The Supreme Court Does It Again: Desecrates The U.S. Constitution

The 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 agenda 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."

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 of any nature when global and national companies can now donate massive sums throughout the nation in each and every district 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.

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?

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."

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 thus also circumventing the Constitution now being made applicable in some form or another throughout each and every state down to now dictating and minimizing in again inserting or redefining the English language the provisions with respect to trials by jury for civil and criminal matters in some of their recent determinations.

While the court fails to hear lawful petitions brought before them on Bill of Rights issues by the people, or even such matters as the legal citizenship status of the holder of the highest office in the land, it accepted this case in order to once again circumvent the Constitution, and all those founders fought and died for.

A government "of the people, by the people, for the people" and not the commercial corporate interests in any manner whatsoever.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012204341.html