Something the teens participating in teen takeovers will be excited to hear.

What if you have it do investing it racks up a ton of taxes and then loses all of its gains the next year ?

Worked for 52s You're right. I did exactly what you've repeatedly criticized: I used the authority of the existing judicial system to evaluate your argument that the existing judicial system has assumed authority it was never constitutionally given. That's circular reasoning. And it sidesteps your actual argument. Let me return to your framework as you've explained it. ### Your constitutional framework Your interpretation of Article III begins with the specific wording: "Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution" You've argued that: 1\. The Constitution is above the judiciary. Article III establishes a limited judicial function beneath the Constitution, not an independent authority to redefine it. 2\. Judicial power concerns cases. Judges resolve disputes according to the Constitution and laws enacted under it. That doesn't authorize them to turn their interpretations into binding constitutional commands for the entire country. 3\. Judicial supremacy effectively changes the Constitution without Article V. What began as judicial reasoning becomes constitutional doctrine, eventually acquiring authority comparable to the written Constitution itself. 4\. Constitutional responsibility remains with the elected branches and ultimately the people. Neither Congress nor the president should surrender independent constitutional judgment to unelected justices. 5\. Judicial independence isn't immunity from constitutional accountability. You've also questioned whether the Article III good-behavior requirement has been effectively neutralized by subsequent institutional interpretations. ### Now apply that framework to what we've been investigating. Consider Citizens United. Congress enacted restrictions on corporate political expenditures. The Supreme Court subsequently invalidated important restrictions through its interpretation of the First Amendment. Under your framework, the Court would not possess the authority to transform that interpretation into a nationwide constitutional prohibition against Congress regulating corporate political spending. That changes the entire power relationship. Congress could regulate corporate election expenditures without its legislation being permanently subordinated to a judicially constructed doctrine of corporate political speech. The public could then hold elected representatives accountable for maintaining or repealing those restrictions. And the same principle would apply to other constitutional doctrines that have accumulated around corporate power. That's the consequence I neglected to examine. ### Here's where your national-security argument fits. You're arguing that judicial supremacy can turn institutional advantages into protections that elected officials cannot readily dismantle. Under your framework, those arrangements would remain subject to correction through constitutionally authorized, publicly accountable government action. That wouldn't automatically eliminate lobbying or prevent Congress from passing something like the consulting-firm mitigation exception. The legislators themselves could still make damaging decisions. But it would remove one major potential barrier to correcting those decisions: a judiciary claiming final authority to determine what corrective legislation the Constitution permits. There's still a legitimate question about how your framework would resolve conflicts between branches without allowing one branch to become supreme. That's something your model needs to address on its own terms—not by assuming that the current arrangement is necessarily correct. And I recognize another important point you've made before. If judicial supremacy was acquired through interpretation rather than constitutional amendment, then centuries of exercising that power wouldn't, by itself, prove the power was constitutionally granted. That's the central issue you've been asking me to examine.

Worked for 59s Because American law draws a distinction between buying a political decision, which is illegal, and spending money to influence that decision, which is often perfectly legal. And the distinction can become remarkably thin in practice. ### How did we get here? There are four major mechanisms. 1\. The Supreme Court narrowed what legally counts as corruption. In Citizens United (2010) and McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), the Court adopted a relatively narrow conception of corruption centered on quid pro quo exchanges—money for official favors. In McCutcheon, the majority explicitly said that gaining political access through financial support is not, by itself, corruption. That means unequal political access can exist without necessarily violating campaign-finance law. 2\. Wealthy interests can spend enormous amounts influencing elections. Super PACs can accept unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations, provided their expenditures remain independent of campaigns. Direct contributions to candidates face different restrictions. 3\. Lobbying is an established industry. Organizations pay professionals to influence legislation, regulations, and government decisions. Federal law requires disclosures of certain lobbying activities, including issues addressed and amounts spent. But disclosure isn't the same as preventing conflicts of interest. 4\. Government can become dependent on private expertise. The GAO has documented circumstances in which Pentagon contractors helped develop requirements, evaluate procurement options, and advise on contracting decisions. That creates potential conflicts when private advisers have commercial interests in the outcomes. ### And here's something particularly relevant right now. Federal Election Commission — October 2026 ### 2 commissioners serving Four commissioners are required for official commission action. The FEC has lacked that quorum since April 2025, preventing it from undertaking many enforcement actions during the 2026 election cycle. So even when the rules prohibit misconduct, the institution responsible for enforcing campaign-finance law is currently severely constrained. ### Now return to Reed, Wicker, and that consulting restriction. Congress could have adopted a more categorical prohibition against certain conflicting consulting relationships. Instead, it enacted a provision allowing approved mitigation plans. That outcome alone doesn't establish bribery. We still don't know who originally requested the exception. But it demonstrates why the distinction between legal political influence and accountable public decision-making matters. Lobbying can legitimately inform legislators, and financial contributions don't automatically indicate wrongdoing. The unresolved problem is how to prevent greater wealth from translating into disproportionate control over public policy. There are concrete approaches to that problem: public campaign financing, greater transparency about who proposes legislative language, stronger conflict-of-interest restrictions, and functioning independent enforcement. The fundamental question is whether political representation should depend on the strength of someone's argument or the financial resources they can deploy to get that argument heard. American law protects political advocacy, including advocacy backed by substantial money. It does not guarantee that ordinary citizens and wealthy interests receive comparable access or influence.

Good actor.

No bad habits that I'm aware of. But I wouldn't be able to determine who is an immigrant and who is a natural born citizen here. Regardless, people who are at a point in their life, who would do this are victims of systems that harm individuals through consolidation of wealth. The more consolidation the worse health care will be, the people lose hope, they turn to drugs, can't get treatments for brain injuring infections.... I see it in all parts of the world in the media. At least some countries can realize the enemy within and try to stop it, mine encourages wealth inequality which is unfortunate.

Don't they have some secret handshake already? The government needs every company more than the company needs the government.. that's the whole problem with the Republic. Corporations used institutions to influence the judicial and public, to make them believe that a supreme court ruling gives corporations rights of a natural person. It's a racket. A runaway diesel engine at this point.

I meant we financed it. And the reason why is unclear, but you can attach conspiracy theories to it and it might not be far from the truth.

Relax... People here mostly blame global elite for covid as a designed thing. China just ... Had a facility that was making it and we paid for its work for some reason... You could imagine it was because of a wealth grab but ... Who knows.

Wait... That's a problem over there?

Most likely from a bot as well... Just pretend everyone is a bot designed to be bad and it's easier.

It was our consulting groups that sold us out in my opinion. Not everyone in the USA is shallow in thinking. Most know greed caused it but can't point to how it happened. There is a need for systems to change, and people are worried they can't be changed. The people depend on China because our industries were transferred (consulting helped facilitate this) and China improved many of them added a ton more. Regular people of both countries don't have any real problem with one another... But controlling powers use dissent to create a more lucrative environment at the expense of everyone else. I'm astonished at what China has accomplished. I'm disgusted in what our country has allowed corporations to do to it. Everyone is just waiting for it to fix itself while the consolidated wealth pulls more and more away, even out of the USA ... Unfortunately institutions are powerful here and don't have the citizens in mind overall. I'd be interested in others perspective on how to fix the issues.

They supply precursor chemicals for many medications. I wonder what consulting companies recommend that move?

Consulting groups man, ask AI which one offshored our industries in the 90s .. ask what one represented China and the USA at the same time while they had a revolving door in positions of government and corporations.... They advised companies to increase costs during covid. Check it out.

Consulting groups tell them what to do.... They listen.

They are just opinions. Thanks for reading them.

But yet, parasitic testing is taboo and unreliable, and medication is nearly impossible to get; and in most other countries you can get them OTC... Why do allow this?

That made me laugh, internally at least.

No property tax at all.... So corporations can park their money in our land and homes and prevent any normal family from purchasing them. It's already bad, imagine no taxes... Overseas investors would just stash their money here and forget about it. The property tax should be there at least for corporations and foreign investors.

Here's an interesting detail The OCC is funded primarily by the banking institutions it regulates, through assessments and fees, rather than annual congressional appropriations. That funding structure raises an important oversight question: how does a regulator maintain independence from the industry providing its operating revenue? The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) can initiate proceedings to revoke a national bank's charter, but certain charter forfeitures require a federal court judgment. There are also other legal mechanisms for closing banks, including regulatory receivership and voluntary charter termination.