Corporations are not people - Amendment

[pakotlar]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/huffpolitics-blog/

"Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) criticized a proposed constitutional amendment to eliminate corporate personhood rights on Friday, calling the idea "absurd."

Discuss.

 

[irishScott]

Discuss.

In this forum? Lol.

Thread implosion in 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..

 

[Dulanic]

It's more absurd that a corporation gets the rights of a person. A CEO should, a corporation should not.

 

[sandorski]

Stopping people who love each other from getting Married is far more important. God don't give a shit about Corporations, but people getting Married is srs business. God will fuck you up if you get it wrong.

 

[Dulanic]

Stopping people who love each other from getting Married is far more important. God don't give a shit about Corporations, but people getting Married is srs business. God will fuck you up if you get it wrong.

Marriage rights overall will impact most people far less then the corruption caused by citizens united ruling.

 

[thraashman]

It's more absurd that a corporation gets the rights of a person. A CEO should, a corporation should not.

This to a motherfucking T.

 

[child of wonder]

An entity is not a person.

 

[kage69]

Yep, sounds like Mitch McConnell alright.

 

[lotus503]

Removing corporate person hood is sorta stupid and will create a legal mess.

Removing the ability for anything but an individual to donate to the process, via money or by proxy, is the solution.

Its not corporate person hood that's the problem, its the entirety of K street.

 

[Texashiker]

"Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) criticized a proposed constitutional amendment to eliminate corporate personhood rights on Friday, calling the idea "absurd."

Discuss.

If I serve on a jury, that is why I will never find anyone guilty of stealing from a corporation.

I almost got picked for a jury where a woman was accused of shoplifting from wal-mart. I do not care what evidence the state has, I will always vote not guilty.

 

[Boris Morozov]

corporations are people my friend

 

[Matt1970]

I hate it when people say "Discuss" in a forum.

 

[Paratus]

So if corporations are people could mergers be blocked under DOMA as they are both same sex?

<Philosraptor.jpg>

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Does this, by definition, also mean that I am a corporation? Am I traded on the stock market? Where's my dividends?

 

[ivwshane]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/huffpolitics-blog/

"Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) criticized a proposed constitutional amendment to eliminate corporate personhood rights on Friday, calling the idea "absurd."

Discuss.

Most rational people wouldn't jump to such conclusions and would at least debate or address the issue.

Exhibit A (below):

Removing corporate person hood is sorta stupid and will create a legal mess.

Removing the ability for anything but an individual to donate to the process, via money or by proxy, is the solution.

Its not corporate person hood that's the problem, its the entirety of K street.

This just shows you whose interest the senator really cares about.

 

[Texashiker]

Removing corporate person hood is sorta stupid and will create a legal mess.

With equal rights comes equal responsibility.

Since corporations can not be held responsible, corporations should not be granted equal protection under the law.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Anyone who finds it absurd are, themselves, absurd. What's absurd is having to make an amendment about it. If you don't KNOW this as simple, obvious truth by the time you're 6 or 7 then you're too stupid to exist on the planet.

 

[lotus503]

Most rational people wouldn't jump to such conclusions and would at least debate or address the issue.

Exhibit A (below):




This just shows you whose interest the senator really cares about.

I wouldn't piss on Mitch if he was on fire.
I just understand what purpose corporate personhood serves within our legal system. I didn't always think that way, I was very much in agreement it needed to be abolished.

But then someone called me on it, forced me to research the issue.

I learned its necessary at this point unless we want to go through a ton of issues with new laws etc. I suspect if we did that our wonderful congress would botch it. Likely making things worse in the process.

The issue I have with corporate personhood is the granting of ability to donate and support the elections process. It's why things are why they are now, it's absurd.

But I'd rather surgically address the problem, then grab with two hands and rip it out causing all sorts of collateral damage.

So no Mitch wasn't talking to me, I doubt Mitch likes my approach any better.

 

[ivwshane]

I wouldn't piss on Mitch if he was on fire.
I just understand what purpose corporate personhood serves within our legal system. I didn't always think that way, I was very much in agreement it needed to be abolished.

But then someone called me on it, forced me to research the issue.

I learned its necessary at this point unless we want to go through a ton of issues with new laws etc. I suspect if we did that our wonderful congress would botch it. Likely making things worse in the process.

The issue I have with corporate personhood is the granting of ability to donate and support the elections process. It's why things are why they are now, it's absurd.

But I'd rather surgically address the problem, then grab with two hands and rip it out causing all sorts of collateral damage.

So no Mitch wasn't talking to me, I doubt Mitch likes my approach any better.

I agree and just in case my point wasn't clear, you are being reasonable and Mitch is not.

 

[Black Octagon]

I hate it when people say "Discuss" in a forum.

Explain

 

[Matt1970]

Because it's all we can do here is discuss.

 

[Craig234]

I recommend a very good book on how absurd this idea of corporoate personhood is - well a couple books actually, but the one I recall the title of right now is 'Uneqal protection' by Thom Hartmann. The 14th amendment was passed for the purpose of treating black people equally under the law, but in the years that followed, more cases were actually brought trying to get corporations new rights as 'persons' than about blacks.

This 'corporate personhood' is completely corrrupt, and abuse of money and power by those who have the most, and is poison for democracy and needs overturning.

When our country was founded, there was no such thing as very powerful corporations - they'd have been abhorrent to the idea of democracy if allowed to be trump democracy.

Unfortunately, the Republicans' core principles are to put the wealthy first.

 

[Matt1970]

I recommend a very good book on how absurd this idea of corporoate personhood is - well a couple books actually, but the one I recall the title of right now is 'Uneqal protection' by Thom Hartmann. The 14th amendment was passed for the purpose of treating black people equally under the law, but in the years that followed, more cases were actually brought trying to get corporations new rights as 'persons' than about blacks.

This 'corporate personhood' is completely corrrupt, and abuse of money and power by those who have the most, and is poison for democracy and needs overturning.

When our country was founded, there was no such thing as very powerful corporations - they'd have been abhorrent to the idea of democracy if allowed to be trump democracy.

Unfortunately, the Republicans' core principles are to put the wealthy first.

Maybe you can join McOwned, Phokus and bshole in their revolution to drive the wealthy and corporations out of the country. Then you can all go hunt buffallo and live in the wild.

 

[Veliko]

Maybe you can join McOwned, Phokus and bshole in their revolution to drive the wealthy and corporations out of the country. Then you can all go hunt buffallo and live in the wild.

That's what everyone will end up doing anyway once all the jobs have been outsourced to India.

 

[IGBT]

how else can liberals conduct their shake down rackets if they can't eliminate corporate person hood??