Separation of Powers

oh thank god someone paid attention to this

Clay,in the US Corporatacracy,your tree should be inverted. Clearly,the real power is corporate,and flows down to government.

nucanuck wrote: "Clay,in the US Corporatacracy,your tree should be inverted. Clearly,the real power is corporate,and flows down to government."

Of all the suggestions ever offered in here on how a particular cartoon could have been drawn better to better illustrate a point, yours is nothing short of superb.

Add a tornado in the background, aptly penned as the Supreme Court, departing the scene after just up-rooting and inverting the tree and the picture would be complete.

But then, I'm no cartoonist. I have trouble drawing stick figures.

Nucanuck felt the tree should have been inverted.... Alprova thought Nucanuck's idea was "...superb...."

I'm wondering where the 'people' fit into this scenario?? Are "We the People" the 'roots' without which everything above us dies or, at the very least, does not flourish??

Shouldn't we be??

I remain ever hopeful, Woody

President Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial influence, which has turned out to be mostly correct. However, his vision fell short of the massive influence big corporations would have on Washington, especially the supposedly neutral Supreme Court.

How would Jesus govern? Aren't the government and its clients "interest" themselves?--we're not governed by angels, are we?
The Declaration of Independence says men are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" and "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." I could argue from I Timothy 2 and elsewhere in the Bible that "to secure rights" is a fair summary of what governments are for. Not to enrich corporations, and not to re-elect politicians (of any party), but to put down evil so people can pursue whatever goods they choose: libertarian Christianity, widely tolerant of well-behaved unbelievers--birds nest in the Christian tree. For this we need a smaller government: George Washington's Cabinet had 4 departments, and his State Department consisted of Thomas Jefferson and six clerks. What we have now could be drawn as the three heads of Cerberus the fat hellhound? Jesus on earth did not seek, He even refused, political power; the recent setbacks to statism are, so far, (small) victories for Christian hope.

I'm surprised that those who favor the Dems would complain of corporate donations.

Check this out.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

Looks to me like the Dems soak up an overwhelming majority of the dollars.

The only protection against government and corporations are those limits placed on the government by the Constitution and our willingness to defend them. No political party or candidate can protect us. Only the mass of the People proclaiming our sovereignty can stand against America, Inc.

P.S. Just to be clear - the Supreme Court in this instance merely said that the government can no longer censor political speech from people who have freely associated with one another. THats a good thing.

Freedom of speech has always been for individual Americans, not corporations. Now many corporations are multi-national which mean their loyalty is first to the stockholders which may include foreigners that despise America.

"We're not governed by angels, are we?"

Yes, some things are just not found in human-made "courts."

George Herbert Redemption

HAVING been tenant long to a rich Lord,
Not thriving, I resolved to be bold,
And make a suit unto him, to afford
A new small-rented lease, and cancell th' old.

In heaven at his manour I him sought:
They told me there, that he was lately gone
About some land, which he had dearly bought
Long since on earth, to take possession.

I straight return'd, and knowing his great birth,
Sought him accordingly in great resorts;
In cities, theatres, gardens, parks, and courts:
At length I heard a ragged noise and mirth

  Of theeves and murderers: there I him espied,  
  Who straight, Your suit is granted, said, & died.

Clay drew the picture exactly right. All branches of Big Gov't are madly in love with Corporate power and riches, it's trunk. It sucks the water from the trunk to grow and feed its branches. We, the root-people are completely ignored and out of sight as Woody aptly made reference to. Yet we and our Constitution are the real strength of this country. If the Trunk and Branches take all, we die.

Beautifully put Andrew and Inspector..thankfully, our Hope is not here.

Can someone tell me honestly how further empowering big businesses, unions, and other special interests by this SCOTUS decision are good for the average American?

Have we learned nothing from the dozens of scandals of our history arising from the influence of monied interests?

This recent financial calamity was the result of our politicians from both parties refusing to provide oversight and regulation of the financial entities who donated to their campaigns. Is their no outrage for the power and influence wielded by these institutions?

Of course the politicians who received these donations and refused to protect the American people should be held accountable. But does anyone truly believe that anyone else elected will not be influenced by the mountains of cash that will be thrown at them from this decision?

Debate it as you will, I think this is a horrendous decision and a giveaway of America to the highest bidder at the expense of average Americans.

"No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby". H. L. Mencken

EaTn -- So you say it is better to silence all then to expose those few foreign naysayers? How about George Soros and his MoveOn.org? Or the ACLU? Or the unions? Or PETA? Etc., etc., etc.

You give us, the voters, little credit for an ability to discern the true from the false. Come to think of it, after the last election, perhaps there is much in what you say...

Scotty, 7:56am

After examining the chart I came to the conclusion that Corporations donated to the Republicans…oil, pharmaceuticals, etc., except for Disney. The other donors were people oriented organizations, postal workers, laborers, etc.

That combined amount from Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and a few loose screws, like myself, C:-) could have done a LOT to reduce our National Debt.

I think the responsibility for government still rests with the individual, that NO ONE, or any entity,should donate anything for good government exept their vote with thoughtful consideration that the person they choose will act wisely and truly represent their people.

Sigh!

That should put it right back on the shoulders of our congressmen and senators to govern us with some sacrifice and dedication to duty, rather than their own enrichment and security.

Another sigh!

Thank you, Hotdiggity!11:37am

Andrew says.."How would Jesus govern?"

Well, first he would drive the money changers, (corporations, bought politicians, etc.) out of the temple, (America). Therefore, he would call for legislation to reduce the powers of the money changers.

Second, he would clarify that rendering unto Caesar does not mean giving away our voice in government to the priests,(politicians, monied interests, etc).

Third, he would continue to promote helping the unfortunate as per Matthew 25.35-40.

Fourth, he would continue to promote tolerance of others as per Matthew 7.1-5

Fifth, he would propose legislation to have the quote "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" as the national motto as per Matthew 7.12

He would continue to make the rich uncomfortable by citing his quote from Matthew 19:23-24.

This guy Jesus really upset the status quo of his time, huh? Pretty progressive individual. Seems like he had a real hang up for the unfettered power of the rich and powerful.

One has to wonder which political party would oppress him if he attempted to institute the policies listed above.

Yeah, all the right winger's are for big corporations. Just wait when a major tv political ad ends with "paid for by your Corporate xyz partner and friend H. Chavez".

It is illegal for H. Chavez -- the foreign dictator-- to contribute to US campaigns, EaTn. Or any other foreigner. Details and exceptions forthcoming upon release.

I repeat, so you would silence all just to shut up Hugo?

Rolando, I have read many of your posts and you have always seemed to oppose most types of government actions or judicial activism that reduce the rights or voice of the individual. Do you truly believe this ruling will empower the individual voice in our country? Somehow I detect that you may also have misgivings about this ruling.

A person can argue the constitutionality of this decision all they wish. The simple fact, and history bears this out, is that undue influence of monied interests have not boded well for the average individual. Regulation, restraint, and pragmatism have always been needed to stifle the greedy and power hungry.

The Supreme Court ruled correctly. The legislators of this country cannot pass laws that go against the Constitution.

As for the people that think this is going suddenly make government the hand maiden of big business WAKE UP! Our lawmakers have been in the pocket of moneyed interest for more than 100 years. The only way we can clean up politics is to cap money used for elections. Barack Obama is proof that elections can be bought but no one is concerned about that. I'm dizzy from the spin.

jhenry- any ruling by the SC and the Constitution is purely coincidental, as has been demonstrated many times by the less-than unanimous votes by the members. A year or two from now will provide a better clue as to how impartial the ruling was. As for vote buying, it's really too bad that McCain did not get his finance reform through, but I guess the SC ruling would have killed it anyway.

Jhenery when you say "Supreme Court ruled correctly", or "legislators of this country cannot pass laws that go against the Constitution," people need to understand that the Supreme Court is offering their OPINION as to THEIR interpretation of the Constitution. The SC is charged with interpretation but that does not mean their opinion is correct and should not be challenged. Only one vote would have changed the outcome.

I don't think any informed person thinks that "suddenly" big business is in bed with government. That is why we had McCain-Feingold and other laws to curb excessive corporate influence.

Unsure what you mean by "cap money used for elections". Would not any attempted cap you propose be against the ruling just passed by the SC.

My gosh, has no one considered that the beauty of our founding fathers principals was in the implementation of checks and balances. What balance do we have when entities with the most cash can influence our politicians or laws.

It's also interesting that this ruling by the conservative SCOTUS majority came so soon on the heels of an election basically decided by the donations and grassroots organization of everyday Americans. Its usually the corporate interests who influence the outcome.

So hey, can't have the unwashed masses deciding our policies, now can we?

Conditions--

Republicans, Democrats growl, The Tea Party gang yowl a howl, The Inds. like to cuss, The publicans fuss, As onlooker I have to call foul!

We wait for a vote on a health bill, We bemoan the high cost of a small pill, But pols. have no fright, In their position of might, Their needs don’t empty THEIR till!

There are people out there without shelter, Their jobs disappeared helter-skelter. Big bosses didn’t suffer, Not because they were tougher, For in a big bonus they welter!

I have no answer, and suffer, Against fate there is really no buffer. I’ve had a long life, And a bagful of strife, But for me life could still be much rougher!

This will say it all.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/01/025329.php

hotdiggety-- I fully agree with your 4:12PM post with one...ah, not really correcting you so much as rectifying one misapprehension. I do NOT disagree with the SCOTUS on this one...or any decision favoring anyone's/anything's free speech except after lengthy discussion, consideration, and thought -- the famous "Fire!" comes to mind. Free speech is a very precious thing and once lost very seldom comes back.

The problem with law is not in the letter but in the exceptions...for therein lies true inequality. The "It's OK for unions and newspapers to preach against a person/position but not OK for an organization" kind of thing, for instance. Unions and newspapers are as much in business as the NRA or the ACLU, or Toyota or Band of America, or AIG, or whoever...profit is not necessary to define "business" in this context and objectivity certainly isn't, so what's the difference? All have a position they espouse. "...All men are created equal" is the letter but racial preference is the exception. The examples are legion.

Fifty-odd years ago I swore a solemn oath to protect our Constitution and I try to do that. I have no formal education into Constitutional Law -- I'm not sure I would trust any of today's universities to properly teach it in any case. I have, as a required and self-imposed part of my duties, studied it extensively from many different aspects...I had T-3/high speed access to the Internet and most government systems, classified and unclassified, limited access and public access for a couple decades. What a great self-study course!

I have found that the only way to guarantee anything is to do three things: 1) write it clearly and explicitly, 2) apply it across the board, and 3) make very, very few detailed exceptions and make those exceptions immune to interpretation/expansion.

For instance;

Amendment Article 1 Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech or of the press...

Pretty clear, that one.

Or this one:

Amendment Article 4

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Another great one; however, this Amendment is honored more in the breaking than in the observance -- I give you Child Protective Services, today's Gestapo.

But I digress...

hotdiggety said: "Unsure what you mean by "cap money used for elections". Would not any attempted cap you propose be against the ruling just passed by the SC."

Sticking my nose in here and stealing a bit of JHenry's well-developed thunder, but I believe the amount of money spent on an election is set by election law, not freedom of speech law simply because it would [or certainly should] be applied to all monies collected; grassroots, corporate, individual organizations, unions, etc. IMO, the key to most SCOTUS decisions is equal application under the law -- McCain/Feingold violated that principle...and got slapped down for it. SCOTUS, in the past, has made some of its most egregious errors when it departed from that principle.

BTW, that "grassroots" money came from folks like Mickey Mouse, Superman, etc. [with many legit, of course]. The source of the entire "grassroots" monies is therefor -- and sadly -- tainted as a result. ["Fruit of the Poisoned Tree" Doctrine]

Rolando, I respect your response but I have made it clear that I am not for exceptions to "unions and newspapers" as opposed to corporations. All are free to espouse their views most vocally. I just do not believe the founding fathers would have believed that giving corporations/unions this much influence would pass their ideas of checks and balances. The oppression of powerful interests was the cornerstone of why our Constitution was written. It surprises me how many people don't understand what happens when special interests are given unregulated power to influence.

I have been a union member for 23 years and I have been as leery of power grabs by union officials as I have of corporate interests. That said, I wholeheartedly support the principle of collective bargaining. You see few union strikes anymore in the States because companies and unions have established a understanding that its not in the interest of either fiscally. They have chosen to strike a balance without either feeling they have to dominate.

As for McCain Feingold, (a law I wholeheartedly supported), it applied the law equally between corporations and unions. Both were held to the same standards and restrictions. I would be hard pressed to be convinced that this decision would be what our Founding Fathers had in mind as far as fairness. They were most mindful and leery of the oppression to be visited upon the masses by powerful interests.

In addition, as to McCain/Feingold violating the principle of equal application under the law, I would hardly call the 5-4 decision by a conservative dominated SC as being "slapped down".

Also, I don't think the Founding Fathers wished to protect, as you state.."anything's free speech". "Anyone", I will agree with.

OK I've beat this issue to death and I'm sure many of you may agree, LOL. But I have one last rhetorical question to pose.

Most all corporations/unions are made up of many individuals who each have the right to freedom of speech, the right to vote, and to donate to their favored candidates and issues.

How are corporations/unions being denied their free speech rights if its understood that these entities are nothing more than a collection of INDIVIDUALS who are not denied any rights of free speech. Are these entities, with their campaign donations, speaking for the collective voice of their company/union?

With the exception of a union under a collective bargaining agreement, most workers have no say so with their employer about anything. Workers are given a paycheck for services rendered. Notwithstanding workplace laws the company has no other obligation to the worker and the worker understands he has no say so in the running of the company or what they do with their monies.

So who exactly are the companies representing that they feel their free speech rights are being withheld? Unlike a union they are only representing themselves or shareholders who already have rights to free speech.

Say what you will, I believe the Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew that their attempts at fairness and the principal of checks and balances has been so bastardized.

Bob,

I wasted an hour of sleep downloading your URL! I have dial-up. It proved to be nothing but the usual rant and certainly didn't say it all.

Stuff has been going on in American Politics for centuries.

This was just a mess of inuendo and rabble-rousing with a modern venue.

On to the next cartoon!...

Clara, obviously dial-up is very limited. If possible you should check the availability and prices of higher speed services. Phone companies have DSL, cable has high-speed, cell service works well in some areas, and even some places like MacDonald's have free service with a newer laptop.

Hotdig, you stated: "That said, I wholeheartedly support the principle of collective bargaining. You see few union strikes anymore in the States because companies and unions have established a understanding that its not in the interest of either fiscally. They have chosen to strike a balance without either feeling they have to dominate."

Is that why over the last 30 years unions and their "collective bargaining" have driven so many US companies overseas and into Latin American Free Trade Zones where they exploit the people there for far less wages? I'd say unions have been a big part of the problem re: job losses. BTW, Unions out West support giving jobs to illegals and have decimated the citizen workers' jobs in construction and other trades, in favor of pushing for illegal hires. Wealthy individuals and Corps out there have a ready-made, low paid, feudal system of compliant serfs now. How is this a good thing for the rest of us? Obviously, it doesn't matter to the Powers-that-be.

While I agree with some of what you say, alot of you guys (and gals) seem to forget details like Andy Stern (of SEIU), the latest, Big Evil Corporation-Union Mogul and the Billionaire George Soros with his Marxist background and Machiavellian meddling. Both want to completely change our economic system to suit their agenda (in their own words). Both own Obama's ear. They both top the WH list of most frequent visitors that 'advise' the Pres. So we have unions that helped to bring America to its knees and individuals like Soros, who not long ago almost tanked the British economy single-handedly by devaluing the pound. With 'friends' like this within our borders, we don't need enemies.

Just wait. That campaign-rehash State of the Union Address last night, that ripped-off talking points from just about every Republican speech in the last 4 years, including some of Bush's, is nothing more than subterfuge and dishonesty. Another little trick to appease the more conservative voters (and Reps), to lull us to sleep, a hiatus if you will. The real Agenda on his plate and that of his Cronies will be instilled, in due time. They know it and are laughing at how dumb the populace is. Too bad many Americans don't seem to get it, even now, after so many obvious clues and the evidence of his failures.

The Founding fathers would roll over and commit suicide if they knew we've allowed/ignored the steady bleeding of our country's freedoms, for far too long.

EaTn, I've looked at it all and keep thinking,longingly, of improving my service. I've had some sort of computer since around 1983. My son sent me an old Commadore. I saved for my first real computer and joined in the local bulletin board which finally got modems and I got online.

We MIGHT get broadband down our country road. and therefore, down our dirt road. BUT! The price is $30 more a month. Sattelite, cable, is out of the question. I don't have a TV, and don't want it, because even if I could afford an antenna, I don't care for what is programmed for the most part.

Thank you for listening. Isn't it nice I can still have SOME choices.

Hotdigety, your high sounding rhetoric is just that...high-sounding...but impractical. Laws are not written that way...not if they wish to stand incorruptible. Where would you draw the line in defining "union", "corporations", "organizations of citizens with a common cause" [NRA, PETA, etc], George Soros/Bill Gates-type money and status, etc. The answer is to silence all or give free speech to all. Free speech must reign every time.

Organizations such as the NRA, the UAW, and thousands of organizations made up of free individuals with free rights who choose to have a single spokesperson represent them and speak for them, with each individual's monetary support, should not be denied their spokesperson's right to speak for them. The SCOTUS agreed.

"All are free to espouse their views most vocally. I just do not believe the founding fathers would have believed that giving corporations/unions this much influence would pass their ideas of checks and balances."

This is not a "checks and balances" issue since all sides of any argument are once again free to speak their minds. Can't get any more balanced than that.

There were so many exceptions made to McCain-Feingold that the law became useless for anything but controlling anti-government free speech. NRA was prohibited from speaking as was "Hillary; The Movie" simply because they spoke to political ends. Meanwhile the [former] MSM kept on hammering their anti-Palin BS to the detriment of the voting citizenry. Totally one-sided in desperate need of correction. Thanks to the SCOTUS, that correction occurred. Dear Leader missed his opportunity to pack the SCOTUS while he had a filibuster-proof Senate...in his arrogance he undoubtedly never thought he would need it...

The UAW was permitted to spend money campaigning but GM couldn't.

Rolando, you missed the gist of my post which was that people as individuals already have the right to free speech and voting. You are your own "free spokesman".

Does Walmart's donations represent the will of their employees?

I have no problem with donations from your list. My problem is with unrestricted donations of these special interests which benefits the interest with the most cash to influence legislation. Its hard to believe you don't understand that the people with the most money will have the most influence.

Does that seem fair to you? Do you want the richest people, organizations, or special interests to dictate the laws and legislation of our country?

Uhh, as far as Obama missing his "opportunity to pack the SCOTUS while he had a filibuster-proof Senate". He can't appoint anyone until they retire or die.

So anyway, good luck with the 5-4 decision that will continue to let special interests run our lives and this country. True democracy in action.

At the risk of being repetitive:

If the politicians weren't for sale, corporate money wouldn't be an issue.

Thanks Rolando for stating your case so the rest of us could better understand this thorny issue. I listened to a conservative analyst also say that the way the SCOTUS wrote it, as they do usually, may allow future "interpretations" on rulings later on. That's the only issue I have, that Liberal courts liberally interpret and misrepresent Constitutional law frequently. Then we have a Congress who arrogantly say that they'll do whatever they believe is best, eg, the HC bill, and push it through.

hotdig, you asked: "Do you want the richest people, organizations, or special interests to dictate the laws and legislation of our country?"

I don't know of any conservative constitutionalists who want that. Probably many libs don't either. The sad thing is, that has been going on already-for a long time and with all Parties. Do you really believe this ruling or it's opposite would change what's going on in Washington and around the country (in our courts)?

Sailorman stated it so aptly in one sentence.

Canary, I believe this ruling will exacerbate the problem of political influence by special interests by allowing these interests more voice than the individual populace.

No matter that we disagree on this issue, it is a certainty that special interests have the money and influence now to even further their grip on our nation.

No, political influence will not ever change overall ever. But we have given these interests a tool to wield unprecedented power and influence.

Reign in the banks, financial, and insurance companies that have ruined this country? Fat chance with their bottomless financial pockets. Unions? Same thing.

Sad. America to the highest bidder. What is even sadder is you hear hardly a peep from our politicians. They know they will be the recipient of this bottomless cash.

So much for the voice of individual Americans.