80% Of ALL Americans Oppose Supreme Court Free Speech Decision

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln quotes (American 16th US President (1861-65)

I don’t think I’ve seen a more consolidated American Public in a long, long time.  Since the betrayal of the Constitution by the supreme court 5 the reaction by the American public is clear, IMPEACH THE SUPREME COURT 5! The American Citizen is NOT happy.  Neither is Congress.  Nor did the supreme court have the right to make such a decision when the case before it had not asked that question and, in fact, had been assured that it would not come up.  Americans across all party lines are speaking out, loudly!  This was not justice!  This was not what our Constitution granted to non-persons or business entities, this is a corrupt supreme court and the absurd wording Congress has given to legislation!

It has become very clear over the past few years that the court is corrupt, has sold out, and intends more harm than good for these united States.  The money men have the supreme court 5 firmly in their employ!

Cases like David Olafson, Ramos and Compean, and others show distinctly how the courts have become *for money justice*.  This is not what our forefathers intended.  Sad is the day when corruption is not even being disguised any more but out in plain sight.  Everywhere you look our government and the courts are betraying We the People!  When will enough be enough?  How many more times will we allow the betrayal of our Constitution to stand?

Poll: Large majority opposes Supreme Court’s decision on campaign financing

By Dan Eggen

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 17, 2010; 4:38 PM

Eight in 10 poll respondents say they oppose the high court’s Jan. 21 decision to allow unfettered corporate political spending, with 65 percent “strongly” opposed. Nearly as many backed congressional action to curb the ruling, with 72 percent in favor of reinstating limits.

The poll reveals relatively little difference of opinion on the issue among Democrats (85 percent opposed to the ruling), Republicans (76 percent) and independents (81 percent).

Remember, the case before the courts had nothing to do with their decision. The question before the court was; Was an ad produced during the presidential campaign a corporate campaign ad or not. That was the ONLY question before this court. Their decision has nothing to do with this question, and they never answered it either. They have taken it upon themselves to create law when they were never asked to, nor is it legal for them to do so.  The supreme court is not authorized to make laws, yet this is what they did with this ruling.

Every  Citizens KNOWS the following:

  1. There is a Creator God.
  2. Our rights come from Him/Her/It.
  3. The purpose of any civil government is to protect and defend these Creator-given rights.

Bill Moyers Journal did a great job of bringing to light what exactly the infamous 5 has done. Let’s take a look at the transcript:

January 29, 2010

BILL MOYERS JOURNAL:

BILL MOYERS: Is that what he was doing last week?

MONICA YOUN; Absolutely not. This started out as a case about a very narrow issue. It’s, is this 90 minute infomercial attacking Hillary Clinton, is this a corporate campaign ad or is it not a corporate campaign ad? And what the court did is they said, “Well, you know, we could rule on that question, but instead let’s talk about this entire topic of whether corporate spending in elections should be limited.

BILL MOYERS: In other words, that question was not in the case, that the judges reached out and brought to the court.

ZEPHYR TEACHOUT: It was not only not in the case, but the parties stipulated that they wouldn’t have to deal with these questions. And the judges reached out. The justices reached out and decided to make this statement of their view of corporate independent expenditures.

MONICA YOUN; And this is so disturbing, because one reason that, in that clip, the chief justice is paying, you know, homage to the idea of judicial modesty is people recognize that in this system judges are given a great deal of power. Judges can not only say, “Oh, what you did, Congress, was wrong. But forever more, you are barred from doing anything like that again. That option is completely off the table now.” But the way that’s limited in our constitutional system is that judges are only supposed to decide the particular case in front of them. They’re not going to — they’re not supposed to say, “Oh, we don’t like that particular area of the law. Let’s just go out and change that, just because we have the five votes to do so.” And I can think of very little more scary for our democracy than a five, you know, justice majority that finds itself unconstrained by precedent. That finds itself unconstrained by the case before it. And feels like it can just go out there and pursue its own agenda.

ZEPHYR TEACHOUT: This case did overrule established precedent. It dealt with an issue which could have been dealt with on several different minor grounds. Much, much narrower grounds. And this — these laws against corporate expenditures came after massive public response to what they perceived to be corruption in the system. Passed by Congress with enormous amounts of support. And there are times when justices should get involved. And say, “No, no, no. There is a minority here that is not being protected. There are interests that the public isn’t hearing.” But here the justices were not reaching out to protect an unheard minority, but rather to protect one of the loudest voices we already have in our politics.

It is perfectly clear that the supreme court justices, (the infamous 5), made a power grab and created a law they were never authorized to make, violated the terms of the case, and gave rights to entities that are neither human nor alive by the terms of our Declaration of Independence. How much clearer can it be that they are unfit to remain on the bench?

We the People must make it known, loudly and with vigor that we will not stand for this type of *justice* and that those who engage in it will be terminated.  The federal government is making one  power grab after another; obamacare is being shoved down our throats despite extreme opposition and we have made it clear we do not want it; allowing big pharma to take our supplements away from us (S. 3002); the IRS extorting money they were never granted the authority to steal in the form of income taxes; and the list goes on and on.  One violation of the Constitution after another.  The puppet masters must be jumping for joy by now.

The names of the infamous 5 are:  Anthony McLeod Kennedy, John Glover Roberts Jr., Samuel Anthony Alito Jr., Antonin Gregory Scalia and Clarence Thomas.  Their backgrounds, standing and previous actions should all be throughly investigated and applicable charges made.  A supreme court justice may be impeached if their behavior is such that they cannot be trusted to make good decisions.  Let’s look:

A Supreme Court Justice may be impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office if convicted in a Senate trial, but only for the same types of offenses that would trigger impeachment proceedings for any other government official under Article I and II of the Constitution.

Section 1 of Article III states that judges of Article III courts shall hold their offices “during good behavior.” “The phrase “good behavior” has been interpreted by the courts to equate to the same level of seriousness the ‘high crimes and misdemeanors” encompasses.

In addition, any federal judge may be prosecuted in the criminal courts for criminal activity. If found guilty of a crime in a federal district court, the justice would face the same type of sentencing any other criminal defendant would. The district court could not remove him/her from the Bench. However, any justice found guilty in the criminal courts of any felony would certainly be impeached and, if found guilty, removed from office.

The answer is clear; contact your Representative and demand they impeach these justices. They have smirched and betrayed the Constitution, We the People, and precedence by their ruling and are no longer fit to hold their seats.  Remind your representative that election season is coming.  Then make sure that there is someone at the exit polls to record your vote as we have reason to believe that the voting machines are rigged.  If your representative understands his or her job is on the line, action will be taken…

The Pen has been doing a series of articles on this supreme court decision and why it is so far off the mark that we must not let it stand.  I get an email from them on a regular basis.  Sometimes their articles just reach out and grab you.  They have some wonderful bumper stickers concerning this very issue.  Should you want one of the following you can click here:

These are great, aren’t they? I’ve already gotten one of the “Impeach The Supreme Court 5” stickers on its way.  I don’t drive a car, but there is nothing that says these stickers can’t be placed on backpacks, bikes, or even jackets that aren’t washable.  They really do say it all.  I want others to know exactly where I stand as far as the Constitution, Justice in America, Law and Order, and civic pride in this country go.  These justices do not deserve their seats of honor.

You can read the Court’s decision on CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION
COMMISSION
HERE:

One State is also livid over the ruling.  You can read Alaska’s reaction to the ruling:

Alaska State Legislature

FIVE DEMOCRATS VOICE ANGER OVER SUPREME COURT RULING

Decision is ‘slap in the face to Alaskans’

JUNEAU – Five Democrats in the Alaska State Legislature today decried the US Supreme Court decision that strikes down laws that banned corporations from using their own money to support or oppose candidates for public office. The decision will allow large corporations to use their profits to buy political campaign ads.

“Today Corporate America took the First Amendment from Americans,” Gara said. “ It’s why corporate executives put so much money into past presidential campaigns – to successfully take over the Supreme Court,” Gara is a former Alaska Assistant Attorney General.

I think we need to hear from a lot more States on this issue. I’m surprised that in doing a google search nothing else came up. Do other States think this is a good idea? And the proposed Constitutional Amendment rather scares me. How can we trust Congress to amend the Constitution when we can’t even trust them to make good laws?  I’ve already noticed that they now want to censor bloggers by forcing us to gain a license to blog.  One has to wonder why the media is feeling so threatened.  Could it be that those who blog actually speak the truth?  That we bring awareness of events which main media sources refuse to air?  That they cannot control what we write about or censor our feelings on current issues?

I also found an interesting take when I did a google search on is the supreme court authorized to create laws?  The answer, in a nut shell, is NO.  The author was speaking of a completely separate decision all together, but the opinion is valid for the current decision.  While Congress decided these men were supreme court quality, others found them to be sadly lacking in their understanding of the “Law.”  Let’s take a look:

Michael Anthony Peroutka, Publisher

Like the Senators that questioned him and that later questioned Samuel Alito, Chief Justice Roberts demonstrated over and over that he is NOT qualified to hold the office of Chief Justice, or federal judge or, for that matter, any federal or state office because he doesn’t know the true Source and Nature of law. He either doesn’t know or doesn’t care where law comes from. His view of government and of liberty and of the law itself is distinctly ANTI-American. And he is not alone. In fact, I would be hard pressed to name even a handful of current American judges who are actually qualified to hold the office.

< SNIPPED >

Isn’t that easy? Sure, it is! As a matter of fact, our fathers thought it was so simple and straight-forward that they claimed it to be “self-evident” as a matter of law. They said that it is not necessary to support it by argumentation. It’s what you might call a “given” – a starting point – a pre-supposition.

One might say, therefore, that not to grasp – not to discern – not to understand and self-consciously act upon this first premise, would disqualify one from service to the country.

It is more than self evident that the infamous 5 do not understand law.  Their ruling was made to satisfy these who paid them off… Disqualification from the bench and a thorough investigation of all decision made the only route to take to answer the verdict in CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION. By their own inability to stick to the question which was to be decided, they have proven themselves incapable of making such important decisions.  Time to throw out the trash not implement a Constitutional amendment.

Advertisements

~ by justmytruth on February 22, 2010.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: