accepts non-policy level employment with a foreign government,

or you can also say accepts money from a foreign government..treason..covered up by calling it campain contribution ..whew..they should all be put on a boat..I am talking about the Govenor of Arizona..should be taken off our shores…put on a boat to sail the oceans..accepting foriegn money is treason! They have taken our homes, our 401ks, jobs, imposing tyranny against a population calling them illegal without due process subject to seizer..Arizona is one giant State size prizion with cameras on every street and freeway..The Court failed to realize that you can lose your citizenship for accepting foriegn money or employment..and when holding office tht is nothing short of treason!

Using your logic, McCain/Feingold could be used to stifle a particular POV expressed in “Veterans Today” during election season.

This was about protecting free speech, brother.

Keep in mind that both the NRA and ACLU were united in opposition to McCain/Feingold provisions that were a blatantly against the 1st amendment.

I support what the Supreme Court did.

Great article.

As a veteran and the son of a WWII veteran who I’m sure is turning over in his grave I’d just like to say this is the worse decision the SCOTUS ever made. Even more so then the Dred Scott decision.

Also Gordon your bias seems to be against foreign government influencing our elections. Any Corporation given citizen status is an outrage against a government of the people and for the people, whether foreign or domestic. And I also notice that you don’t mention Israel in your list of foreign corporations.

The worst situation in the U.S. is that all the blame is put on the immigrants and people of the middle east. Even do the Muslims are acting against their own religion by committing suicide in order to against the U.S., that doesn’t change the fact that there is something rotten in the way the U.S. is being run by warmongers and greedy powerful traitors.

You knowledge of corporate law and governance is sorely lacking. Just because a corp has a US mailing address and registered agent, doesn’t mean it is American. Try sending a corporation to war? Cut one, does it bleed?

You also seem to not know that Haliburton is a foreign corporation, registered in the Cayman Islands. They did this so they could continue drilling for oil in Iran.

Your talk about the “left” is equally bereft of judgement. With media controlled by “corporations” mostly under direct or indirect control from Israel, a country increasingly a clear threat to the United States, for those who choose to look at the facts, not the corporate news, every bit of misinformation you are dealing with seems to have originated from something less than the rational.

You sound like someone who gets sound bites from Fox News and has tried to build a philosophy around it.

Your thinking is unsound and not based in reality.

g

Mr. Duff, your premise is totally incorrect, and your “facts” are largely false. While the SCOTUS did declare that a “corporation” has free speech rights it did not declare them to be “a person”. But corporations are made up of “persons”. The SCOTUS did NOT abslove corporations from the limitations you ascribe to their actions so that part of your editorial is a flat out lie.

The ruling also specifically prohibits foreign controlled corporations from donating to U.S. election campaigns

Your assertion that corporations need nothing that humans need brings into question your sanity, since these corporations are made up of people. I suggest you start a business, then withdraw all human factors from the equation including yourself then let us know how successful your business becomes?

You are correct that corporations are not listed in the Constitution, but then neither are lobbyists, perhaps it is time that they be banned from existence in the halls of Washington as well. Then there are the Unions, they too need to be excluded from politics, as do the staffs of the elected officials. Jefferson had slaves, but no staff, perhaps it is time that we return to those times (of no staffs, I do not endorse slavery).

One one level in this I am in complete agreement with you, I do not like the idea of more money in politics, but I do not agree that the rights of corporations or anyone be abridged merely because you disagree with them. I have always felt that the right answer is politics financed by donations from supporters, individual supporters, not “bundlers”, not unions, but individual citizens, and these should have caps.

I often wonder how the left wing of politics reconciles the two diametrically opposed positions that say “we can’t allow foreign corporations to influence our elections” but turn a blind eye to actions of politicians who blatantly take $200,000.00 contributions from Chinese immigrants with $30,000.00 a year incomes?

In your diatribe you rail against foreign interests who would attack out basic liberties but then you also claim that the “neocons” are responsible, yet all of the liberties you cite are the very ones that the Democrats in Congress have been attacking for the past 30 years.

“When a corporation commits a crime, nobody goes to jail.”

You may want to take that argument up with Michael Kopper, Andrew Fastow, Kenneth Lay, Michael Koenig, and Jeffrey Skilling, all of whom were issued jail sentences for the Enron crimes, but then Ken Lay ducked his jail term by dying (How rude of him).

You commented against ““bail outs” or fat contracts or special laws”, while corporations sometimes do get these things, it is BOTH parties that are guilty. There has been much “hay” made over G.H.W. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld and their ties to Halliburton, but it was Bill Clinton who actually expanded Halliburton’s support role for the military during Clinton’s famous “reduction in government”, which chopped 60,000 troops from the active force and transferred their jobs of Base Service Support to the civilian sector, aka Halliburton/KBR.

In all of your railings one thing that seems to have totally escaped you, that is that THE PEOPLE, not foreign corporations, or foreign nationals or cartels, VOTE. If you are a person swayed by cash, that is your failing and the same goes for others. As for myself, I vote for the candidate that most closely adheres to my ideals. No Candidate is be any means perfect and I will never agree on all things with all people, but we do what we can to get as close as possible. People vote in good people at times and bad people in others. Our current President is an example of the latter, but he too is only temporary, as are the Judges you criticize. Also the ruling is likewise temporary, since, even SCOTUS rulings get re looked from time to time. Want evidence? Simply look at the Heller Decision. The SCOTUS ruled in that decision that gun ownership is an individual right, yet the debate goes on and cases are even now being prepared to challenge “Heller”, as always the United States is “The Great Experiment” and the experiment continues…

Just for you knowledge I too am a retired US Army Vietnam and Desert Storm vet. I recently ran across this article, which opened my eyes some. Please read it and offer the article to those replying to this article to see the bright light concerning removing the SC justices. http://www.newswithviews.com/Spingola/deanna111.htm

Nice article, but there are some key points that need clarification… The constitution does cover the concept of FICTIONAL CHARACTERS, Admiralty LAW, jurisdiction and other topics.

Namely definitions, spelling of words and the implied meaning. After a thorough review of the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution and Amendments, it is clear to see that the authors of the documents used very specific words they had very specific meanings. There is a very important distinction between an unabridged dictionary and the Blacks Law Dictionary (Version 9). You have to ask yourself why would two different dictionaries be required to define the same word…?

The reason is because the words have a different meaning in a legal context. Words such as:
US Citizen
Citizen
citizen
jurisdiction
Person
States
Sovereignty

The supreme court ruling is about SOVEREIGNTY and FICTIONAL CHARACTERS under which they can engage in Commerce, under admiralty law.

Person:
A corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation.

Read the words carefully, they have a specific meaning and context. The age old adage “Ignorance of the LAW is no excuse” has a very specific meaning. Namely that we have been duped because we do not recognize the definitions and what they truly mean…?

The Declaration of Independence gave man sovereignty under GOD. The Constitution took it back and put man under the jurisdiction of the corporation known as the United States.

You are a guiding light in these mysterious times.

Your statements are inaccurate. Nothing in the Supreme Court opinion outlaws total intransparency for corporations. Your assertions are totally false. Any dictator or terrorist can own a US corporation. I own portions of hundreds of corporations and only have voting rights for about 20%. What, exactly is it that you do? I hope it isn’t in law, banking or finance.

g

g

However, if you are truly concerned about this particular focus – regarding inappropriate contributitions to campaigns…I suggest you look at the funding behind a few of the progressives and conservatives. Several middle eastern, wealthy people have given substantially to campaigns for decades. OR let’s take a look at the fact that the unions have contributed massive amounts to the current administration.

My premise is the problem is huge and we cannot attribute the statements you made as being accurate about the judges. I read the 180 page opinion. It appears your statements are based on the speech the President made, and that was not accurate – apparently he did not read it either. This is my opinion based on the rendered opinion by the judges.

JMO, please start with this link:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_wrote_the_US_Constitution

And please try to educate yourself on what is happening here. Quite simply, if this decision is left to stand, we are all very f’ed, for good.