“Despite the apparent absoluteness of the First Amendment, there are any number of ways of getting around it, ways that are known to any student of law. In general, the strategy is to manipulate the distinction between speech and action which is at bottom a distinction between inconsequential and consequential behavior.”

Remarkable coincidence, considering yesterday's US Supreme Court announced case opinion, holding that the ACTION of a corporation paying money to support political candidates is protected free speech, just as if the corporation were a human citizen exercising his/her rights. What a distortion of the Constitution. It also devalues individual persons. This may be the worst decision of the Court in a century and will likely damage our Republic and reduce citizen control of government.

Robert, it might help to understand that we are not, in law, soveriegn individuals, we are "persons". Which is defined in our legal dictionaries as being an individual or a corporation. So when you are being referred to as a "person" by the IRS for example, you are a taxable entity, a piece of property identified as a number. Your corporate number is on your SS card. It works the other way around too, a corporation can behave as a soveriegn individual. Like most laws of control, it's vague and ambiguous so it may be enforced or interpreted in any number of ways on any given day.

Robert, at least you can vote where the corporation cannot, but the corporation pays it's taxes so it is interested in just who is in control of government.

Free speech is fine with liberals, as long as you agree with them.

cal, corporations don't pay tax... well most...

J Carlton, the 'straw man' defense once worked as the courts recognized the legal difference. Now that is gone also. Robert, do you pay taxes, are you licensed, are you subject to victimless crimal cannons? Then you are by default a legal corporate entity to the defacto statist theocracy that now infests this land. From your point of legal understanding, it will take a lot of research to understand what I just said.

Mike, don't mince words it doesn't become you - you are far more intelligent than that.

Mike's posts are mincemeat. You are so correct RBESRQ.

Robert, I don't understand your reference. Its obvious you have a good heart by your posts but, that doesn't equate to an understanding of the legalisms that are being used to enslave everyone. Waffler, on the other hand. has chosen to believe lies as truth, be confused by absolutes, misinterprets facts while spewing half truths, spreads misinformation supported by non related stories. and promotes slavery as freedom.

Mike, I couldn't agree more with regard to legalized slavery. Now the Supreme Court is in on the act. It was amazing to see the stocks tumble on the news of Brown's victory - and we all know why...

Half truths are 100% more truth than what you ever bring to the discussion Mike. When you start as you do being or at least stating that you are a hater of police and firemen, and detest laws telling you on which side of the road to drive where can you ever go intellectually or as a man. Nowhere I suppose and that is exactly where your arguments and lies lead, Nowhere!

Free speech is fine -- just don't dare act upon it! ;-) Misinformation, disinformation, double-talk, circular logic, jargon, propaganda -- all are an integral part of controlling/ruling a people. And lawyers are the primary abusers -- their job is to win (and make a ton of money). Carlton and Mike are speaking about the lost 'jurisdiction' known as Common Law in which a living breathing human is free and accountable for his actions. Commercial law is a separate jurisdiction as is Military law. All 3 jurisdictions are required by the US Constitution, each with their own set of statutes. As with any tyranny, all power is centralized and today the commcerial jurisdiction is the only one being exercised (even military tribunals are frowned upon -- look at the Guantanamo charade). Commercial law governs the use of commercial paper like corporation shares, bonds, and notes. Disputes regarding corporate property are brought to commercial courts. Disputes between individuals or violations of the rights of an individual were tried in common law courts. Property disputes of 20 silver dollars or more could be tried in common law court, but transactions using commercial paper remained in the commercial law jurisdiction. Little by little, American jurisprudence shifted from the protection of the sovereign citizen to the debilitation of the sovereign citizen in favor of corporate 'rights.' The common law court was all but made moot when the American people were forced to trade in their gold in exchange for federal reserve notes, i.e. commercial promissory notes. The use of these debt instruments for commercial transactions places all disputes over property now in the commercial courts in which corporations are treated as persons and people are treated as corporations. As Mike has alluded to, the study of common law and the sovereignty of American citizens is not easily covered in a few paragraphs, but it is Law and thus has a long history. Americans today have been reduced to wards of the state subject to the reams and reams of commercial statutes (Uniform Commercial Code) that govern them like chattel property. If corporations are evil, it is because of the legal system that treats them like giants whose might makes right and easily tramples and overpowers the sovereign individual. The difference between de jure and de facto 'law' is precisely what Mike is trying to explain. Waffler continually defends the statist theocracy because it is simply 'de facto' whereas Mike is calling Americans to a higher standard, to de jure lawful governance in which the individual is sovereign. The two are diametrically opposed, as are truth and lies. The question is whether one has the courage to learn the truth and live up to it, or collude with the lies and protect one's claim to the property and labors of their fellows. My question to RBE is what side are you on?