Congress Shall Make NO LAW....

TCmoron (spouting nonsense)

Congress can enforce the 14th Amendment amendment language, to which the SCOTUS decision has repealed without due process. The Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution, not to repeal it or any part of it.

There is no language in the Constitution that gives power to the Court to usurp the very essence of the Constitution or any of its Amendments.

All Congress has to do is pass a statement or declaration, via a majority vote, that denounces the SCOTUS decision and that becomes the enforceable law. If someone has a problem with that, then SCOTUS can hear their case and determine if it has merit. That's all they're allowed to do as per the 14th Amendment. They cannot effectively repeal it. ( with thanks to Silhouette for pointing this out)
Click to expand...

TCFool states:#209 (Congress shall make NO LAW)thread

Bottom line: You're just too stubborn and or stupid to deal with the FACTS that deconstruct your ravings. FACT: the first amendment isn't what the coroporations depended upon to give them same status as you and I. It's the 14th amendment...and THAT was essentially nullified after the New Deal (and it was all based on a judges "opinion" and NOT a officially ruling, as history shows).
Click to expand...
==============================

Riddle me this Batdung.....

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
Syllabus - CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

First Amendment referenced 182 times in official Supreme Court document....

14th Amendment referenced 0 times in official Supreme Court document....


Whats the 14th Amendment have to do with this present SC ruling giving Corporations rights under the First Amendment....nothing? Thats what I thought....

TC says...

All Congress has to do is pass a statement or declaration, via a majority vote, that denounces the SCOTUS decision and that becomes the enforceable law. If someone has a problem with that, then SCOTUS can hear their case and determine if it has merit. That's all they're allowed to do as per the 14th Amendment. They cannot effectively repeal it. ( with thanks to Silhouette for pointing this out)
Click to expand...

What utter bullshit..
.if congress passes a law and the SC rules that law unConstitutional, that law is in effect unenforceable....


When the proper court determines that a legislative act (a law) conflicts with the constitution, it finds that law unconstitutional and declares it void in whole or in part. This is called judicial review. The portion of the law that is declared void is considered to be struck down, or the entire statute is considered to be struck from the statute books.
Constitutionality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK Clarabell....start your silly tapdance....you've been pwned again....
 
Last edited:
bravo said:
TCFool states:#209 (Congress shall make NO LAW)thread


==============================

Riddle me this Batdung.....

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
Syllabus - CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

First Amendment referenced 182 times in official Supreme Court document....

14th Amendment referenced 0 times in official Supreme Court document....


Whats the 14th Amendment have to do with this present SC ruling giving Corporations rights under the First Amendment....nothing? Thats what I thought....



What utter bullshit..
.if congress passes a law and the SC rules that law unConstitutional, that law is in effect unenforceable....


When the proper court determines that a legislative act (a law) conflicts with the constitution, it finds that law unconstitutional and declares it void in whole or in part. This is called judicial review. The portion of the law that is declared void is considered to be struck down, or the entire statute is considered to be struck from the statute books.
Constitutionality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK Clarabell....start your silly tapdance....you've been pwned again....
Click to expand...

Oh yes he has...well done!

Here is my question: Can congress pass regulatory bills that further prohibit foreign investors who may hold voting shares in American corporations from donating money? See, this is the question Ahz raised and I have not seen it answered. I have heard that it is illegal for foreign intvestors to use any money to influence elections, including advocacy ads???
 
Ice Dancer said:
Oh yes he has...well done!

Here is my question: Can congress pass regulatory bills that further prohibit foreign investors who may hold voting shares in American corporations from donating money? See, this is the question Ahz raised and I have not seen it answered. I have heard that it is illegal for foreign intvestors to use any money to influence elections, including advocacy ads???
Click to expand...

I don't think this Congress wants to debate the issue of whether Constitutional rights apply to foreigners or not. The certainly could do it, and perhaps it is a debate we need to have. I just don't think the Democrats want to open that can of worms at this time.

Listen, I hear what you are saying and I understand your concerns, but the fact remains, you are trying to regulate the wrong thing. You think that by passing some law saying corporations owned by foreigners is going to stop such a corporation from political influence if that is what it wants to do, and that isn't an approach to yield the results you want. They will find a way to do the influencing if that is what they want to do, whether it is funneling money to another group, or outright under the table bribery. You simply can't stop corruption by regulation.

The best way to reveal corruption, is through transparency and disclosure. Let's see what foreign corporations are funding which candidates... let's pull the curtain back and see who is really behind it working the controls! Let's stop pretending that groups like MoveOn.org have no foreign influence... They wouldn't dare take any foreign money, would they? Rather than worry about what kind of 'influence' an entity (foreign or domestic) might have on a politician, let's hold the politician politically accountable!
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
There you have it folks.....this dumbass can't even read correctly, as I never stated that Congress can nullify scotus on the 1st amendment!

That's the crux of the dishonest neocon....they don't address what YOU state, they fabricate a text based on what THEY want you to say, then procede on that false basis. I detest liars, and therefore find further honest discussion with such folk like Dixie impossible.

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Congress Shall Make NO LAW....
Click to expand...

Dixie said:
Why are you talking like you have an audience being entertained by your stupidity? Does that make you feel like you're making a point here?

You did indeed say: "I never said Congress can "over rule" the SCOTUS, I said they can nullify the ruling." So you can lie and claim you didn't say this all you like, it's right there for your audience to see! ...And there you have it folks!

As I said, Congress CAN'T overturn or nullify the Supreme Court's decisions, other than to pass an amendment to the constitution and then have it ratified by the states. Since this case was ruled on the grounds of the 1st Amendment, that is the one you are wanting to repeal.... GOOD LUCK!
Click to expand...


Obviously, you don't understand the difference between "over ruling", which takes place in courts, and "nullifying" which can be done by laws past by the Congress that essentially render a Supreme Court ruling ineffective. Remember toodles, SCOTUS makes RULINGS, but does not create laws per se.

As the chronology of the posts shows folks, this willfully ignorant buffoon has no true understanding of how things work in the real world....but instead just keeps insisting that his interpretation and opinion supercedes all. All he can do now is just repeat ad nauseum his lies, distortions, denials, supposition and conjecture. The chronological posts will always be his undoing, as he has nothing else to offer but stubborn sour grapes. I'm done with him.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Oh yes he has...well done!

Here is my question: Can congress pass regulatory bills that further prohibit foreign investors who may hold voting shares in American corporations from donating money? See, this is the question Ahz raised and I have not seen it answered. I have heard that it is illegal for foreign intvestors to use any money to influence elections, including advocacy ads???
Click to expand...

Obviously, you are enamored of Bravo being Dixie's lapdog to the point where you take his edit jobs coupled with his ad naseum repeat of moot points at fact value. Here's the whole post. When you're done with that, clik back and follow the entire chronology to see his folly:

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Congress Shall Make NO LAW....

What you and Bravo keep forgetting is that the SCOTUS does not make law per se, but rules on it. CONGRESS makes law, and since the recent SCOTUS ruling basically reverses nearly a century of campaign donation/funding reform by enforcing a notion that a corporations and unions have 1st amendment rights as an individual citizen, Congress can pass laws that will limit the amount of donations, will require identification on all donations across the board...in effect they can pass ANOTHER version of McCain-Feingold in such a way that will make it immune from yet another 'activist' ruling from the Shrub appointees on the SCOTUS. Nothing "illegal" about that...that's the process. What's pissing of Bravo, Dixie and the rest of the peanut gallery is that people are calling the Scotus decision what it is, and neocons don't like it. TFB.

Oh, and if you read through the United Citizens decision, you'll see that it opens the flood gates for foreign influence into our elections....I believe that was a big issue during the 2000 election with Al Gore. If the neocons are now in favor of such, that makes them hypocrits.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20100128/pl_usnw/DC45993
 
Last edited:
I think the Constitution is pretty clear.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now chicklet, I don't give a fuck how long you want to crow about it, the Constitution states it clearly, and Congress most certainly CAN'T make a law restricting or abridging freedom of speech, press, or right to petition for redress (campaign).

Oh, technically they can pass a law... but it WILL be found unconstitutional! And if you wish to send your already battered incumbent democrats into the mid-terms with the yoke of advocating unconstitutional law around their necks, GO FOR IT! In fact, I am going to write a letter to Nancy and Harry myself, and DEMAND they do this!
 
Taichiliberal said:
Obviously, you are enamored of Bravo being Dixie's lapdog to the point where you take his edit jobs coupled with his ad naseum repeat of moot points at fact value. Here's the whole post. When you're done with that, clik back and follow the entire chronology to see his folly:

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Congress Shall Make NO LAW....

What you and Bravo keep forgetting is that the SCOTUS does not make law per se, but rules on it. CONGRESS makes law, and since the recent SCOTUS ruling basically reverses nearly a century of campaign donation/funding reform by enforcing a notion that a corporations and unions have 1st amendment rights as an individual citizen, Congress can pass laws that will limit the amount of donations, will require identification on all donations across the board...in effect they can pass ANOTHER version of McCain-Feingold in such a way that will make it immune from yet another 'activist' ruling from the Shrub appointees on the SCOTUS. Nothing "illegal" about that...that's the process. What's pissing of Bravo, Dixie and the rest of the peanut gallery is that people are calling the Scotus decision what it is, and neocons don't like it. TFB.

Oh, and if you read through the United Citizens decision, you'll see that it opens the flood gates for foreign influence into our elections....I believe that was a big issue during the 2000 election with Al Gore. If the neocons are now in favor of such, that makes them hypocrits.
Click to expand...

and when all the t's are crossed, and all the i's are dotted..., just what is the bottom line....

TC is exposed....

"a true coward, unable to admit he's wrong on any level. "
 
Ice Dancer said:
Oh yes he has...well done!

Here is my question: Can congress pass regulatory bills that further prohibit foreign investors who may hold voting shares in American corporations from donating money? See, this is the question Ahz raised and I have not seen it answered. I have heard that it is illegal for foreign intvestors to use any money to influence elections, including advocacy ads???
Click to expand...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-election-rules31-2010jan31,0,5997255.story

a separate law strictly prohibits foreigners and foreign corporations from "any participation in U.S. elections, just as they were prohibited before the Supreme Court's decision."

Although foreign corporations cannot directly put money into U.S. races under the ruling, their U.S. subsidiaries may now do so.

The regulation says: "A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process" for spending money on election campaigns.

But then remember Charlie Trie and Johnny Chung....John Huang and James Riady.....Maria Hsia and Ted Sioeng....
and of course Clinton and the unethical Democrats...

Where theres a will, theres a way....
 
bravo said:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-election-rules31-2010jan31,0,5997255.story

a separate law strictly prohibits foreigners and foreign corporations from "any participation in U.S. elections, just as they were prohibited before the Supreme Court's decision."

Although foreign corporations cannot directly put money into U.S. races under the ruling, their U.S. subsidiaries may now do so.

The regulation says: "A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process" for spending money on election campaigns.

But then remember Charlie Trie and Johnny Chung....John Huang and James Riady.....Maria Hsia and Ted Sioeng....
and of course Clinton and the unethical Democrats...

Where theres a will, theres a way....
Click to expand...

So then, we can now have foreign interests like Chavez and Citgo bankrolling campaigns and candidates via ads?
 
I think I need a nap now.

__________________
"Civility"


Zappasguitar:
"shut the fuck up"
"you fucking fascist"
"fucking loser."

Zappasguitar:
"How's ass cancer impacting your butt trade fatso?"
"asshole fat prick-zap"
"you crotch sniffing split"
"fuck you you shrill lying cunt"
"Stupid stinky tuna twat"
"I am always an asshole""

Zappasguitar:
"timmie is an ass fuck"
"discuss how much jizz you can suck down!"
"Chrispie opened her ass and spewed shit"
 
AssHatZombie said:
Ice dancer just jizzed all over bravo.
Click to expand...

I just told him that, you idiot...Is English your second language?

Bravo said:

"Although foreign corporations cannot directly put money into U.S. races under the ruling, their U.S. subsidiaries may now do so."
Click to expand...

Ice dancer just jizzed all over bravo ???

The only 'jizz' around here is the goo between your ears...
 
Hey you two...I really enjoy posting with the both of you and am not looking for a "win" here. I am just trying to understand the impact of the SCOTUS ruling.

If foreign persons such as Chavez can throw money at an election or policy, then Congress needs to do some intelligent regulating.

Would it not be fair (Constitutional) for Congress to restrict corporations that are held by foreign investors from donating money?
 
Ice Dancer said:
Hey you two...I really enjoy posting with the both of you and am not looking for a "win" here. I am just trying to understand the impact of the SCOTUS ruling.

If foreign persons such as Chavez can throw money at an election or policy, then Congress needs to do some intelligent regulating.

Would it not be fair (Constitutional) for Congress to restrict corporations that are held by foreign investors from donating money?
Click to expand...

But it IS a win. This a question these neocon fascist shitstains can't deal with.

You're on my side, ice, against the fascists, just for asking the question.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Hey you two...I really enjoy posting with the both of you and am not looking for a "win" here. I am just trying to understand the impact of the SCOTUS ruling.

If foreign persons such as Chavez can throw money at an election or policy, then Congress needs to do some intelligent regulating.

Would it not be fair (Constitutional) for Congress to restrict corporations that are held by foreign investors from donating money?
Click to expand...

Let me ask you this... do you believe Hugo Chavez couldn't or wouldn't pour money into a group like MoveOn.org? Do you believe there isn't any way for foreign money to find its way into American politics?

George Soros is Hungarian!

In an interview with The Washington Post on November 11, 2003, Soros said that removing President George W. Bush from office was the "central focus of my life" and "a matter of life and death." He jokingly said he would sacrifice his entire fortune to defeat President Bush, "if someone guaranteed it." Soros gave $3 million to the Center for American Progress, $5 million to MoveOn, and $10 million to America Coming Together. These groups worked to support Democrats in the 2004 election. On September 28, 2004 he dedicated more money to the campaign and kicked off his own multi-state tour with a speech: Why We Must Not Re-elect President Bush delivered at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. The online transcript to this speech received many hits after Dick Cheney accidentally referred to FactCheck.org as "factcheck.com" in the Vice Presidential debate, causing the owner of that domain to redirect all traffic to Soros's site.

Soros was not a large donor to US political causes until the 2004 presidential election, but according to the Center for Responsive Politics, during the 2003-2004 election cycle, Soros donated $23,581,000 to various 527 groups dedicated to defeating President Bush. A 527 group is a type of American tax-exempt organization named after a section of the United States tax code, 26 U.S.C. § 527. Despite Soros' efforts, Bush was reelected to a second term as president.

After Bush's re-election, Soros and other donors backed a new political fundraising group called Democracy Alliance which supported the goals of the U.S. Democratic Party. Soros supported the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which many hoped would end "soft money" contributions to federal election campaigns. Soros has made soft money donations to 527 organizations that he says do not raise the same corruption issues as donations directly to the candidates or political parties.

In your mind, is it okay to allow this foreigner to do whatever the hell he wants to influence American politics through 527 groups, while American corporations owned by other foreigners sit on the sidelines?
 
Last edited:
AssHatZombie said:
But it IS a win. This a question these neocon fascist shitstains can't deal with.

You're on my side, ice, against the fascists, just for asking the question.
Click to expand...

If you weren't an ignorant asshole you'd see I answered the question BEFORE it was asked...."Although foreign corporations cannot directly put money into U.S. races under the ruling, their U.S. subsidiaries may now do so."

and yes Ice...its up to Congress to construct and enact regulations that would keep "foreign money" out of campaigns....
as I said before........ remember Charlie Trie and Johnny Chung....John Huang and James Riady.....Maria Hsia and Ted Sioeng....all during the Clinton years....it was said even the Chinese Army was getting money to Clinton campaign coffers....so
It was a problem 15 -20 years ago...and this ruling didn't help the matter...but then its not the SC job to legislate law....
 
Last edited:
Ice Dancer said:
If foreign persons such as Chavez can throw money at an election or policy, then Congress needs to do some intelligent regulating.

Would it not be fair (Constitutional) for Congress to restrict corporations that are held by foreign investors from donating money?
Click to expand...

here's the thing. congress shall make no law......

this restricts congress from making a law restricting the freedom of speech. it doesn't say 'except foreigners or foreign corporations.

This means that, yes, Chavez could throw billion dollar ads out there advocating a socialist or communist candidate....if he so chose. Why?

Because 'we the people' wrote the constitution, we the people formed the federal government, and we the people put restrictions on the federal government. Therefore, it is incumbent upon 'we the people' to be knowledgable about any and all candidates who are running for office to be our representatives. If we are going to be lazy enough to sit back and elect our representatives based on ads we see on television (which may be based on total and complete lies), then 'we the people' deserve exactly the totalitarian government we elect.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
here's the thing. congress shall make no law......

this restricts congress from making a law restricting the freedom of speech. it doesn't say 'except foreigners or foreign corporations.

This means that, yes, Chavez could throw billion dollar ads out there advocating a socialist or communist candidate....if he so chose. Why?

Because 'we the people' wrote the constitution, we the people formed the federal government, and we the people put restrictions on the federal government. Therefore, it is incumbent upon 'we the people' to be knowledgable about any and all candidates who are running for office to be our representatives. If we are going to be lazy enough to sit back and elect our representatives based on ads we see on television (which may be based on total and complete lies), then 'we the people' deserve exactly the totalitarian government we elect.
Click to expand...


It doesn't say it. but it should.

I don't think the founding fathers could have predicted the power of international corporations or the power of mass media.

Corporate money will completely drown out any nonfascist voice.

In this climate where the constitution is torn asunder for the benefit of the fascists, This is one of the few cases where those opposed to fascism should make an exception when it comes to foreign corporate speech.

Your argument is just a setup to blame the victims. The people. People constantly fed propaganda will have a majority start to believe it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top