Corporate personhood has been challenged in supreme court - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 08-23-2009, 11:36 PM

Quote:

On August 1st Democracy Unlimited filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging “corporate personhood,” the illegitimate and undemocratic legal doctrine which allows courts to overturn democratically elected laws that attempt to control corporate harm and abuse.

Democracy Unlimited joined the Program on Corporations Law & Democracy, the Women’s International League for Peace & Freedom, Shays2: The Western Massachusetts Committee on Corporations & Democracy, and the Clements Foundation in making the legal argument. The brief was drafted and filed by attorney Jeff Clements, who represented all five organizations in the matter.

The groups filed the brief in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, urging the Supreme Court not to overturn laws preventing corporations from making political contributions in federal elections. The amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” brief argues that corporations do not have the same Constitutional rights as people. As such, democratically enacted regulations of corporations do not violate the Constitution’s guarantee of free speech.

“The notion that corporations have the same speech rights as people under our Bill of Rights is contrary to the words, history, spirit and intent of our Constitution,” said Clements. “The organizations that joined to bring these arguments to the Court have worked with others for many years to empower democratic self-government. They remind us that corporations do not vote, speak, or act as people do, but are products of government policy to achieve economic and charitable ends. As such, corporations need not be allowed to influence our elections if Congress and State governments judge that such influence is detrimental to democracy.”

The Supreme Court is considering overturning federal campaign regulations for corporations, originally enacted in 1907, and may soon overrule previous Supreme Court decisions that have upheld the Constitutionality of legislative restrictions on corporate money in politics.

The case now before the Court began when a tax-exempt non-profit corporation calling itself Citizens United challenged the Constitutionality of a federal ban on expenditures for “electioneering communications” by corporations and labor unions within sixty days of an election. The ban is part of the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Under the Act, corporations and labor unions may still contribute to Political Action Committees.

Citizens United argued that the restrictions under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act violated the Constitution as applied to the corporation that sought to distribute an anti-Hillary Clinton movie during the 2008 presidential primaries. A panel of three federal district court judges upheld the regulation of corporate expenditures, and agreed that the Federal Election Commission could enforce the law. The District Court relied on a 2003 Supreme Court case, McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), that had ruled that the corporate expenditure regulation did not violate the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment. Citizens United appealed to the Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court overrules Austin and McConnell, First Amendment rights claimed by corporations will be significantly expanded, and local, state, and federal governments will be further restricted in the ability to regulate corporations and corporate influence on our democratic processes.

The brief filed by Democracy Unlimited argues that corporations are legal entities created by state or federal law for economic, charitable or other purposes, and were never intended to be included within the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

The brief also highlights the fact that the doctrine that corporations are “persons” under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment is doubtful, and an activist federal judiciary should not intervene to prevent elected officials from protecting the integrity of the electoral process.

The Supreme Court will hear further argument in the case in September.

A copy of the amicus brief can be read here: www.clementsllc.com.

Corporate personhood has been challenged in supreme court : politics

FUCKING FINALLY!!!!!

For those that don't know, in the late 1800s, corporate lawyers perverted the Bill of Rights by pushing through the idea that corporations should be allowed the legal status of "person", thus allowing corporations constitutional rights. They gave a thing constitutional rights. Let me put it this way, compared to corporate personhood, George W. Bush was one of the most brilliant and capable defenders of the constitution in history.

Finally, finally, this absurd idea is being challenged in from of the Supreme Court. This is one of those pivotal moments when we find out if the US government is ultimately good or bad. If the SCOTUS upholds coprorate personhood, now would be a great time to check out the Canadian classifieds. If they realize the insanity of the concept and choose to overturn the idea, there may be hope yet.

This is a huge deal, so don't expect to see it on the news.

Charlatan · 08-23-2009, 11:53 PM

You may not realize this but Corporations have similar rights in Canada as well.

And I agree, it is a strange thing that an entity can have these sorts of rights.

Xerxys · 08-23-2009, 11:58 PM

It makes sense that a corporation can not be a "person" seeing as you can't make a corporation face trial and put it in prison. You can, however, put a person in trial and make him/her face jail time so I really don't see what the difference will be.

With or without these rights corporations are not separate entities to people financially speaking hence the govt. will continue to run and function to the best of the corporations interests.

I call a waste of time.

Willravel · 08-24-2009, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

You may not realize this but Corporations have similar rights in Canada as well.

And I agree, it is a strange thing that an entity can have these sorts of rights.

I honestly didn't know that. I think we Americans might be at least partially responsible for that, so my bad.

Charlatan · 08-24-2009, 12:28 AM

Those who are interested in this topic should watch the film, The Corporation. It cover this quite well.

You can also view the film (in 23 chapters) on You Tube -

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

It's interesting to watch given that it was produced a few years ago during the time of Enron's collapse and given today's economic woes.

SecretMethod70 · 08-24-2009, 03:49 AM

I'm against corporate personhood, but I'm not really sure how this case can be seen as a good thing right now. With the current supreme court, the outcome is practically predetermined, and their eventual ruling in support of corporate personhood will mean it will be decades before the possibility for change comes again. I'd much rather see this happen 10 years from now with (hopefully) a more receptive supreme court.

mixedmedia · 08-24-2009, 04:02 AM

I can predict how this will turn out...

Tully Mars · 08-24-2009, 04:29 AM

Reallllly, do tell.

Cimarron29414 · 08-24-2009, 07:31 AM

Let me start by saying, a corporation should not be allowed to give one penny to any political campaign.

Having said that, I do find it amusing that this "... is contrary to the words, history, spirit and intent of our Constitution,” HOWEVER, whenever libertarians use that argument against federally sponsored healthcare, car bailouts, takeover of banks, etc. - somehow the Constitution covers all of that.

roachboy · 08-24-2009, 10:58 AM

Corporate personhood debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

this is a good summary of the history and nature of the broader debates over this question.
it's pretty interesting.

Xerxys · 08-24-2009, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Let me start by saying, a corporation should not be allowed to give one penny to any political campaign. ...

Just how will this work though? Aren't corporations the backbone of what runs a country? This isn't the 17th century where military might defined a country's development. ECONOMY runs this shit!! If it's not cost effective it won't be done.

Who makes the pennies if not the corporations? Who runs the corporations if not the same people that are in office?

FuglyStick · 08-24-2009, 11:27 AM

Corporate personhood, more than any other issue, is why I consider myself a liberal rather than a conservative. It is a perversion of the intentions of the founding fathers, and a fucking disgrace.

dksuddeth · 08-24-2009, 11:45 AM

corporate personhood is all due to the living constitution though, right? it evolves to suit the times? government can alter things in order to govern as societies grow?

roachboy · 08-24-2009, 11:52 AM

i was rather hoping that the illusion did not take shape in the thread that all arguments concerning what is or is not "in the spirit of the constitution" entail some bizarre-o strict construction/original intent kinda posture.

the language is itself pretty standard ways of arguing.
the strict construction position is only one of a wide range of options that such language can be inserted into.

context. it kinda matters.
sheesh.

Cimarron29414 · 08-24-2009, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i was rather hoping that the illusion did not take shape in the thread that all arguments concerning what is or is not "in the spirit of the constitution" entail some bizarre-o strict construction/original intent kinda posture.

the language is itself pretty standard ways of arguing.
the strict construction position is only one of a wide range of options that such language can be inserted into.

context. it kinda matters.
sheesh.

Right. The context matters as soon as it suits your views. The article referenced in the OP is the one that brings up the spirit of the Constitution, not us.

---------- Post added at 03:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xerxys

Just how will this work though? Aren't corporations the backbone of what runs a country? This isn't the 17th century where military might defined a country's development. ECONOMY runs this shit!! If it's not cost effective it won't be done.

Who makes the pennies if not the corporations? Who runs the corporations if not the same people that are in office?

A corporation is always a composite of multiple people with differing views. The likelihood that all people in a corporation support this or that is unlikely, so it is unfair that employees must unwillingly support a candidate they would not support personally.

Furthermore: Rather than corporate money going to improve wage, safety or efficiency: it is used to further the corporation politically. This circumvents the free market where the company must survive on its own merits.

That's why I don't believe corporations should be allowed to engage politically as an entity.

roachboy · 08-24-2009, 12:06 PM

there are the contexts that empirically obtain, like those in this actual case, and those which you mistakenly impute to it.
they're different.
and it's easy to check.
you might, for example, read the wiki page on the debate about corporate personhood i linked above and tell me where the strict construction line enters into it.
or you might look at the press blurb of the amicus brief:

http://www.clementsllc.com/home/What...rporations.pdf

all you have to do is look at the actual context and not rely on your ability to rip a few sentences out of context and impose whatever you like on them.

Cimarron29414 · 08-24-2009, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

all you have to do is look at the actual context and not rely on your ability to rip a few sentences out of context and impose whatever you like on them.

...which is entirely different than when you and other liberals rip "...provide for the general welfare..." out of the constitution and impose whatever you like on it, right?

Xerxys · 08-24-2009, 12:27 PM

A corporation is not a person, per se, so it can't vote or require healthcare. BUT, following the same bane, won't the "corporations" demand they not be taxed if they are not going to be treated like people?

Derwood · 08-24-2009, 01:02 PM

They aren't being charged with the same taxes that individuals are (and vice versa)

Cimarron29414 · 08-24-2009, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

They aren't being charged with the same taxes that individuals are (and vice versa)

Corporations don't pay taxes - that expense is passed on to the consumer. If you raise taxes on corps, you merely raise taxes on consumers. All taxes land with the individual, ultimately. Not that that makes any difference to the matter at hand.

biznatch · 08-24-2009, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xerxys

Just how will this work though? Aren't corporations the backbone of what runs a country? This isn't the 17th century where military might defined a country's development. ECONOMY runs this shit!! If it's not cost effective it won't be done.

Who makes the pennies if not the corporations? Who runs the corporations if not the same people that are in office?

I don't mean to take France as an example for too many things (I have in Healthcare threads, and other things), but my knowledge of other countries is quite limited, TBH.
In France you don't have lobbies, corporations can't fund campaigns or special interests, and every politician in a political race gets equal airtime/billboard space/exposure in general. That's the law, and in general I think it's applied pretty well.

So it can work, and corporate competition isn't thrown out the window. I'm not saying it's a better system, but I think it's wrong that you can have a louder voice when you have a bigger wallet.
Sorry if this was slightly off topic.

On the issue of corporate personhood, I don't think it should be that way.

Cimarron29414 · 08-24-2009, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by biznatch

I don't mean to take France as an example for too many things (I have in Healthcare threads, and other things), but my knowledge of other countries is quite limited, TBH.
In France you don't have lobbies, corporations can't fund campaigns or special interests, and every politician in a political race gets equal airtime/billboard space/exposure in general. That's the law, and in general I think it's applied pretty well.

So it can work, and corporate competition isn't thrown out the window. I'm not saying it's a better system, but I think it's wrong that you can have a louder voice when you have a bigger wallet.
Sorry if this was slightly off topic.

On the issue of corporate personhood, I don't think it should be that way.

Members of congress should have to wear patches on their suits for all their "sponsors", like those nascar jumpsuits. Imagine how much would change if everyone could look on CSPAN and see who they really work for.

roachboy · 08-24-2009, 01:48 PM

now that. cimmaron, i agree with. a fine idea. i wonder how big the jackets would have to be though. most i expect would be dwarfed by them.

Cimarron29414 · 08-24-2009, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

now that. cimmaron, i agree with. a fine idea. i wonder how big the jackets would have to be though. most i expect would be dwarfed by them.

It has always amused my how corporations want to keep the government out of their business, but do everything they can to inject themselves into government.

dksuddeth · 08-24-2009, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

there are the contexts that empirically obtain, like those in this actual case, and those which you mistakenly impute to it.
they're different.
and it's easy to check.

any time you attempt to add a vagueness or expressive expansion to an otherwise 'strictly constructed' legal document, things like this will invariably happen. You want people to be able to decipher a difference in empirically obtained contexts vs. mistakenly imputed contexts and it's never going to happen, Especially when giving 550+ government officials an opportunity to stretch an interpretation to a document you claim needs the ability to 'grow with the times'. By doing so, you're indirectly responsible for the results.

Xerxys · 08-24-2009, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Corporations don't pay taxes - that expense is passed on to the consumer. If you raise taxes on corps, you merely raise taxes on consumers. All taxes land with the individual, ultimately. Not that that makes any difference to the matter at hand.

I was being a bit direct. The tobacco companies would have a much easier time if their product didn't have the shit kicked out of it in taxes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

They aren't being charged with the same taxes that individuals are (and vice versa)

Learn something new everyday. Don't corporations pay taxes even after profits are tallied? Don't they have to factor everything in including production costs then subtract profit taxes?

I was under the impression squeezing corporations ultimately hurts consumers.

Willravel · 08-24-2009, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

corporate personhood is all due to the living constitution though, right? it evolves to suit the times? government can alter things in order to govern as societies grow?

"Due to" is tricky. The amendment process and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court allow the Constitution to evolve with the world around it so that it never becomes out of date. The difficulty is that the intent is that we're supposed to maintain most of the original principles while changing it to fit with the modern world. Corporate personhood, however, is more about using the living document as a loophole.

Look at it this way: if the Constitution never changed, black people wouldn't have a full vote. If the Constitution does change (and it does), there's the possibility that the corrupt can change it. That's where the "eternal vigilance" comes into the equation.

dksuddeth · 08-24-2009, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

"Due to" is tricky. The amendment process and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court allow the Constitution to evolve with the world around it so that it never becomes out of date.

no, it doesn't. the government did not write the constitution, therefore they have zero authority to alter or change it. WE THE PEOPLE wrote the constitution with a very specific set of steps to amend it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

The difficulty is that the intent is that we're supposed to maintain most of the original principles while changing it to fit with the modern world. Corporate personhood, however, is more about using the living document as a loophole.

Look at it this way: if the Constitution never changed, black people wouldn't have a full vote. If the Constitution does change (and it does), there's the possibility that the corrupt can change it. That's where the "eternal vigilance" comes into the equation.

the 'change' you're referring to did not come about on a whim. It came about because the process to amend it was followed. we the people were stymied on it for a time due to that very same government you're talking about having the ability to 'evolve' the constitution.

Derwood · 08-24-2009, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

no, it doesn't. the government did not write the constitution, therefore they have zero authority to alter or change it. WE THE PEOPLE wrote the constitution with a very specific set of steps to amend it.

O RLY? Thomas Jefferson et. al. weren't the government? Maybe not as they wrote "We the People", but they were the moment it was ratified (or soon thereafter)

Willravel · 08-24-2009, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

no, it doesn't. the government did not write the constitution, therefore they have zero authority to alter or change it. WE THE PEOPLE wrote the constitution with a very specific set of steps to amend it.

The first thing I mentioned was the amendment process. So "yes it does". The second thing, the jurisdiction of the courts, is a gray area at best. Read Jefferson on the SCOTUS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

the 'change' you're referring to did not come about on a whim. It came about because the process to amend it was followed. we the people were stymied on it for a time due to that very same government you're talking about having the ability to 'evolve' the constitution.

It's not evolution if the SCOTUS does it. The responsibility of the SCOTUS is to interpret the law, and if they interpret it a given way, that's the way we interpret it until the next time it's decided on. What I'm talking about in the OP, and what you often talk about, is that we have opinions that strongly differ from the SCOTUS. You and I both are welcome to our opinion, but they're not more than opinions.

dksuddeth · 08-24-2009, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

O RLY? Thomas Jefferson et. al. weren't the government? Maybe not as they wrote "We the People", but they were the moment it was ratified (or soon thereafter)

the citizens of every state had to vote in order for the state reps to ratify the constitution. I'm fairly certain that you know the history of the constitution and the numerous debates that happened in order to ratify it, yes?

if you know this history, then you know it is a document of, for, and by the people.

---------- Post added at 05:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:52 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

The first thing I mentioned was the amendment process. So "yes it does". The second thing, the jurisdiction of the courts, is a gray area at best. Read Jefferson on the SCOTUS.

I've read Jefferson on SCOTUS and it HAS become the behemoth he predicted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

It's not evolution if the SCOTUS does it. The responsibility of the SCOTUS is to interpret the law, and if they interpret it a given way, that's the way we interpret it until the next time it's decided on. What I'm talking about in the OP, and what you often talk about, is that we have opinions that strongly differ from the SCOTUS. You and I both are welcome to our opinion, but they're not more than opinions.

You say that SCOTUS is the end all be all of law interpretation, but you are wrong. 'we the people' are always the final say in the laws and how they work within the constitution and towards the government.

Willravel · 08-24-2009, 03:59 PM

No, seriously, that's what they do. The judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the law. The executive enforces, the legislative creates, and we the people vote.

samcol · 08-24-2009, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

You say that SCOTUS is the end all be all of law interpretation, but you are wrong. 'we the people' are always the final say in the laws and how they work within the constitution and towards the government.

This is the correct answer. The common person has two critical official votes. One to elect reps, senators, and the president, and the 2nd is their vote on the jury. The vote of 'not guilty' on the jury is one of the strongest votes in the country and has the ability to throw out everything the legistlative, executive, and judical department has decided and let a person walk free.

The buck stops at 'the people' and always will. If it doesn't we have the document called the declaration of independence to fall back on and have the obligation to alter or abolish the current system of government.

With that being said I've never been fond of the 'corporate veil'. This system is enabled too easily by the lobbyists and government cooperation. This system goes against the idea of 'free market' in my opinion contrary to most conservatives.

dksuddeth · 08-24-2009, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

This is the correct answer. The common person has two critical official votes. One to elect reps, senators, and the president, and the 2nd is their vote on the jury. The vote of 'not guilty' on the jury is one of the strongest votes in the country and has the ability to throw out everything the legistlative, executive, and judical department has decided and let a person walk free.

Quoted for Truth. This is what I'm talking about Will. people think that the USSC tells us what the constitution means, but they do not. They tell the government what the constitution means and when they've swayed from that in order to constrain our freedom, we have the ability to override that in the jury box.

Willravel · 08-24-2009, 06:00 PM

Section 2, Article 3.

dksuddeth · 08-24-2009, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Section 2, Article 3.

nm. read wrong.

i'm with samcol on this still. it doesn't change what I said.

samcol · 08-24-2009, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Section 2, Article 3.

Can you elaborate? This section still seems to say the jury or 'the people' are supreme in every instance except the case of impeachment.

Willravel · 08-24-2009, 06:31 PM

Section 2, Article 3 describes the roll of the Supreme Court, and it doesn't seem to fit the description listed here.

dksuddeth · 08-24-2009, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Section 2, Article 3 describes the roll of the Supreme Court, and it doesn't seem to fit the description listed here.

and I thought you were a big proponent of jury nullification.

Willravel · 08-24-2009, 06:54 PM

I'm for both the ability for the Supreme Court to make prudent and up-to-date decisions so long as they fall within an honest interpretation of the law AND the ability of we the people to override laws in the interest of justice as jurors. I don't lose any sleep over it because I don't see the positions as contradictory.

Here's the thing: Roe v. Wade is basically the most known court case in the history of the Supreme Court, right? According to your understanding of the role of the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade couldn't really happen. We'd need an amendment, but we don't have the votes, which in that case would be tyranny of the majority.

08-23-2009, 11:53 PM	#2 (permalink)
Charlatan Bringing a Chill to the Tropics Moderator Location: Lion City Blog Entries: 35	You may not realize this but Corporations have similar rights in Canada as well. And I agree, it is a strange thing that an entity can have these sorts of rights. __________________ “Under a separation of state and economics, especially with laissez-faire capitalism [Free Trade], the state no longer has a role to play in protecting the people and assuring their happiness. Laissez-faire means capitalism is outside the regulatory control of the state and that the people are entirely at the mercy of the capitalists.” – Thomas Jefferson

08-23-2009, 11:58 PM	#3 (permalink)
Xerxys feeling lascivious ... Location: Cary, NC. Blog Entries: 37	It makes sense that a corporation can not be a "person" seeing as you can't make a corporation face trial and put it in prison. You can, however, put a person in trial and make him/her face jail time so I really don't see what the difference will be. With or without these rights corporations are not separate entities to people financially speaking hence the govt. will continue to run and function to the best of the corporations interests. I call a waste of time. __________________ Proper planning and preparation prevents piss poor performance.

08-24-2009, 03:49 AM	#6 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Learning Administrator Location: Chicago Blog Entries: 41	I'm against corporate personhood, but I'm not really sure how this case can be seen as a good thing right now. With the current supreme court, the outcome is practically predetermined, and their eventual ruling in support of corporate personhood will mean it will be decades before the possibility for change comes again. I'd much rather see this happen 10 years from now with (hopefully) a more receptive supreme court. __________________ Le temps détruit tout

08-24-2009, 04:02 AM	#7 (permalink)
mixedmedia gives up Location: Florida Blog Entries: 81	I can predict how this will turn out... __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

08-24-2009, 04:29 AM	#8 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico Blog Entries: 8	Reallllly, do tell. __________________ Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club People are always bitching about getting what they deserve... I think if they did they'd be greatly disappointed. Me

08-24-2009, 07:31 AM	#9 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	Let me start by saying, a corporation should not be allowed to give one penny to any political campaign. Having said that, I do find it amusing that this "... is contrary to the words, history, spirit and intent of our Constitution,” HOWEVER, whenever libertarians use that argument against federally sponsored healthcare, car bailouts, takeover of banks, etc. - somehow the Constitution covers all of that. __________________ I know I left it around here somewhere!?

08-24-2009, 10:58 AM	#10 (permalink)
roachboy Moderator Location: essex ma Blog Entries: 396	Corporate personhood debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia this is a good summary of the history and nature of the broader debates over this question. it's pretty interesting. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-24-2009, 11:27 AM	#12 (permalink)
FuglyStick Lecher Ninja Location: Southern Illinois Blog Entries: 8	Corporate personhood, more than any other issue, is why I consider myself a liberal rather than a conservative. It is a perversion of the intentions of the founding fathers, and a fucking disgrace. __________________ "If she can't have me, then she can't have the fish"--Donald Earl Fite III, fish killer

08-24-2009, 11:45 AM	#13 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	corporate personhood is all due to the living constitution though, right? it evolves to suit the times? government can alter things in order to govern as societies grow? __________________ The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

08-24-2009, 11:52 AM	#14 (permalink)
roachboy Moderator Location: essex ma Blog Entries: 396	i was rather hoping that the illusion did not take shape in the thread that all arguments concerning what is or is not "in the spirit of the constitution" entail some bizarre-o strict construction/original intent kinda posture. the language is itself pretty standard ways of arguing. the strict construction position is only one of a wide range of options that such language can be inserted into. context. it kinda matters. sheesh. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-24-2009, 12:06 PM	#16 (permalink)
roachboy Moderator Location: essex ma Blog Entries: 396	there are the contexts that empirically obtain, like those in this actual case, and those which you mistakenly impute to it. they're different. and it's easy to check. you might, for example, read the wiki page on the debate about corporate personhood i linked above and tell me where the strict construction line enters into it. or you might look at the press blurb of the amicus brief: http://www.clementsllc.com/home/What...rporations.pdf all you have to do is look at the actual context and not rely on your ability to rip a few sentences out of context and impose whatever you like on them. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-24-2009, 12:27 PM	#18 (permalink)
Xerxys feeling lascivious ... Location: Cary, NC. Blog Entries: 37	A corporation is not a person, per se, so it can't vote or require healthcare. BUT, following the same bane, won't the "corporations" demand they not be taxed if they are not going to be treated like people? __________________ Proper planning and preparation prevents piss poor performance.

08-24-2009, 01:02 PM	#19 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	They aren't being charged with the same taxes that individuals are (and vice versa)

08-24-2009, 01:48 PM	#23 (permalink)
roachboy Moderator Location: essex ma Blog Entries: 396	now that. cimmaron, i agree with. a fine idea. i wonder how big the jackets would have to be though. most i expect would be dwarfed by them. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-24-2009, 03:59 PM	#32 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter. Location: Behind the brick wall, inside the gray room, at the black desk. Blog Entries: 14	No, seriously, that's what they do. The judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the law. The executive enforces, the legislative creates, and we the people vote. __________________ "So long as governments set the example of killing their enemies, private citizens will occasionally kill theirs." Elbert Hubbard

08-24-2009, 06:00 PM	#35 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter. Location: Behind the brick wall, inside the gray room, at the black desk. Blog Entries: 14	Section 2, Article 3. __________________ "So long as governments set the example of killing their enemies, private citizens will occasionally kill theirs." Elbert Hubbard

08-24-2009, 06:31 PM	#38 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter. Location: Behind the brick wall, inside the gray room, at the black desk. Blog Entries: 14	Section 2, Article 3 describes the roll of the Supreme Court, and it doesn't seem to fit the description listed here. __________________ "So long as governments set the example of killing their enemies, private citizens will occasionally kill theirs." Elbert Hubbard

08-24-2009, 06:54 PM	#40 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter. Location: Behind the brick wall, inside the gray room, at the black desk. Blog Entries: 14	I'm for both the ability for the Supreme Court to make prudent and up-to-date decisions so long as they fall within an honest interpretation of the law AND the ability of we the people to override laws in the interest of justice as jurors. I don't lose any sleep over it because I don't see the positions as contradictory. Here's the thing: Roe v. Wade is basically the most known court case in the history of the Supreme Court, right? According to your understanding of the role of the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade couldn't really happen. We'd need an amendment, but we don't have the votes, which in that case would be tyranny of the majority. __________________ "So long as governments set the example of killing their enemies, private citizens will occasionally kill theirs." Elbert Hubbard