Reply With Quote
Corporations are made of people...not one individual.
You logic is flawed. Figure it out.
True. It's a perversity, even former Chief justice Wm. Rehnquist said the case law supporting corporate personhood is weak, but you're right.
Buckley v. Valeo, 1976, I think.
Corporations having First Amendment rights (and money equalling speech) is a legal novelty not derived from American tradition or history, and least of all from the US cons ution itself, but there it is.
Last edited by Winehole23; 01-21-2010 at 04:53 PM.
Corporations are made of people...not one individual.
You logic is flawed. Figure it out.
Legislation from the bench, I think they used to call it.
Dem damn wiberal judges.
Actually, it can only take 1 person to form a corporation (state of texas requires 1 director I believe)...but, most have more in it usually. President, treasurer, etc...
It's still people (singular or plural I guess...lol).
and since corporations are made of people (notice the concession here...lol) ...then...what?
You don't get it. Propping up yet another silly strawman doesn't get you to the finish line. That's just where your argument fell down again.
I think concerns about special interests capturing the political process are reasonable and empirically well founded. To anyone who hasn't got their eyes shut to it, at least.
This rule isn't about campaign contributions. We'll have to wait a few years for that one.
It wasn't about the person-hood of corporations either.
....
Last edited by Winehole23; 01-21-2010 at 05:09 PM.
Or are there other relevant cases you would add?
Interesting also how Sonia Sotomayor was going to turn the Supreme Court into a extreme left, pro-choice, anti corporation court. Guess that didn't quite pan out...
@ mogrovejo:
Oh, I agree. But the obiter dicta (saying corporations were individuals deserving of protection under the 14th Amendment) made the banner, so the case was cited as precedent for a raft of improprieties.
You disagree?
Yes. One doesnt' need to recognize corporations as "people" to respect their speech as "speech" which the First Amendment forbids Congress from banning without a compelling state interest.
Oh, I get it.
Your worried about Business getting too involved in the political process and like the restraints put on them. You think they'll have too much "influence" without adequate "restrictions."
I'm not worried about business being involved, and want them more involved. In fact...I want EVERYONE more involved. Money'd labor, money'd business...non money'd masses....
You like restrictions...I don't. You think someone knows how to "restrict" influence. I know nobody does.
So I want everyone to have influence.
Let's call it "freedom to influence"...lol
Business, in particular, needs much more influence than they've had. Our economy is going to because of it.
"But..but...business already has too much influence...and THAT's why our economy is going to ."
I am not going to assume your the kind of idiot who thinks this way. But, there's enough idiots who do.
Now, I'm going home. But I'll leave you with an EXCELLENT piece, that I...realizing the excellence of it...have already posted.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144840
Night.
From the hearings (Mr. Stewart was the government representative):
JUSTICE ALITO: You think that if -- if a book was published, a campaign biography that was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, that could be banned?
MR. STEWART: I'm not saying it could be banned. I'm saying that Congress could prohibit the use of corporate treasury funds and could require a corporation to publish it using its PAC.
JUSTICE ALITO: Well, most publishers are corporations. And a -- a publisher that is a corporation could be prohibited from selling a book?
MR. STEWART: Well, of course, the statute contains its own media exemption or media --
JUSTICE ALITO: I'm not asking what the statute says. The government's position is that the First Amendment allows the banning of a book if it's published by a corporation?
MR. STEWART: Because the First Amendment refers both to freedom of speech and of the press, there would be a potential argument that media corporations, the ins utional press, would have a greater First Amendment right. That question is obviously not presented here. The -- the other two things --
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, suppose it were an advocacy organization that had a book. Your position is that under the Cons ution, the advertising for this book or the sale for the book itself could be prohibited within the 60/90-day period -- the 60/30-day period?
MR. STEWART: If the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy. That is, if it was subject to no reasonable interpretation --
JUSTICE KENNEDY: And I suppose it could even -- is it the Kindle where you can read a book? I take it that's from a satellite. So the existing statute would probably prohibit that under your view?
MR. STEWART: Well, the statute applies to cable, satellite, and broadcast communications. And the Court in McConnell has addressed the --
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Just to make it clear, it's the government's position that under the statute, if this Kindle device where you can read a book which is campaign advocacy, within the 60/30-day period, if it comes from a satellite, it's under -- it can be prohibited under the Cons ution and perhaps under this statute?
MR. STEWART: It -- it can't be prohibited, but a corporation could be barred from using its general treasury funds to publish the book and could be required to use -- to raise funds to publish the book using its PAC.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: If it has one name, one use of the candidate's name, it would be covered, correct?
MR. STEWART: That's correct.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: If it's a 500-page book, and at the end it says, and so vote for X, the government could ban that?
MR. STEWART: Well, if it says vote for X, it would be express advocacy and it would be covered by the pre-existing Federal Election Campaign Act provisions.
Congratulations to Citizens United, ACLU, National Coalition Against Censorship and all the others individuals and assemblies who fought and won this fight for the cause of liberty.
Do you hear that sound? Is the collective of Chinese people laughing at your Economic Freedom article...
Thanks for this little gem of deduction! I think I'll make the following proclamation:
Churches are tax exempt. People make up churches, hence, people are tax exempt.
I'm not sure why are people trying to frame this issue as a left/right one. Most(all?) pro free-speech/civil rights organization from both sites support this rule.
To be fair, she replaced a liberal judge, though he was one appointed by Bush Sr. The swing will take place if Scalia, thomas, Roberts, Alito or Kennedy die or step down. Personally, If I had to guess, I would say that Stevens is probably going to step down before 2012 because if President Obama does not win, I do not think he will make it to 2016.
Having said that, I did not think he would make it to 2010.
I never read that. She is replacing an exteme left anyways, so I didn't think anyone thought the dynamic would change. It definitely shows more about BHO.
What we have here is the complete capture of government by business. A very sad day for America.
Oh, and I thought conservatives were against judicial activism and legislating from the bench...
yep, all that talk about (100 years) of "stare decisis" and "judicial humility" was nothing but cheap talk.
The Repugs' radical right judges were radically activist.
Corporate capture of America is nearing impregnable totality.
The fact of the matter is that the ruling was years in the making and anyone familiar with the case expected it. The law's intent is understood but its not legal. Censorship shouldn't fly.
I'm worried about the results, but really the corps already run . They already get what they want. Politics in this country is far too convoluted for the average person to understand. The average person just doesn't give a and because of this corps will be able to sway votes with the same type of marketing campaigns that they use to sell their products with no limitations.
Its not good, but its not illegal. Whatever.
Oh, and I'm sure all the pro corporations people in here would be ok with those people behind corporations being charged for crimes when their products end up killing someone. I mean if they get the rights because they don't exist without people then do they also get the same liabilities?
Oh, of course not, right?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
