Obama’s Fighting the Constitution?

We all know that Obama’s never been a fan of the US Constitution, but who knew he’d ever fight it. But that’s exactly what he’s planning on doing concerning the US Supreme Court’s decision on easing limits on political donations by corporations and unions.

I don’t think we have to mention that Obama didn’t mind when unions already had the right to help finance campaign ads during the last election. Unions have historically voted for Democrats, so of course that was not an issue for Obama. But now that the USSC has opened up the same constitutional right to corporations, Obama and the rest of the Democrats are spitting up blood. When he’s been ticking off the corporations and Wall Street for a year, of course he’s bitting his nails.

And that’s what has set Obama off. And because he doesn’t like the Supreme Court decision, he’s going after the highest court in the land. This is not surprising since back in the day when he was a local Illinois senator, he was heard on a local radio station of saying,

Yup, a fundemental blindspot…..that’s what he said.

So the man has no use for the Constitution in the first place. But now he thinks he’ll get bipartisan support to do what? Make the USSC change their decision? That won’t happen.

The only recourse he has is to get congress to make McCain-Feingold law, but I don’t think he’ll get bi-partisan support when it comes to that….at least not anymore.

But this is just another example of an activist president who, when confronted with a wall, would rather ram through it instead of handling things according to the law.


23 Responses to “Obama’s Fighting the Constitution?”

  1. elecpencil Says:

    This is an activist court the type conservatives hate. The losers are the people the winners are the corporations. Foreign corporations will now buy our candidates so much for national security. Conservatives don’t just want a smaller government they want a corporate government. We are one step closer and the conservative corporate tools must be very happy.

  2. elecpencil Says:

    Maybe you missed when, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, asked about opening the door to “mega-corporations” owned by foreign governments. Olson the attorney that brought the case, offered Ginsburg, that Congress might be able to prohibit foreign corporations from making donations, though Olson made clear he thought any such restriction a bad idea.

  3. elecpencil Says:

    Lots of foreign countries own U.S. corporations so they will be influencing our elections. Not something we should want to see happen. That’s what really matters. More here: http://www.gregpalast.com/supreme-court-to-ok-al-qaeda-donation-for-sarah-palin/

  4. elecpencil Says:

    Not true or the Democrats wouldn’t be crafting legislation to stop foreign owned corporations from investing in our elections.

    • But they aren’t. How can they when the law has not been affected.

      The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making “a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election” under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any “expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication.”

  5. elecpencil Says:

    The ruling open up a loophole that allows foreign corporations to influence federal elections through their U.S. subsidiaries.

    • You’re ignoring what I posted—– 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any “expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication.”

  6. elecpencil Says:

    You need to do more reading on this subject: http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/1913/

    Seems like may be something for the courts to decide on.

  7. elecpencil Says:

    We can expect this next: http://murrayhillincforcongress.com/

    If corporations are people bring the troops home and draft the corporations!

    • If this is such a thorn in your flesh, then I’m guessing you also feel that the SEIU should not be able to be involved in any political activity as well, right? You are aware that before the USSC decision, the unions were allowed to contribute without limit to the political parties (which of course were the Democrats). So if the corporations should be drafted (your words) so should unions, right?

  8. elecpencil Says:

    Why do unions contribute to Democrats? Oh, that’s right unions and Democrats represent working people. Republicans hate unions because they love licking the boots of corporations. They don’t even care when the corporations are foreign owned. Or that the corporations export our jobs and are thus traitors to our nation. That while they suck us dry with the corporate welfare we pay them. Yep, keep licking their boots while they spit on you.

    • You’re totally missing the point. Why can unions support elections and influence with their money and corporations can’t? BOTH have employees and are businesses in the sense of hiring people to produce a profit. So according to you, you don’t see the disparity? Now if the Unions were Republican supporters, would you be so gung ho? Doubtful. As long as it’s anti-Republican, any group can do what it wants, right? Let me guess. You don’t have any problem with George Soros trying to influence the 2000 election against Bush, right? You do know Soros is not American, right?

  9. elecpencil Says:

    In the first place I’m an Independent. I don’t think Unions or corporations should own politicians. The unions spending next to the corporations is a pittance. Unions being Republican supporters is like Rabbis being Nazis supporters. Geoerge Soros helped countries behind the Iron Curtain go from Communism to Capitalism, what do you have against that? Why do Republicans have such a hard on for Soros? Is it because they consider any millionaire a traitor if he supports a Democrat? he hated Bush because Bush screwed him in a business deal. Bush lost the 2000 election. I didn’t vote for Bush or Gore. You missed my point. Why are Republicans such corporate boot lickers when the corporations have no loyalty to the USA? Forget where Soros is from. My tax dollars go to corporate welfare for traitorous corporations. I find that offensive.

    • You keep missing the point. It doesn’t matter how much money unions spend to influence elections. The point is they do and DID this past election. You seem to not have any problems with Union influence, yet won’t allow Corporations to be able to do the same thing. That is called DISCRIMINATION. That would be equal to allowing whites to vote but not blacks.

      Secondly, you missed the point about Soros. Side note: Soros is may use capitalism for his own gain, but he’s far from a capitalist. He’s a die hard socialist. But the main point is that SOROS is not an American you don’t mind his influence on American elections yet you balk about any foreign influence. (But I already showed you…and Judge Alito did as well, that foreign entities STILL cannot have a say in American elections.

  10. peoplescorporatelawyer Says:

    You’re both wrong.

    First, foreign corporations can and do create subsidiaries here in the good old USA, and those subsidiaries are treated like domestic corporations.
    Second, the foreign corporation thing is a side issue. The important issue in my opinion is that artificial structures have been given the rights of citizens. Corporations aren’t just groups of people joining together for common purpose. They are artificial entities designed to pursue limited ends (primarily maximizing short term profit), that wield extraordinary state-given powers (limited liability, perpetual existence and special bankruptcy protection), and that by and large can’t be held accountable for their actions. They don’t have the capacity to act as citizens, but by 150 years of judicial fiat have been given the rights of citizens. That is dangerous.
    Third, unions are corporations. They also benefit by the supreme court’s decision.

    • I understand what you’re saying but you are missing my point as well. If you and the other poster are so upset with corporations being able to finance any ads, then why haven’t you been in an uproar about unions like the SEIU who have been fiancing campaigns for years. Are they not on the same level as corporations?

      We’re even seeing the result of those financial pressure. Just the other week, Stern of SEIU goes to the White House and DEMANDS that unions don’t have to pay the 40% tax on the cadillac health plans…..and Obama caves. Why? Because if the didn’t agree, he would not be seeing any further support from the Unions. So if you’re wanting to leave corporations out of this, the same should apply to Unions.

      Presently we don’t have the even playing field. But if you’re going to allow the influence peddling from Unions, it’s only right that the field is opened up to other corporations. Take it out of corporate hands? Fine. Then shut out the unions as well.

  11. peoplescorporatelawyer Says:

    There are a few important differences between unions and stock corporations:

    1. Unions have to publicly disclose their political activities. Corporations do not.

    2. Union members have the right to opt out of the portion of their union dues that goes to finance political activities. Corporate shareholders don’t have any say in the political activities of their corporations.

    3. Unions exist to advance the common interests of their members, and the first amendment clearly contemplated the right of citizens to join together to influence their elected representatives. Like I said before, stock corporations are not groups of people organized to advance a common cause, they are legal creations that exist for the sole purpose of maximizing profit while protecting investors from liability. The business equivalent of unions in the sense of exercising first amendment rights in the interest of a segment of the voting public would be trade associations or chambers of commerce, not stock corporations.

    This is not to say that there aren’t serious problems with unions today, or that many of them actually represent the interests of their membership. I would definitely like to see most unions reformed to be more accountable to their members. But even with their flaws, they are far more accountable to citizens of this country than stock corporations are. Stock corporations have no patriotic loyalty and no moral code, and they aren’t accountable to anyone with patriotic loyalty or a moral code. Their directors, officers and employees have one directive, and that’s to maximize profits. If it is more profitable for a corporation to act adverse to the interests of our country, that’s what each person working for that corporation is legally obligated to do. The last thing we should do as a country is give these entities political rights.

    You’re right about one thing. We don’t have a level playing field. Unions have lots of political influence, but it’s nothing compared to the political influence of for-profit stock corporations. SEIU might have convinced Obama to back off of the tax on cadillac plans, but who convinced him to take single-payer off the table and require Americans to buy health insurance from private companies? What a massive transfer of wealth from working people to the insurance industry. Yeah, SEIU was able to influence the final outcome, but the entire structure was designed to favor private industry.

    • Still, there are a couple issues. We have the USSC deciding this case based upon freedom of speech, correct? And the Constitution doesn’t distinguish if that applies to only people or to groups. The point that one has a corporation, does that mean they have no right to express their opinion collectively? If I have an opinion, personally and I also own a company, does my opinion become negated because I own a corporation?

      See, as much as I don’t like Unions, I do support their right to express an opinion and even do it by supporting politica groups. Then comes the question about corporations. We both know a corporation can consist of two officers and no employees to one with a board of directors which employes thousands. Do they both get the ‘axe’ when it comes to freedom of speech or just one of them?

      To be honest I’d like if corporations weren’t involved in the election process, but as long as unions are not similarly classified as ineligable, then I feel we need the equal footing applied here.

  12. peoplescorporatelawyer Says:

    The constitution absolutely contemplates that the rights in the bill of rights are to be exercised by people. The 9th amendment says: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The word corporation does not appear in the constitution.

    The founding fathers saw more clearly than we do today that corporations were creatures of the state. The Boston Tea Party wasn’t about high taxes, it was about a trade policy that allowed a global corporation chartered by the British Parliament (the British East India Company) to sell tea in the colonies at a price that was cheaper than smuggled tea. The Tea Party revolutionaries rightly saw this corporation as an extension of the crown and destroyed corporate property as an act of rebellion against the British government. Allowing corporations to exercise political rights in the new republic was the farthest thing from the founders’ minds.

    It wasn’t until the Railroad Cases in the 1880s that corporations were given rights under the constitution. The Supreme Court found, without hearing arguments on the matter and without explaining its reasoning, that state-chartered stock corporations are “persons” entitled to equal protection of the laws under the 14th amendment. The rest is history.

    The biggest difference between stock corporations and unions is that stock corporations were created by the state, granted incredible powers and protections, and then let loose to run amok over our political and economic systems.

    “The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them wherever need of such control is shown…. The immediate necessity in dealing with trusts is to place them under the real, not the nominal, control of some sovereign to which, as its creatures, the trusts owe allegiance, and in whose courts the sovereign’s orders may be enforced. In my opinion, this sovereign must be the National Government.” –Teddy Roosevelt

    Unfortunately, our elected representatives have not heeded this advice, and our courts continue to expand corporate power by judicial fiat.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: