Of the fifty-one(51) senior executives of the major Wall Street banks, trade exchanges, and regulatory agencies, thirty-seven(37) are **** or have ****** spouses. This is a numerical representation of 72%. **** are approximately 2% of the U.S. population. Therefore **** are over-represented among the senior executives of the major Wall Street banks, trade exchanges, and regulatory agencies by a factor of 36 times(3,600 percent). Now this may mean absolutely nothing to some people...and I'm not sure it really means anything to me but....I'm just saying.....
just do a google search on the last part: wordpress.com/who-controls-wall-street which shows all the photos.

Who's really suprised? The entire toxic assest scandal worked once it will work again. The entire system is "to RIGGED to fail". The American tax paying public will be bailing out and helping to finance more corporate fraud, theft, corruption and GREED, all legal under the American corporate friendly Department of Jokestice. I just wrote a funny!

If the Supreme Court can't refuse to enforce a law, then what is its check on the other branches? A recommendation that they change the law??

What kind of decision should the Supreme Court be able to make in a case where a citizen or a state sues the US government for having an unconstitutional law (a "controvers[y] to which the united states shall be a party)? In any other case, a court can require action by the offending party to rectify the offense. This generic power is not mentioned in the US Constitution, because it was part of the legal system of the late 18th Century, all of which was presumed to continue past the change in the nation's charter.

The Supreme Court is to have "appellate jurisdiction ... as to law ... with such exceptions ... as the Congres shall make."? This implies that all (previously existing) judicial powers continue to exist until revoked by law.

Those previously existing powers consist of every normal practice of courts operating in the states at the time. The Constitution requires trail by jury, but doesn't say how a jury has to vote to convict someone (unanimous or majority). It doesn't mention that a warrant is needed to conduct a search or seizure of property (though they are mentioned near each other in Amdt. 4). It mentions habeas corpus but doesn' t define it (despite it's history of mission creep) because its function was meant to be whatever it was at the time. The idea of not enforcing habeas corpus is specifically provided for.

Judicial process evolved over a long period in England and the colonies, and it improved without revolutions. The founders were not concerned with setting judicial procedures in stone, except to forbid those actions that had been wrongly committed by Great Britain before our independence. Judicial review existed then. It didn't apply to British law, but only because there is no higher authority in England--their constitution is merely law that they perceive as part of the character of their government and society; it doesn't supersede (lit. "sit above") other laws, and therefore doesn't imply an authority of the courts to override it.

Thom: I am going to spend some more time on the Supreme Court matter in hopes that I can agree with you. Currently I cannot. I will explain.

1. The people, as the Federalist 78 by Hamilton refers to the Constitution itself, giving it a higher position than that of the legislature. I know that to be true, as well, as John Marshall wrote regarding the bank decision. The will of the people is embodied in the Constitution and not in legislation. This is clear in the following excerpt. "Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power.It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former." This cannot help your assertion that the will of the people is the legislation from the House. It does indeed solidify the superior will of the people in the primacy of the Constitution itself.

2. We see the "independence of the Judiciary" in the statement by Hamilton, Fed. 78: " “if they should be disposed to exercise will instead of judgement, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body,” Hamilton was careful to state redundantly that the court was not to be superior to the other branches of government. However he spoke to the lifetime appointments reduntantly also to provide for that independence. Obviously "will" was substituted for "judgement" in Citizens United.

3. Another quote defines more exactly the courts role, with the Constitution described as the people's will. " It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents." The legislature is being referred to as the people's agents. As an employer not in performance of the employers contract the judges here determine whether there is irreconcilable variance and hold the Constitution rather than the statute.

4. I really do see Jefferson's problem with this but he and many others make the false argument of seeing the court as superior to the other branches rather than independent from them. I would hope that if I am correct regarding this that you might give credence to both Hamilton and to Marshall, who were both at the Constitutional Convention, along with Madison. And to me it appears that Madison and Hamilton do agree with only difference in subject but not in duty.

BobP

I do not believe that it is appropriate to criticize Mormons in general for the mystic aspects of their faith. All religions, in some way or another, use mysticism. What IS valid is to criticize the Mormon Church for the actions that members take as a result of their faith. I do not fear Mormons because they believe that they will go to another planet when they die. I DO fear Mormons because of their anti-gay beliefs. In addition, until 1978 Mormons excluded African-Americans because they believed that black skin was the mark of Cain. Faith is fine as long as it does not lead its followers to racist or bigoted actions.

Do you recall the classic picture of Jesus knocking on our door? There is no door knob on Jesus’ side. We have the door knob. Are we willing to open the door for Jesus? Are we also willing to open our heart to Jesus? Let Jesus enter our heart so we can be with Him someday in heaven. We will never win a battle in our police state with tanks on our streets to control any unrest by the masses. We will never be free in our police state. Our life is not about winning battles. Our life is about winning the war and the prize for the winner is heaven and to be with Jesus and His communion of saints for all eternity.

Yes Murdoch Empire should cease to exist but will NOT>

I haven't worked since 2005. My profession is almost dead. I wrote and edited educational materials as a freelancer. Many of my clients have since closed down. Education: an institution destroyed by Bush's "most children and all real learning left behind" and rethuglican attacks on public education funding in favor of more money in the pockets of the wealthy so that they can afford education for their spolied brats, so that these privileged spawn make take over and run this country further into the ground.

I recently attended the funeral of my dedicated well-educated talented hardworking teacher friend who committed suicide. She was losing her specialized teaching position with little hope of finding another, losing her house, and everything she had worked for. She helped thousands of children learn to and enjoy reading.

October 23, 2008....“Were you wrong?” Congressman Henry Waxman prompted him (Greenspan) to elaborate.

“Partially,” (Greenspan) replied. “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks, is such that they were best capable of protecting shareholders and equity in the firms.” The fact that they simply sought predatory gains for themselves – in the form of losses for their customers and clients (and it turns out, taxpayers” was “a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works.”

But the past two or three years evidently have given Mr. Greenspan enough time for a re-think. In Wednesday’s Financial Times (March 30, 2011) he returns to his old job proselytizing for deregulation."

"Mr. Greenspan refused to acknowledge the obvious: If Wall Street’s collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and other derivatives are too complex for regulators to understand, they also must be too complex for buyers and other counterparties to evaluate. This negates a key free market assumption. How can one make an informed choice without understanding the market and the consequences of one’s action? On this logic regulators would follow free market orthodoxy in rejecting derivatives and other such “complex” products.

Many critics would say that CEOs of the banks that went bust don’t understand the complexity that led to their negative equity either. Or, they know all too clearly that they can take a gamble and be bailed out by the government, simply by threatening that the alternative would be monetary anarchy that would drag down consumer banking along with casino banking. The problem is not so much complexity, but gambling – increasingly with computer models and fast mega-trading of swaps and derivatives. This is how investment bankers have made (and often lost) their money.

But they want the game to continue. That is the bottom line. On balance, even if they lose, they will be bailed out. So of course they are all for “complexity” that enables them to make gains at the economy’s expense (Mr. Greenspan’s “flaw” in the system). "

With people people like this with their idiotic double-talk and inane ejaculations running the country...no wonder we are now in deep trouble.

http://michael-hudson.com/2011/04/greenspan-returns-to-de-regulation/

In some ways it all started with the idea of "planned obsolescence". My mom told me about this when I was growing up...the idea that things could not be so well made as to put a damper on consumer demand ( a fuel for the overall economy). Used to be things made overseas were cheap and easy to afford but didn't last as long. Then America made products also became less well made (perhaps to to increase profit margin for the bigwigs?) but still more expensive than foreign goods. Hmmmm. Who wins that battle. Two products (neither particularly well made) but one is cheaper, I would surmise it would be the least costly of the two pieces of crap. (tongue firmly in cheek)

Quantico needs "a few bad men".

Religion is a belief system; atheism requires the creation or ratification of a belief system. That atheism rests upon axioms does not qualify it as a belief system, only that the belief system an atheist holds conform to those axioms. True, something similar could be said about religion in that a person's religion may not comprise the whole of that person's belief system. You will find christian socialists for example, and christian libertarians, etc. Nevertheless atheism tells one nothing about the atheist except what types of concepts are excluded from the atheist's belief system.