Another "YOU LIED" moment for Obama

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Watch this quick 5 minute movie on why the Supreme court made the decision they did. Since the government could limit a movie (about Hillary) they also could ban books if they said "vote for X"... that scared the SCOTUS. The Federal Election Commission could pick and choose what they allow/limit.

Citizens United (Hillary: the Movie) v. Federal Election Commission

PeGlzEavpTM

[NickD 203]

Another one of those infamous 5-4 votes the supreme court is becoming notorious for. And the subject of whether a corporation should be treated as an individual was never even brought up. Most legal experts tend to agree that a corporation is not an individual therefore they are not protected by the first amendment of the US Constitution.

So how this latest ruling by the supreme court applies to corporations would have to be interpreted by the supreme court. I will make it simple for them, "is a corporation the same as an individual." But I am sure their answer if the even tackle this definition will be as just as incomprehensible as their latest ruling.

But they certainly created a new gray area where corporations can form opinions to people that are too stupid to know any better.

[SMR 368]

Compared to most other first world countries I have lived in or even studied, the US is evidently ruled (controlled) by the Supreme Court; amongst other courts. It's why I never heard of x vs y case deciding the fate of the country in Aus. Heck, we don't even have a bill of rights, yet are highly renowned (worldwide) for equality and our high standard of living for all.

You guys treat your constitution like some sort of holly grail that must never be altered to reflect the times. Think about it, at the time the constitution was initially ratified, the first stake was hammered in the ground at spot to be named Sydney. Yes, it's that old and reflects a totally different era. A time when corporations did not sell out the country for a profit. Hence there being no need to legislate against it.

It's not about ignoring it but about modernizing it to reflect 2010, rather than 1788. Something common in most other first world countries.

You missed my point. I agree that the Constitution should change. I just think that the changes have to be made by the amendment process and not by the Supreme Court. I also don't think that policy should be determined by some x vs. y case. The Supreme Court should logically and literally interpret the Constitution. If we don't like what the Constitution says, we should amend it, not expect the Supreme Court to interpret it differently.

[I'm Gone 60]

Rotten legislslators.....The President has my vote, in that foreign entities should not dictate or significantly influence US policy....

You mean like Israel does through AIPAC.

[Ali G. 37]

You missed my point. I agree that the Constitution should change. I just think that the changes have to be made by the amendment process and not by the Supreme Court. I also don't think that policy should be determined by some x vs. y case. The Supreme Court should logically and literally interpret the Constitution. If we don't like what the Constitution says, we should amend it, not expect the Supreme Court to interpret it differently.

I think we actually agree here. I strongly disagree with the supreme court determining the fate of an entire country, rather than the government elected by the people. If something is a gray area, then it should be passed back to congress to be voted on. It certainly should not be left up to the supreme court to decide.

This is also the reason constitutions is most other first world countries are ratified and amended regularly. That is, to reflect (account) for the times and current issues.

What I feel occurs here in the US is that when something ends up in the hands of the supreme court, they try to vaguely align it with the Constitution. Basically forcing a square peg into a round whole. In reality, the logical thing to do would be to pass anything that has not been clearly defined on to congress, to be voted on by congress elected by the citizens of America.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Man I'm just back and forth with our government. I've generally supported the Supreme Courts decisions in the past few years but this??? Can you say "I'm in someone's pocket?" Its absolutely ridiculous.

I seriously wonder if there have been some unethical deals with certain judges and corporations or even potentially foreign governments. Can a committee be created that can investigate the supreme court???

[Danno 1,228]

A country that fails to adapt seizes to exist. I know this may be news for some but history spans back further than the 300 plus years the US was established. After all, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but republicans are driving this country into the ground faster than a machine can hammer a post into the ground, yet don't even realized it. You eat, breathe and sleep the constitution yet ignore the first handful of words in it "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,". We the people not you the individual, you the corporation etc. You refuse to invest in America and on Americans (cough cough "we the people"), but rather, prefer to squander the money in the military and have a select few individuals, who exploited Americans ("we the people") amass the majority of it.

The most laughable thing to me is how poor those residing in the Midwest to the South are, yet how staunchly these same folks defend republican economic ideals. Ideals that have been proven wrong by every other rich and successful nation might I add. You beat on about money but refuse to accept or acknowledge the ways of those who are beating you at it.

No, actually it is YOU who keep talking about money. I never mentioned it.

[Ali G. 37]

No, actually it is YOU who keep talking about money. I never mentioned it.

Money is what makes a country function or not. After all, it is what pays the bills.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Has anyone of you opposed to the ruling considered the fact that most of the media is corporate and has plenty of political influence? One basis for extending freedom of speech to corporations is that some already have it and to limit others would be discriminatory. Also the same reasoning they used to allow this would preclude the feds from reimplementing the Fairness Doctrine, or something similar to limit speech that opposes its policies, and we definitely need that against the crooked, self-serving pols that dominate our current government.

[Nagishkaw 510]

He didn't bring up Guantanamo Bay.

[alienlovechild 75]

Leave to Obama to rant against the only branch of the Federal government his party doesn't control.

The check and balances of the Founders seem to have even more prescience now. I'll take the U.S. Constitution over Booyah's advice.