Wall Street is so powerful that it will take more than normal opposition to make any change. Only a massive protest demanding an end to the legalized bribery that controls all our elected officials, and support for candidates who promise not to take corporate money, will have any effect. The laws that are needed to end the corporate takeover of our country will never get passed without this kind of a revolution.

Let me shed LIGHT on a DARK situation, as Seen through the eyes of the Afflicted. ("A Black Man" yet Children of the Almighty unaware Eze 37) Jesus said...read M't:25:40. Key word LEAST. Hands down, Black Men have been in America Longer than EVERY other Ethnic group short of the Native Americans. MILLIONS were Slaughtered in the Middle passage (Read Deut 28:68), and Millions more during Slavery even up to Travon Martin, and their perpetrators NEVER held accountable. (Read Zec:11:5) Now, Even in Travon Martins Death "The Powers that Be" (Read Ephes 6:12) have Waged War to Demonize him by druming up familiar negative portrayals of Black men.

**Here is Wisdom

The Same Negative Portrayals have been imposed on the "Least" among us for Hundreds of years...from 3/5ths human, to commedians, Gangbangers, Suspicious, Ignorant, Less intelligent, and the list is too numerous for this article.But These Very Descriptions (Read De:28:37) were FORCED upon us both Economically, Circumstantially, and Purposely (refer to Willie Lynch).Therefore; Zimmermans Disdain, and obvious Hate and suspicion, was not only fueled by the afforementioned, but the Same is perpetuating Other zimmermen!.Nations cannot change, unless men change. Jesus said, a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Ask yourself a Question. Who is this "Black" man, aka "Negro" aka "African American" /Colored. What does my Treatment of Him and them say of me? Though they appear to be "Undesireable" did not they say the same of Jesus? "Can anything good come from Nazareth" Nazareth was a Slum city...Hmmm Similar to Gary, Indiana. Southside of Chicago; Detroit etc. Psalms:118:22: The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. Jesus even said "The First shall be last, and the last First" Verily I repeat unto you. TRUTH (Joh:3:20:)(Joh:7:7:)(Joh:15:18)(Joh:15:19)Joh:15:25: But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law,

They hated me without a cause.1Jo:2:9: He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. (You are known by your Works, not words)(1Jo:3:15) "You need to Reconsider this "People" you despise so much"

Those with Eyes will Love this, Those without will consider it Foolish, and even become Angry!

Evenso.....Amen!

Yep, they will keep gambling with our money and collapse the economy again. I suppose this is preferable than suffering the ravages of war which is the usual way to reset economies. Although Germany and Japan seem to be better off for it. What a strange world we created for ourselves.

Here are some questions to consider asking our representatives to wake them up.

Economic growth is limited by the biosphere while innovation has no limits. Should our public policies value growth or innovation?

Since President Eisenhower, top tier taxes have dropped dramatically. How much further should they be reduced to increase our standard of living and improve our economy?

Since President Nixon, the burden of financial regulations has been reduced. How much deregulation is still needed to improve our economy and standard of living?

The economy is a subsystem of nature; without nature there can be no economy. Which public policies benefit both nature and the economy?

Cap & Trade in Europe is based on the principle that companies have the right to pollute while a proposed Cap & Dividend is based on the principle that people have the right to clean air and water and would be administered like oil revenue in Alaska. Which policy would most benefit American citizens and our environment?

Our current industrial agriculture is dependent on fossil fuels and fossil water, highly mechanized, water polluting, soil eroding, and low in nutritious content. Should public policy support small, local, organic producers that will increase jobs and our nation’s health while providing a sustainable legacy for our children?

Money is currently loaned into existence by private banks which requires a continual growth in the money supply to pay back the loan plus interest. For a sustainable future, is this the best model for the exchange goods and services?

Around the world, nations with higher taxes have less corruption than nations with low taxes (compare Norway to Italy or Canada to Mexico). How will our continued obsession to avoid taxes improve accountability to tax payers?

Our founding fathers restricted corporate charters to specific projects with limited duration after experiencing the effects of the East Indian Company’s monopoly. Should we once again limit the corporate charter since corporations can now spend unlimited amounts of money to influence our elections and political system?

It now takes two to three incomes to live as well as one family income did in the past despite a huge growth in GDP and worker productivity? Will our continued public policy to grow GDP the corporate mentality to increase worker productivity reverse this trend in our standard of living?

In principle government workers are to serve the public interest while by law corporations must act to increase value for their shareholders. How will further privatization increase accountability to tax payers? Should BP continue to lead the cleanup effort in the Gulf national disaster?

We need to elect enough progressive Democrats to the House and Senate to write good legislation that will end these unethical banking practices. We also need to get a few more progressive justices on the Supreme Court. President Obama has been a disappointment in many ways (e.g., signing more free-trade agreements, promoting drilling for oil instead of promoting green energy, not pursuing criminal prosecutions of the big banks, accepting campaign donations from the big banks and Wall Street, etc.), but he has appointed good people to the Supreme Court. Therefore, since the Republicans are so far out of the mainstream, I think we need to re-elect President Obama rather than voting for a third-party candidate this fall. We the people are the ones who need to make the heavy lift to elect better, more honest politicians and defeat all the special, big-money interests.

The mosrt important reason for the election of a progressive president is to remake the federeal courts, especially the Supreme Court, but other federal couts as well. This is not a short term solution nor is there one. It will take several moderate to liberal presidents IN A ROW to remake the courts. But until we do, there is not much hope for the 99 percent. Andif we fail in this mission, we will have more Bush V. Gore and Citizens United decisions, one after the other to remake our society entirely for the 1 percent. As a matter of fact, we may be seeing another one right now with the possible, maybe even likely, emasculation of the Affordable Care Act.

In my opinion he (Zimmerman) must be charged (with at least man slaughter) and brought to trial to face a jury of his peers; letting them decided based on testimony and evidence if he is guilty or not.
I do empathize with Martin's family and understand the concern of the community for justice to be served (peace be made) . A 17 year old boy is dead...Even when sworn officers or licensed security guards use their firearm an investigation is held to be sure every measure was taken before firering their gun. Zimmerman was neither a sworn police officer nor a qualified security guard. He was a self appointed neighborhood watchmen; his ONLY job was to observe and report...Not pursue and engage.

The "Stand Your Ground Law" must be reformed - if not repealed - giving it more stricked and well defined guidelines as to what determines an "attack" as well as when a person can use lethal force to protect themselves. Currently the law is too broad and vague.

Which would mean, they've been naive and silly like unexperienced little children, and now they become wise, grown people?

I don't know...... although I would like your version better, because it could make me sleep better.......

Phillips, Phillip, Phillip, you are talking about 4 of the most corrupt partisan citizens of these United States. These people violated their own states rights principles to install geo bush and it would take someone a whole lot dumber than a tea bagger to fail to recognize the harm citizens united would do. these guys will be stupid again and obama knew it when he turned his back on the public option - this has all been for show

Remember that though the members of the Supreme Court are not electable, they are removable by the great and powerful Congress that's supposed to rescue us from Unconstitutional laws. Of course, the problem is that Congress deals with everything, and therefore you can't elect a Congress entirely on one law. It's just not going to happen, especially since the Congress that passed the Unconstitutional law had enough popular support to be elected in the first place.

If the President's power of veto is the ultimate test of Constitutionality, and Jefferson wanted the Supreme Court to have that power rather than the President, doesn't that mean Jefferson thought the test of Constitutionality should reside with the Supreme Court?

In his letter to Spencer Roane, Thomas Jefferson says that his problem with Marbury v. Madison (although to be honest, I can't tell for sure that that's what he's discussing, since the letter was written 16 years later) is that the Supreme court had taken an exclusive power to interpret the Constitution. He puts emphasis on the word "exclusive" by putting up examples where he thought the members of the other two branches should have the freedom to interpret the Constitution for themselves. (Of course, he forgets the principle well known at the time that "no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause. If members of the government get to interpret the Constitution for themselves and no one else is allowed to "check" that, power can be absolute for the reason that Jefferson gives in the letter.)

When a court decides to "strike down" a law as Unconstitutional, what it's really doing is making an injuction against itself and any courts below it, requiring that they not enforce that law. It does not involve altering the code of laws. It is an act in which the court interprets the Constitution for itself, as Jefferson wanted. He just didn't recognize it as such.

Interestingly, the Marshall court decided to take on judicial review because the alternative was to expand its power beyond what the Constitution allowed. From Wikipedia:

"Nonetheless, the Court stopped short of compelling Madison (by writ of mandamus) to hand over Marbury's commission, instead holding that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that enabled Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional, since it purported to extend the Court's original jurisdiction original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III established."

So the court was in the position of having to assume one power and giving up another. The concept of judicial review at least existed well before then, in England and the colonies, and since the system of common law in the United States is a continuation of the common law of England, the concept is valid in general. The only question then was whether it could also be applied to the unprecedented case wherein there is a higher level of national law, which England doesn't have.

Article III, Section 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, ... —to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;..."

How can the United States be a party to a case in equity (i.e. a civil suit) without the judicial branch having some power to strike down a law? What is the court supposed to do, ask "please don't do that anymore"? (That sounds like Madison's plea not to form political parties.)

By the way, that section says nothing about what kinds of decisions any court can make, so if you argue that the Constitution would have had to explicitly say that they can strike down laws, it would have had to say explicitly that they can fine people or imprison them in a case in law (i.e. criminal cases) or that it can force someone to pay damages in a civil suit.

How far can Supreme Court actually go? Where is the limit??

If somebody would challenge, it would be unconstitutional to wear clothes in Congress, because Adam and Eva didn't either....

I mean, this is a very-very crazy case. But if Supreme Court would decide, yes, it is unconstitutional to not go like Adam and Eva into Congress, so all congresspeople would be required to be there with nothing but fig leaves? Doesn't it look like, even in this extremely unlikely case, America would have to eat that and furthermore see fig leaves in Congress??

Doesn't it look like Supreme Court is so extremely mighty right now, they are able to declare the sky "pink" and we all have to eat that (well, not to buy, but to eat)?

We need a very-very progressive Congress next year, to cut these absolutist rulers in judge's robes down and then end the Citizen United and corruption nonsense!

You're just gossiping. Where're your figures? What did the President get from whom, how much, what for? Where did you get that pointless 'information'?

If you cannot tell, we can't take you seriously here. So you better give more information, not to make yourself a fool.