What's so bad about Citizen's United again?

[Griffinhart]

Corporate entities exist at the whim of the People and their govt. As such, their so called "Rights" can also be restricted, because they are not human beings, but rather legal constructs. They do not enjoy the same right to privacy or right against self incrimination as human beings, nor can they be convicted of any crime. They cannot forfeit their freedom or their lives as a consequence of criminal behavior, either. They enjoy an entirely different tax status, as well.

They are not human beings, however, that doesn't mean they are free from the rule of law.

They do enjoy the same right to privacy. The Police can't enter corporate, church, or Union offices without permision or a warrant. They can't simply take company records without a court order. There are certain freedoms that don't apply to them because, as you say, they aren't human. You can't Arrest a Corporation, but they certainly can be taken to trial.

Nobody here has argued that they should have exactly the same rights & responsibilities as real people, so until that argument is brought forth, Righties are just talking out of both sides of their mouths at the same time.

The problem is, too many "lefties" seem to think the Bill of Rights grants rights and liberties. This isn't actually the case. It's a list of things the government CAN'T do.

-First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment – Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You can go through the Bill of Rights and the language is exactly like this. It's not what the people can do, but what the Government CAN NOT.

The 9th and 10th Amendments are pretty key too:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[soundforbjt]

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Wonder how kentucky got around this with their random stop law?

 

[spidey07]

A single PAC supporting Romney has already spent $17M on primaries so far. So all of union PAC spending is same as what just one corporatist PAC spent on one candidate in primaries in just 4 states.

Look at husseins packs and contributions. And from whom.

Look!

 

[spidey07]

Wonder how kentucky got around this with their random stop law?

Lulz, I present state drivers license and ccdw license and am told "sorry for bothering you brother".

We take care of our own around these parts.

 

[soundforbjt]

Lulz, I present state I'd and ccdw license and am told "sorry for bothering you brother".

We take care of our own around the parts.

Do you even know what that law is?

 

[Jhhnn]

They do enjoy the same right to privacy. The Police can't enter corporate, church, or Union offices without permision or a warrant. They can't simply take company records without a court order. There are certain freedoms that don't apply to them because, as you say, they aren't human. You can't Arrest a Corporation, but they certainly can be taken to trial.

They do not enjoy the same right to privacy. C corps must file financial disclosure statements to the stockholders & the SEC that private individuals & partnerships do not. They are not exempt from the govt disclosures under FOIA as are individuals, either-

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/01/us-att-privacy-idUSTRE7203UN20110301

The rest? You're just obfuscating.

 

[Griffinhart]

They do not enjoy the same right to privacy. C corps must file financial disclosure statements to the stockholders & the SEC that private individuals & partnerships do not. They are not exempt from the govt disclosures under FOIA as are individuals, either-

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/01/us-att-privacy-idUSTRE7203UN20110301

The rest? You're just obfuscating.

And an individual must disclose personal information to both the government and employers by law as well.

Government still can't enter the offices of the CWA, or IBM and just start fishing through records without permission of the organization or the court.

And I'm not obfuscating. The claim is that corporations are not people and therefore aren't afforded rights. My argument is that the bill of rights doesn't single out individuals and what they are allowed to do, but rather what the government specifically is not allowed to do.

The preamble of the Bill of rights says as much:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

It is not within the power of the government to grant or take away rights.

 

[Craig234]

A historical note on corporations.

When our country was founded, there was almost no such thing as big corporations.

The main one that existed was the East India company, created by Queen Victoria as a way to help the nobility invest in global trade operations and avoid liability.

That company was such a nice group that they were the driving force behind the American revolution - with the Boston Tea Party and Boston being blockaded.

When corporations did get created, they generally had to be approved by the government for a limited, specific purpose for the public good, for a limited time.

We have Thomas Jefferson's view on the idea of corporations expanding a lot:

"I hope we shall take warning from the example [England] and crush in it's [sic] birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws our country."
- Thomas Jefferson

Now corporations have a massive amount of wealth and power and can pay to dominate our electoral process, robbing it of its 'freedom' for the citizens.

Jefferson fought to change government from representing a few priviliged people to the people running things for their interests. Corporate domination of elections is the opposite of what Jefferson wanted, returning to when the public opinion is not free but dominated by a few people with the expensive advertising.

The current corruption of our elections by corporate dominance is nothing less than an attack on the core values of America and on our democracy.

It's a twist on what the founding fathers opposed - corporations rather than a noble class - but the effect is similar on the freedom of the people and on government.

Save234

 

[Craig234]

And an individual must disclose personal information to both the government and employers by law as well.

Government still can't enter the offices of the CWA, or IBM and just start fishing through records without permission of the organization or the court.

And I'm not obfuscating. The claim is that corporations are not people and therefore aren't afforded rights. My argument is that the bill of rights doesn't single out individuals and what they are allowed to do, but rather what the government specifically is not allowed to do.

The preamble of the Bill of rights says as much:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

It is not within the power of the government to grant or take away rights.

However, the government can control an IBM even being created, and its purpose and its functioning. There couldn't be an IBM when the country was founded.

While the government can't go search the records at IBM unreasonably, it can regulate - short of our corrupt Supreme Court narrow rulings - their actions in our elections.

Corporations would like to reverse the role of master and slave in their relationship - between themselves and government, the people, democracy.

They'd like to reverse Lincoln's statement that government is of, by and for the people, so that the people serve the corporate interests and cannot dictate to them.

They've pretty much gotten to that point now de facto, while facades are still kept.

 

[Griffinhart]

The framers of the constitution had a clear idea of what a corporation was. They practiced the laws and rules of England, and had plenty of experience with it. In 1720 English law defined a corporation as:

"a collection of many individuals united into one body, under a special denomination, having perpetual succession under an artificial form, and vested, by policy of the law, with the capacity of acting, in several respects, as an individual, particularly of taking and granting property, of contracting obligations, and of suing and being sued, of enjoying privileges and immunities in common, and of exercising a variety of political rights, more or less extensive, according to the design of its institution, or the powers conferred upon it, either at the time of its creation, or at any subsequent period of its existence

Corporations have evolved, but, they were not simply for a limited time or specific purposes. By 1800 there were 300 corporations in the US and while most were providing public services, there were several manufacturing corporations. In fact, by 1811, NY had started allowing manufacturing corporations to form with simple registration and limited liability.

In fact, there were cases in the US where corporations not chartered by the US Government, such as Dartmouth College, were inviolable by the government.

 

[Griffinhart]

There couldn't be an IBM when the country was founded.

Absolutely incorrect. There could of been an IBM when the country was founded. There were several manufacturing corporations in the US at the time.

Of course, Labor Unions weren't formed in the US until the 1870's. Tell me, do you think Unions should have free speech and other rights?

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Corporate entities exist at the whim of the People and their govt. As such, their so called "Rights" can also be restricted, because they are not human beings, but rather legal constructs. They do not enjoy the same right to privacy or right against self incrimination as human beings, nor can they be convicted of any crime. They cannot forfeit their freedom or their lives as a consequence of criminal behavior, either. They enjoy an entirely different tax status, as well.

Nobody here has argued that they should have exactly the same rights & responsibilities as real people, so until that argument is brought forth, Righties are just talking out of both sides of their mouths at the same time.

Are you making a philosophical argument about natural rights or is this your interpretation of the Constitution?

 

[senseamp]

Look at husseins packs and contributions. And from whom.

Look!

Reagan?

 

[Craig234]

Absolutely incorrect. There could of been an IBM when the country was founded. There were several manufacturing corporations in the US at the time.

Of course, Labor Unions weren't formed in the US until the 1870's. Tell me, do you think Unions should have free speech and other rights?

No, there couldn't. There was nothing anywhere near the scale and it would have been a major political issue and had to overcome the laws on how corporations worked.

As for your trolling talking points question, I think unions should have the same rights as corporations on 'free speech', and that neither are people.

 

[Craig234]

By 1800 there were 300 corporations in the US and while most were providing public services, there were several manufacturing corporations. In fact, by 1811, NY had started allowing manufacturing corporations to form with simple registration and limited liability.

Showing Jefferson wasn't making up the "our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws our country."

However, they were far, far more limited than today.

Today's situation is a clear violation of 'the people' having the power founders planned.

 

[micrometers]

I don't really get this debate about corporate personhood. I really don't. I mean, leftists kind of portray corporate personhood as "corporations can get away with murder" as if they're some sort of robot assassin's that the congress has authorized. It makes no sense.

 

[dmcowen674]

I actually view propaganda as the positive puff pieces.

Negative ads actually are factual.

Really, negative ad onslaughts saved us from the prospect of a Gingrich presidency. that is a good thing.

So you are getting paid by the Romney PAC?

 

[Craig234]

I don't really get this debate about corporate personhood. I really don't. I mean, leftists kind of portray corporate personhood as "corporations can get away with murder" as if they're some sort of robot assassin's that the congress has authorized. It makes no sense.

Your assignment: "Unequal Protection" by Thom Hartmann.

 

[Ausm]

Because restrictions on political speech ahead of elections does strike me as infringement on first amendment rights.

I actually think that Super-PACs have worked out well. And so far in this election, could it be argued that citizens united made it worse? what alternative scenarios are plausible?

Crack kills....

 

[Griffinhart]

Today's situation is a clear violation of 'the people' having the power founders planned.

I and the majority of the Supreme court disagree with your view.

 

[Griffinhart]

Your assignment: "Unequal Protection" by Thom Hartmann.

Because I should agree with the opinions of a Progressive Talk Show Host who's background lies in herbology and Homeopathic medicine, and travel agencies when it comes to matters of the constitution and bill of rights?

 

[soundforbjt]

I and the majority of the Supreme court disagree with your view.

You and the corporate owned majority of the SCOTUS disagree.

 

[cybrsage]

Your assignment: "Unequal Protection" by Thom Hartmann.

Does the book talk about robot assassings? That would be a pretty cool book.

 

[ElFenix]

or specific purposes.

this is incorrect. generalist corporate charters are a relatively recent invention. in the past corporate charters did have restrictions as to what acts a corporation could do. any acts outside that were ultra vires and void. they couldn't even be ratified.

 

[piasabird]

I have not watched one debate yet. The reason is the debates are being run by the Liberal Media. They only ask stupid liberal questions.