Liberal Supreme Court Once Again Desecrates Founders Constitution
The quite liberal Supreme Court has done it again.
Desecrated the U.S. Constitution in a recent holding granting corporations (global ones, at that, since there was no distinction even made in their opinion between U.S. based or global corporate entities) the ability to contribute unlimited funds to candidates for state or federal office.
In a roundabout way, it did nothing more than reaffirm that under the First Amendment, the language regarding the rights of the "people" also can be interpreted to mean the "corporate" and that corporations are not property (which they most definitely are, since they can be bought and sold and for which many are publicly funded even at this point in our history, and even sold over a "global" exchange, building foreigners wealth and thus foreigners gaining now more and more influence in our political system progressively) but also persons.
Corporations cannot be both - people and property, but this decision in effect stated exactly that, as did the errant ruling which started this progression into corporate socialism way back when in effect inserting another entity under the Constitution and Bill of Rights the founders never intended, "corporate personhood." (Remember the Boston Tea Party and East India Company for a clue how they felt about global corporations, and thus granting privileges and immunities to corporate "sovereign" subjects of the "crown.")
What has happened to our Constitution, and a judiciary that has strayed so far from both the intent and actual language contained within that document resting not a mile from those hallowed halls?
Where are our lawyers being educated now in this country, and who is in charge of the teaching programs at our law colleges?
The American Bar Association, it appears, a British based association at that and carryover from Great Britain which appears that the law school agenda apparently under their guidelines with their graduates is reinstituting "progressively" British monarchial style sovereign rights and sovereign rule over the citizens of this country by now our federal (and state) governments without a new Constitutional Convention, or the "consent of the governed."
Since lawyers trained by the British Bar through our law schools actually are advisors to most of those legislators, governors, Congressional and committee members, and are in the majority of those holding public offices now in all three branches throughout the land.
Amending the Constitution now even more progressively, without the power to so do, just goes to show the arrogance now of those on the Hill of all three branches of our government, and the political nature now of the U.S. Supreme Court which was supposed to be a "check" on the government with respect to Bill of Rights protections for the PEOPLE against the CORPORATE, especially commercial corporate entities as "commerce" to be regulated actually not given rights at all (since it does state "We the People" and not "We the Corporate") and definitely not a facilitator of the new government it is progressively instituting with each and every decision now coming down the pike as of late especially, "global corporate socialism."
How can you have a representative government in any manner when global and national companies can now donate massive and unlimited sums throughout the nation and as has been the case also, outside their domiciled offices and states even for outside their legislative districts in order to facilitate their agendas, most of which are at the cost of the general public at large?
The founders understood that the entire basis of a representative government demanded that no candidate for any public office would be allowed to accept "backing" or "funding" for his political aspirations from any person or entity residing or with their legal "home office" domicile outside their legislative district.
Not to mention even at this point in our history, outside the country itself, with foreign based home offices now using domestic offices in order to gain more and more political influence throughout the land at the American public's expense.
Is that concept so totally "foreign" and convoluted for the U.S. Supreme Court justices, who are holders of doctorate degrees in the "law" mind you, to understand?
What the Court has essentially done is supported and condoned unconstitutional government in the election process, and undermined the very fabric of the representative government the founders intended.
Illegally attempting to "legalize" unduly elected representatives of the corporate special interests, rather than of the American people, as it were.
The very basis of a representative government has been negated thus trashing the U.S. Constitution in a way that the Court has no "legal" authority to so do, not without a new Constitutional Convention or the consent of the governed, and shown its true colors as nothing more than a political tool and "rogue" court, in my and several other American Constitutional scholars opinions that hold with the Constitution as the foundation of the very government that even gives this Court any power whatsoever.
Where were these justices educated? Great Britain?
I would state that this case was purposely brought in order to set another unconstitutional "precedent" now throughout the nation, although the Supremes actually also have "legally" no power granted except to render decisions on the matters placed before it based on the facts of the particular case "at bar," or before them.
Not broad based precedent power for their decisions, but limited jurisdictional powers in both original and appellate jurisdictions, and even those provisions have progressively been misconstrued, broadened and more and more circumventing the Constitution itself in the state governments also using it for their corporate "welfare" all the way down to now dictating and minimizing even the right to trials by jury for the citizery by again inserting or redefining the English language the provisions progressively.
The State Department is now even hiring foreign writers, it appears, to negate America's trial by jury provisions and has published an article by a writer from Amsterdam questioning the ability of the people to determine "complex" legal matters rather than judges or professional jurists - another indication that those in Washington while paying lip service to their oaths of office are in effect also progressively attempting to wipe its representative government and their lowered status under that of the rights of the people off the map again, PROGRESSIVELY.
Mandated arbitration is now the "rule of law" also throughout the land, in effect "privatizing" our legal system and as a job stimulus for former judges and lawyers, and there are being made attempts to even "privatize" the functions of jurors in the U.S., again a provision that the founders fought and died for in order to establish and maintain their representative government with the jury clearly intended as the last "check" in determining both the facts and the law with respect to our judicial process.
Which also limited the federal and state governments powers, since no "fact" matter heard by a jury can be re-evaluated by any judge, and also limited the appeals process effectively to only those matters presenting "new evidence," and thus also preserving the small, limited government those founders intended and thus lower taxation and costs of government itself.
The founders knew that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" so wrote those provisions in so that the people and their rights over those of the corporate and the government would be forever protected, and the costs of government then kept to a bare minimum accordingly since each and every judge is duty bound to the Constitution actually, and not the higher courts or his predecessor's determination of it and if those "intentions" were carried out the Supremes actually would have fewer cases submitted for review, rather than also PROGRESSIVELY more and more.
And now more and more those justices on that Court are failing to hear lawful petitions brought before them on Bill of Rights issues by the people more and more, or even such matters as the legal citizenship status of the holder of the highest office in the land, it instead accepted this case in order to once again circumvent the Constitution and its "representative" government intent and provisions as set forth in all those historical documents housed also in the Library of Congress again with less than a mile from those Halls of Injustice..
A government "of the people, by the people, for the people" and not the commercial corporate interests at the American public's expense in any manner whatsoever.
Tags: Supreme Court , United States , Government , Federal , State , Washington , Corporations , Constitution
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.