Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘US Constitution’

US Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch is either too stupid, too politically corrupt, or too ideologically corrupt to be the next member of the United States Supreme Court. This guy actually believes that an idea has the same rights, responsibilities and legal protections as any person in the United States. Gorsuch is no dummy, so he must be financially or ideologically corrupt.

Gorsuch believes business corporations are people. That’s been the slogan repeated by conservatives for over a hundred years, and yet, corporations are purely and only an idea of a business structure that sprang forth from somebody’s mind and not from a woman’s womb. Conservatives faked not figuring out the difference between a mind and a womb a long time ago, and in particular they faked they didn’t understand the legal difference between an “idea” from a human mind and a person from a “woman’s womb.” This concept does not befuddle them. Far from it, but the concept that corporations are persons has been used to twist the law in the favor of the rich and against the 99 percent. That is the sole purpose of using this lie in legal matters.

Government enacted legislation that provided a legal framework for business corporations to exist, and within the legal framework were the words “artificial person.” As any honest judge who looks to the US Constitution for original intent can determine, the word “artificial” does not appear in the great document, and therefore anybody with half a brain can determine that ideas called business corporations have no legal rights via the US Constitution. But this is a game to rig the law in favor of the rich and powerful. Besides, if somebody calls a dog a human being, does that make the dog a human being? Of course not. Gorsuch is no dummy. He knows all this, but his agenda has always been to increase the wealth and prosperity and political power of the rich at the expense of the 99 percent, and so he will maintain this lie of an idea being legally equal and having the same legal protections as real people.

Corporations are the principal conduit through which income and wealth are redistributed from the 99 to the 1 percent. For example, Wall Street would not exist in its present parasitic form if corporations did not exist. Conservatives, and I should point out certainly not all of them, pushed the legal idea that corporations are persons simply to twist the laws in their favor. They’ve done a great job.

United States Senator Elizabeth Warren said it best about Wall Street Supreme Court candidate Neil Gorsuch;

“On the bench (Gorsuch), his judicial decisions show a remarkable ability to shape and re-shape legal arguments in ways that benefit large corporations and disadvantage ordinary people seeking justice. In the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores case, when he had to choose between the “rights” of corporations and the rights of women, Gorsuch sided with corporations. In consumer protection cases, when he had to choose between the “rights” of corporations and the rights of swindled consumers, Gorsuch sided with corporations. In discrimination cases, when he had to choose between the “rights” of corporations and the rights of employees to be free from harassment and abuse, Gorsuch sided with corporations.

Gorsuch has taken positions that are even more extreme than his extremely conservative colleagues. When it comes to the rules that protect public health and safety, Gorsuch is more radical than Scalia was. Gorsuch believes that courts should not be required to defer to expert agency interpretations of their governing laws. If he had his way, he’d make it even easier for corporations to challenge health and safety rules that prevent them from polluting our air and water, poisoning our food, undermining public safety, or cheating people out of their hard-earned savings.

Big companies and rich right-wing billionaires are spending top dollar to help a judge like Gorsuch get over the finish line. But that’s not how our court system is supposed to work. Our courts are supposed to be neutral arbiters, dispensing justice based on the facts and the law — not the party with the most money or political power.” (Click here for Warren’s complete op-ed on Gorsuch)

If the Democrats gave a rat’s ass at all about the 99 percent, and most don’t because they primarily represent their billionaire benefactors, they would fight tooth and nail and nuclear bomb against Gorsuch, who is nothing more than a corrupt legal assassin of the bottom 99 percent.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

President Trump signed his newest executive order, rolling back the insanely weak Wall Street regulations balled up in a piece of legislation called Dodd-Frank.

This legislation does almost nothing to regulate Wall Street. However, no doubt, protests will erupt around the globe over essentially nothing. That’s because the big banks are merely acting as front companies for their much larger hedge funds, which are nearly completely unregulated investment companies. So yes, the front companies are weakly regulated by Dodd-Frank.

Have no fear! Like many executive orders, this one is illegal. It takes an act of congress to repeal Dodd-Frank. Then the president can sign the legislation repealing the law. Apparently, Trump doesn’t know this. He’s beginning to appear as ignorant on constitutional matters as President George W. Bush (the worst president in US history, and most likely the most corrupt and dumbest, as well) and the childlike naivety of President Ronald Reagan, who may have been suffering from Alzheimer disease during much of his presidency, at least according to his son, Ronald. I could also point out that when Reagan came on national television about trading arms for hostages with Iran he could say, “I don’t remember.” He sounded like a liar, or a person suffering from the disease. Anyway, back to the main point.

We’ve been played by both major political parties on the authenticity and legality of executive orders. They are not mentioned in the US constitution, so no president has such powers. But the leaders of both major parties make certain not to let the public know this.

So don’t blow too much steam over Trump. He’s either foolish, or he’s playing a role to maintain the support of those who put him in office. He’s big on theatrics, so it’s possibly the latter.

Look to the future. Trump is a one-term president because he’s coming along at the wrong time and the wrong place in history.

Read Full Post »

NAFTA is not a treaty! The Trans Pacific Partnership is not a treaty. The 1 percent doesn’t want you to know this.

Section 2 of Article II of the US Constitution clearly states that the US president “….shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make treaties provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” Only 61 of 100 senators voted for NAFTA. That means NAFTA is not a treaty under the US constitution. In addition, the TPP would require 67 yes votes, which makes it highly unlikely that it will pass treaty status.

The US constitution does not give any branch of the US government the power to negotiate international trade agreements (as opposed to treaties)  with other nations. It only gives the president the power to negotiate “treaties,” and only with the 2/3rds requirement. International agreements are not mentioned in the US constitution. All other powers not given the federal government redound to the individual states, which are prohibited from negotiating treaties with other nations. Therefore, such an agreement is only fiction, make-believe to fool us into believing the legality of such things.

A treaty is not required to pass through the House of Representatives. It must only pass through the US senate. NAFTA was forced to pass through the House because it is an illegal fictional agreement that could not probably resist a court challenge through honest judges.

In other words, these international income redistribution agreements, which are falsely marketed as international trade agreements, most likely cannot withstand a court challenge.

nafta

Now the US Supreme court has ruled that if your government is doing something illegal, you cannot challenge that law unless you can prove it has harmed you. In other words, the court has ruled the US government can illegally spy on you, burglarize your homes and businesses, and even kill you, but unless you can prove the US government is behind these things, you cannot challenge the law that allows this in court. That, of course, means the Supreme Court has ruled that the US government can do anything it wants outside of the law, just so long as it doesn’t get caught. There’s something corrupt there. Don’t ya think?

Now we have a special case coming up. TransCanada Corporation made its intention clear that it is going to sue the US government through an unconstitutional secret tribunal because President Obama refused to give the company a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. It is filing its claim for $15 billion in damages under North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) provisions, which is through an illegal secret tribunal.

A secret tribunal made up of corporate lawyers will determine if US taxpayers have to ante up $15 billion in order to not allow an environmentally hazardous pipeline to cut across the USA. Only corporations can use this secret tribunal to sue governments over alleged damages and the loss of alleged future profits.

Some of the biggest US investors in TransCanada include JP Morgan/Chase, Vanguard Corporation, and Prudential. You can bet there’s a bunch of rich US citizens cheering on TransCanada executives in this case. These companies are circumventing US law via the unconstitutional secret tribunal.

If the US government loses, there is no reason why we as taxpayers should not launch a class action lawsuit challenging these secret tribunals as unconstitutional, since they are. Since the US Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are people, a challenge can be issued under the equal protection clause of the US Constitution, which should render illegal the secret tribunal provision of NAFTA, depending on how corrupt the US courts are. In addition, of course, the US constitution says the establishment of any “tribunal” must originate in the US house of representatives, and NAFTA clearly did not. There are several other ways that provisions of NAFTA violate the constitution.

In other words, the secret tribunals of NAFTA cannot withstand a legal challenge the moment the US government spends a penny of our hard earned tax dollars on defending the US government in this unconstitutional tribunal.

Perhaps it’s time for some legal action? What do you think fellow citizens? Anybody want to join me?

Read Full Post »

Supreme Court Justices

On Facebook on February 14, US Senator Elizabeth Warren demolished the arguments of Wall Street/Big Oil Senator Mitch McConnell that President Obama should wait for the next president to fill Antonin Scalia’s vacate seat.

Warren wrote,

“The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States.

Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.

Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can’t find a clause that says “…except when there’s a year left in the term of a Democratic President.”

Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk.”

McConnell, by the way, voted to confirm a Supreme Court nominee, Anthony Kennedy on February 3 1987, during the last year of the reign of President Ronald Reagan, making McConnell nothing more than a blathering, ideological, Big Oil, hypocrite.

We can also understand something about this process, thanks to McConnell. Political ideology and political connections, such as those that Scalia had with the Koch Brothers, are a significant, and perhaps, only factor, when it comes to selecting a Supreme Court nominee by McConnell.

Read Full Post »

Money is Not Free Speech

Money is not speech. The US Constitution does not give money or corporations any rights.

Money is spent on advertising and influencing people to vote this way or that. Money can do a ton of things. It can purchase influence and legislation in the political markets. And it is for this reason that the US Supreme Court decided to favor the rich by giving money the right of free speech, just as the same court decided that the primary conduit of income redistribution, the modern publicly traded limited liability corporation, deserved constitutional rights granted to individual “persons.”

The court has been a primary tool through which the rich are given the right to subvert the democratic processes via money, advertising and income redistribution.

Read Full Post »

The title of this headline says it all. Edward Snowden has a shot at the Nobel Peace Prize for letting us know about the unlawful surveillence program of the US government, which it has also used to spy on our international allies.

Snowden’s revellation was the third time the program has been revealed. In December 2005 the New York Times revealed the program on its front page. The following month, New York Times reporter James Risen’s book, State of War, was released. It revealed the extensive illegal NSA spy program, which had been initiated by the Bush regime. State of War made it to the best seller lists, and is in most public libraries. The Bush regime refused to press any charges against the Times or Risen.

The Obama regime has chased Snowden out of the nation for revealing an illegal activity by the government that was already outed by Risen and the Times. By some strange and unknown logic, the Obama administration has refused to press charges against Risen and the Times.

Go check out State of War at your local library, and then tell your neighbors that Edward Snowden is on the run from your government for revealing to the public an illegal government activity that you just read about in a book you found at the public library.

This strongly suggests the USA police state has arrived, and that the US Constitution has become a meaningless scrap of paper. In other words, both politically and economically, the game has been completely rigged against the 99 percent because the US government has been completely corrupted.

US Hero Edward Snowden Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize–Guardian UK

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »