public opinion and to persuade Congress. The NPLA and other grassroots organizations also pushed for reform. The result of their efforts was the enactment of the Tillman Act of 1907. The act specifically prohibited direct contributions from corporations and businesses to political parties and election committees. It was the first law on the books to specifically address campaign funding on the federal level. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest ***PING***
#2. To: vile beyond mere words ignorant libturd whore TRASH aka war (#0) ROTFLMAOAY!!!!!!!!!!!! You f ing insane messiah "king" obammy ass licking LOSER. Now you think you have the "horsepower" to tell the supreme court what the LAW means? You are too stupid to even know that you are nothing but a caricature! LOL! I could think of no greater punishment for you than to make you be you the rest of your small petty life! You are a pitiful whore, but FUNNY! LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!! Quoted by PDS insane assholes every where. #3. To: war (#0) Roosevelt was a slimy POS. He unlawfully closed the banks and stole the gold. Screw that asshole.
#4. To: war (#0) An ACT doesn't change the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law". Sounds wonderful, doesn't it?
#5. To: war (#0) Remove your mouth from Mandingo's cock and get your facts straight: There is "a century of law" restricting direct corporate contributions to candidates. Last week's decision didn't address that law. While the logic of the opinion -- which says corporate speech is entitled to the same protection as individual speech -- calls into question the corporate contribution ban, it doesn't overturn it. And the Court has traditionally treated direct contributions differently from so-called "independent expenditures" -- ads that discuss candidates but financed by private parties without the candidate's help.
#6. To: A K A Stone (#3) Different Roosevelt... Should have taken less woodshop and more history...
#7. To: Abcdefg (#4) Find me any writings contemporary to the Framers in which inanimate objects were due the same protections as people. Are dog barking ordinances unconstitutional?
#8. To: A K A Stone (#3) He unlawfully closed the banks and stole the gold. Screw that asshole. That was FDR not Teddy.
#9. To: Meow Mix (#2) (Edited) How hard is it for you to type with yuktard's cock in your mouth? Or does he just jam it up your ass when you do? That certainly would explain your shouting for no apparent reason...
#10. To: war (#7) Find me any writings contemporary to the Framers in which inanimate objects were due the same protections as people. From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary of 1828: Cor`po*ra"tion (k?r`p?-r?"sh?n), n. [L. corporatio incarnation: cf. F. corporation corporation.] A body politic or corporate, formed and authorized by law to act as a single person, and endowed by law with the capacity of succession; a society having the capacity of transacting business as an individual.
#11. To: vile beyond mere words TRASH (#9) LOL! You'd be the expert on typing while sucking dick, and/or taking it up the poop chute around here TRASH. I'm surprised that you can even breathe since your head is always so far up the messiah "king" obammy's ass. You should get a new act cunt, but that would take a brain. How's that Hopey Changey thing working out for you so far TRASH? LOL! Quoted by PDS insane assholes every where. #12. To: war (#6) Different Roosevelt... Should have taken less woodshop and more history... Sorry. I should have known by that 1907 date you provided. My bad.
#13. To: war (#7) Find me any writings contemporary to the Framers in which inanimate objects were due the same protections as people. Are dog barking ordinances unconstitutional? The first amendment makes no distinction. Now go find me a writing from the founders where it said some entities don't have free speech. Go find me an exception. Just one.
#14. To: A K A Stone (#13) Speaking of corporations, I was looking for the origins of the concept and found this link to the US Code, TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER A > § 3002 on Wikipedia:
#15. To: war (#1) The following is provided free of charge for Supreme Court ASSociate Justices who are a tad clueless about US election laws... Wow ... really? Nice to know. We can forget about that "Congress shall make no law" stuff in the 1st Amendment then. At this rate, the anulling of the 2nd Amend (via congressionally passed 'Gun Control' Act) is next ... But, that's all right with you ... right? . .
#16. To: A K A Stone (#13) Ping
#17. To: Abcdefg (#14) I found that and posted it to war also. He had some excuse.
#18. To: war (#0) Justice Alito Was Right By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano www.foxnews.com/opinion/2...ance-alito-supreme-court/ Despite claims made by the president, last week's Supreme Court opinion on campaign finance specifically excludes foreign nationals and foreign-owned corporations from its ruling. The Supreme Court issued a ruling last week on the campaign finance that is still being discussed all over the country. In fact, it was even mentioned by President Obama at Wednesday night’s State of the Union address. The high court invalidated its own 20-year-old ruling -- which had upheld a one hundred-year-old statute on group political contributions -- and it also invalidated a portion of the McCain-Feingold Campaign finance law. The 20-year-old ruling had forbidden any political spending by groups such as corporations, labor unions, and advocacy organizations (like the NRA and Planned Parenthood, for example). Ruling that all persons, individually and in groups, have the same unfettered free speech rights, the court blasted Congress for suppression of that speech. In effect, the court asked, “What part of ‘Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech’ does Congress not understand?” Thus, all groups of two or more persons are free to spend their own money on any political campaigns and to mention the names of the candidates in their materials. The court also threw out the portion of McCain-Feingold law that had prohibited persons who pool their funds or contribute to Political Action Committees (PACs), from spending those funds, directly or through PACs, in the 60 day period preceding an election. Since that 60 day period preceding the election is the most vital in any campaign, the court held that the prohibition on expenditures during that time was a violation of the free speech guaranteed to all persons, individually and in groups, by the First Amendment. Thus, as a result of this ruling, all groups may spend their own money as they wish on any political campaigns, but they still may not--as groups--contribute directly to candidates’ campaigns. The direct political contribution prohibition in McCain-Feingold that prevents corporations, labor unions, and advocacy groups from giving money directly to candidates was not challenged in this case, thus its constitutionality was not an issue before the court. Groups will thus effectively be running and financing their own campaigns for candidates independent of those candidates’ campaigns. The case arose in the context of a challenge by an advocacy group that produced a 90-minute motion picture called "Hillary: The Movie," a highly critical movie about Hillary Clinton, to a ruling by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The FEC had ruled that in reality the movie was an anti-Hillary political ad. And, since it was financed by an advocacy group, it was banned under the Supreme court's 20- year-old ruling, the one that the Court just invalidated. That movie can now, two years after it was made and eighteen months after Sen. Clinton abandoned her presidential campaign, be distributed and viewed. During the course of oral argument on this case in October in the Supreme Court, one of the FEC's lawyers replied to a question from Justice Antonin Scalia to the effect that the FEC could ban books if they were paid for by corporations, labor unions, or advocacy groups. This highly un-American statement in the Supreme Court by a government lawyer--that the federal government can ban political books--infuriated a few of the justices. The conservative justices were joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote between the conservative and liberal blocs on the Court. The Court's newest member, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined the dissent. On Wednesday night, during his State of the Union address, the president attacked this decision by arguing that the ruling permits foreign nationals and foreign corporations to spend money on American campaigns. When he said this, Justice Samuel Alito, who was seated just 15 feet from the president, gently whispered: “That’s not true.” Justice Alito was right. The Supreme Court opinion, which is 183 pages in length, specifically excludes foreign nationals and foreign-owned corporations from its ruling. So the president, the former professor of law at the one of the country’s best law schools, either did not read the opinion, or was misrepresenting it.
#19. To: We The People (#18) Those of us who are intersted in an honest discussion understand that the foreign reference was to any Buber of US companies that are, in fact, US incorporated companies with foreign ownership. In fact, that thought struck me when I saw the initial headline yet had not read the decision. Also, Kennedy 's decision seemed to almost to invite A foreign company to challenge that provision as well. Again, wait until you see the can of worms that this decision opened.
#20. To: war (#19) That can of worms has been around for as long as one can imagine. The faggot war doesn't care as long as it is George Soros funding his perverted interests.
#21. To: A K A Stone (#17) I posted a primer which details the several legal uses of the term "corporate" The fact that you either did not read it or did and choose to ignore it isn't me making an excuse. Furthermore, to make the argument that given that statute that the US government is no different from IBM is one that strains credulity.
#22. To: dont eat that (#20)
No more than McCain getting Soros money too, I bet. He then did alot of Soros' dirty work as a return favor. It's the GOP way.
#23. To: dont eat that (#20) The faggot war . . . I think that was uncalled for. You are not so stupid as to have to resort to name calling. You're a smart person, debate the facts.
#24. To: Abcdefg, 400 bucks (#23) You are not so stupid as to have to resort to name calling. I disagree. That is exactly Padlocks MO.
#25. To: Abcdefg, war (#23) The guy has demonstrated he is queer for dark meat tube sausage. He won't dispute that issue, trust me.
#26. To: We The People (#18) That should read "any NUMBER of..." and not Buber.... Posted from my iPhone
#27. To: _Jim (#15) Same challenge to you that has remained unmet...show me anybwriting contemporary to the Framers in which the consensus opinion was that corporations enjoyed natural rights.
#28. To: We The People (#24) I put tem ALL on bozo...they are about to implode here anyway....
#29. To: war (#27) Same challenge to you that has remained unmet...show me anybwriting contemporary to the Framers in which the consensus opinion was that corporations enjoyed natural rights. See post #10. I would have thought the definition from the 1828 Webster's (authorized by law to act as a single person) would work for you.
#30. To: Abcdefg (#29) You have confused TRASH with an intellectually honest person who actually cares about what the facts are. "He" is not, "he" is just a vile agenda driven lying messiah "king" obammy ass licking whore/tool. Quoted by PDS insane assholes every where. #31. To: Abcdefg (#29) Starkly missing from that definition is anything stating that the entity enjoys the same rights and privileges of a single person.
#32. To: Abcdefg (#29) Something else that you may wish to consider...it a tort occurs because of your negligence, you are directly liable. If a tort occurs because of corporate negligence, is it a WHO or a WHAT that is liable?
#33. To: Meow Mix (#30) Fuck you pussy...
#34. To: vile beyond mere words TRASH (#33) LOL! The TRUTH hurts, (but luckily it just hurts YOU), eh TRASH? That's YOUR sexual preference TRASH, not mine, what part of NO don't you understand faggot? Maybe you and faggot freddy ought to make it official and get "married"? Then you little cunts could have a three way with your messiah "king" obammy? No doubt freddy faggot would certainly be "up" for THAT kind of action TRASH. Quoted by PDS insane assholes every where. #35. To: war (#27) Same challenge to you that has remained unmet...show me anybwriting contemporary to the Framers in which the consensus opinion was that corporations enjoyed natural rights. Limited rights; besides, we are talking 'extension of the rights of the owners' (through representatives, like the corporate board), not the creation of a whole new 'being' with rights.
#36. To: _Jim (#35) Corporations have limited liabilities. Humans do not. Why is that?
#37. To: Meow Mix (#34) "Smatter pussy? Youactually PING me to your delusional rants you afraid you might get answered? Well...you're correct... Fuck you, pussy. Now go back to running your local AV club...
#38. To: _Jim (#35) ...not the creation of a whole new 'being' with rights. That's exactly what the Court did...corporations exist BY LAW. It is a foolhardy expedition to promote the idea that an entity cceated by law suddenly becomes wholly unconstrained by the body which created it...
#39. To: war (#26) That should read "any NUMBER of..." and not Buber.... I was wondering. I thought I'd give it a day or two before I headed to dictionary.com. LOL!
#40. To: We The People (#39) (Edited) Chuckles...I was in a cold rink watching my youngest be the youngest player on the ice in the Met Jr. League All Star Game...I posted that between periods on my iPhone - the keyboard which is about as big as my thumb... Sorry... Anyway, you get the point...I hope...
#41. To: _Jim (#15) Are you the _Jim (( police statist )) from the FR ! Have you changed !
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|