|
On January 12 2012 06:15 ParasitJonte wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 12:23 Zanno wrote:On January 11 2012 12:21 Falling wrote:On January 11 2012 12:20 Zanno wrote:On January 11 2012 11:53 Falling wrote:
What exactly is the point of Super PAC's? They seem to flood the system with money for any candidate that has big business ties. that's exactly the point of super pacs So more corporatism. yes you know that citizens united "corporations are people" ruling that politics nerds rage about a lot (maybe you don't, as you're not from the US. do they run the daily show/colbert in canada?) super pacs are the direct consequence of that ruling That "corporations are people" quote is such an ignorant attempt at ridicule. It means that corporations consist of people - i.e. you can't tax "corporations", you can only tax people. I just think it's pathetic when John Stewart and the like try to ridicule something just because they're ignorant/stupid. But yeah, more corporatism in America sucks balls.
lol
|
This quote from the recent Montana court decision is a pretty reasonable stance on corporate personhood (imo)
"While I recognize that this doctrine is firmly entrenched in law, I find the concept entirely offensive. Corporations are artificial creatures of law. As such, they should enjoy only those powers—not constitutional rights, but legislatively-conferred powers—that are concomitant with their legitimate function, that being limited liability investment vehicles for business. Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people—human beings—to share fundamental natural rights with soulless creations of government. Worse still, while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons." - Justice Nelson
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/montana-citizens-united-6631615?src=soc_fcbk
|
On January 12 2012 13:58 Signet wrote:This quote from the recent Montana court decision is a pretty reasonable stance on corporate personhood (imo) Show nested quote +"While I recognize that this doctrine is firmly entrenched in law, I find the concept entirely offensive. Corporations are artificial creatures of law. As such, they should enjoy only those powers—not constitutional rights, but legislatively-conferred powers—that are concomitant with their legitimate function, that being limited liability investment vehicles for business. Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people—human beings—to share fundamental natural rights with soulless creations of government. Worse still, while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons." - Justice Nelson http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/montana-citizens-united-6631615?src=soc_fcbk
There's nothing remotely reasonable about that position. That's about as extreme as it gets on the "corporate rights" debate short of advocating the abolition of all corporations.
|
On January 12 2012 14:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 13:58 Signet wrote:This quote from the recent Montana court decision is a pretty reasonable stance on corporate personhood (imo) "While I recognize that this doctrine is firmly entrenched in law, I find the concept entirely offensive. Corporations are artificial creatures of law. As such, they should enjoy only those powers—not constitutional rights, but legislatively-conferred powers—that are concomitant with their legitimate function, that being limited liability investment vehicles for business. Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people—human beings—to share fundamental natural rights with soulless creations of government. Worse still, while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons." - Justice Nelson http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/montana-citizens-united-6631615?src=soc_fcbk There's nothing remotely reasonable about that position. That's about as extreme as it gets on the "corporate rights" debate short of advocating the abolition of all corporations.
There is nothing saying that extreme positions are not reasonable. What did he say that was not reasonable as far as corporations go (let's ignore the religious parts) ?
|
@mcc Glad you liked those videos but, as you can see it's from a FOX AFFILIATE. Not the original fox that misinforms people when it comes to REAL journalism.
|
On January 12 2012 21:05 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
@mcc Glad you liked those videos but, as you can see it's from a FOX AFFILIATE. Not the original fox that misinforms people when it comes to REAL journalism.
As can be seen in my post I disliked parts of those videos even before I found out they are from Fox, for reasons mentioned in that post. I did not base my view of the videos on their origin, but in their content, The origin just makes me doubt those videos' credibility somewhat more than before.
|
On January 12 2012 14:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 13:58 Signet wrote:This quote from the recent Montana court decision is a pretty reasonable stance on corporate personhood (imo) "While I recognize that this doctrine is firmly entrenched in law, I find the concept entirely offensive. Corporations are artificial creatures of law. As such, they should enjoy only those powers—not constitutional rights, but legislatively-conferred powers—that are concomitant with their legitimate function, that being limited liability investment vehicles for business. Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people—human beings—to share fundamental natural rights with soulless creations of government. Worse still, while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons." - Justice Nelson http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/montana-citizens-united-6631615?src=soc_fcbk There's nothing remotely reasonable about that position. That's about as extreme as it gets on the "corporate rights" debate short of advocating the abolition of all corporations.
and where might I find a sentence that calls for this lunacy in the statement of this judge?
|
This part in particular is insane:
As such, [corporations] should enjoy only those powers—not constitutional rights, but legislatively-conferred powers—that are concomitant with their legitimate function, that being limited liability investment vehicles for business.
Hate to break it to Justice Nelson, but I don't surrender any of my rights--not one--when I buy stock in a corporation. The leftist fiction of stripping rights from corporations is nothing less than stripping the rights of individuals.
|
That judge's position is extreme because he's saying that corporations should have no Constitutional rights ever. What makes it worse is that his reasoning isn't even based on practical policy considerations. He only states that it is "offensive."
I'm getting the sense that people don't really understand why corporations have been given Constitutional rights. The most important reason is that Corporations are "people" in the sense that behind every corporation is at least one person who owns it, runs it, or has some other interest in it. The bottom line is that "corporate assets," while nominally belonging to the corporation, actually belong to individual persons. Now, a whole slew of well-established laws (that aren't going anywhere) exist that mandate that these people with interests in the corporation must "must respect the corporate form," meaning that they are not allowed to freely transfer assets to and from the corporation for non-corporate purposes. This means that property that essentially belongs to individuals is stuck with the corporation. Now, let's assume that corporations have no Constitutional protections. That would mean that the state would be free to come in and seize the property of corporations because they have no Constitutional property rights. Who really gets screwed in this situation? The "corporation" or the people who own or have other interests in the corporation? The correct answer is both. With regards to the people, they would have no redress because the property that was seized from the corporation does not belong to them legally. It belongs to the corporation as a matter of law. Accordingly, the people would be indirectly screwed out of their property interests, and it would be Constitutional.
This is why corporations have been afforded Constitutional protections. The protections exist by necessity to protect the property interests of individuals.
|
How does legal ownership of property not fall under the category of powers "concomitant with their legitimate function, that being limited liability investment vehicles for business"?
|
On January 13 2012 01:07 Signet wrote:
How does legal ownership of property not fall under the category of powers "concomitant with their legitimate function, that being limited liability investment vehicles for business"?
You're missing the critical point. Look to the clause before that where the judge points out that those powers are granted by the legislature. The whole point of the Constitution is to ensure certain inalienable rights that no government -- federal or state -- can take away. That's what makes the United States different from most every other country in the world. We are governed by a core set of laws that are very difficult to change by design. If these Constitutional protections did not apply to corporations, then the state and federal governments would have a backdoor to seizing the property of individuals under the guise of seizing property from a "corporation," and they can do this by simply changing the law with majority vote. Having Constitutional protections apply to corporations protects and promotes personal civil liberties.
I can't stress enough how important this is, and it's disturbing to me that so many Americans have zero understanding of this concept.
|
No I saw that. The question remains whether corporations deserve all rights and protections granted by the Constitution or merely a subset of those. Should we allow corporations to vote in elections? Should corporations be counted towards Census population tallies used to calculate electoral representation? I think someone would have to be crazy to believe that all of the rights given by the Constitution were meant to apply to collective legal entities.
|
On January 13 2012 01:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2012 01:07 Signet wrote:
How does legal ownership of property not fall under the category of powers "concomitant with their legitimate function, that being limited liability investment vehicles for business"? You're missing the critical point. Look to the clause before that where the judge points out that those powers are granted by the legislature. The whole point of the Constitution is to ensure certain inalienable rights that no government -- federal or state -- can take away. That's what makes the United States different from most every other country in the world. We are governed by a core set of laws that are very difficult to change by design. If these Constitutional protections did not apply to corporations, then the state and federal governments would have a backdoor to seizing the property of individuals under the guise of seizing property from a "corporation," and they can do this by simply changing the law with majority vote. Having Constitutional protections apply to corporations protects and promotes personal civil liberties. I can't stress enough how important this is, and it's disturbing to me that so many Americans have zero understanding of this concept.
Can you point to this "majority" of countries not having a constitution and not being governed by it?
|
On January 13 2012 02:05 Signet wrote:
No I saw that. The question remains whether corporations deserve all rights and protections granted by the Constitution or merely a subset of those. Should we allow corporations to vote in elections? Should corporations be counted towards Census population tallies used to calculate electoral representation? I think someone would have to be crazy to believe that all of the rights given by the Constitution were meant to apply to collective legal entities.
Yes, this is the more appropriate question to ask. The reason why the judge's opinion that you cited is extreme is because that judge said that no Constitutional protections should apply.
|
On January 13 2012 02:07 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2012 01:21 xDaunt wrote:On January 13 2012 01:07 Signet wrote:
How does legal ownership of property not fall under the category of powers "concomitant with their legitimate function, that being limited liability investment vehicles for business"? You're missing the critical point. Look to the clause before that where the judge points out that those powers are granted by the legislature. The whole point of the Constitution is to ensure certain inalienable rights that no government -- federal or state -- can take away. That's what makes the United States different from most every other country in the world. We are governed by a core set of laws that are very difficult to change by design. If these Constitutional protections did not apply to corporations, then the state and federal governments would have a backdoor to seizing the property of individuals under the guise of seizing property from a "corporation," and they can do this by simply changing the law with majority vote. Having Constitutional protections apply to corporations protects and promotes personal civil liberties. I can't stress enough how important this is, and it's disturbing to me that so many Americans have zero understanding of this concept. Can you point to this "majority" of countries not having a constitution and not being governed by it?
It's not that other countries don't have Constitutions, it's that the US Constitution is incredibly difficult to change by comparison.
|
On January 13 2012 02:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2012 02:07 radiatoren wrote:On January 13 2012 01:21 xDaunt wrote:On January 13 2012 01:07 Signet wrote:
How does legal ownership of property not fall under the category of powers "concomitant with their legitimate function, that being limited liability investment vehicles for business"? You're missing the critical point. Look to the clause before that where the judge points out that those powers are granted by the legislature. The whole point of the Constitution is to ensure certain inalienable rights that no government -- federal or state -- can take away. That's what makes the United States different from most every other country in the world. We are governed by a core set of laws that are very difficult to change by design. If these Constitutional protections did not apply to corporations, then the state and federal governments would have a backdoor to seizing the property of individuals under the guise of seizing property from a "corporation," and they can do this by simply changing the law with majority vote. Having Constitutional protections apply to corporations protects and promotes personal civil liberties. I can't stress enough how important this is, and it's disturbing to me that so many Americans have zero understanding of this concept. Can you point to this "majority" of countries not having a constitution and not being governed by it? It's not that other countries don't have Constitutions, it's that the US Constitution is incredibly difficult to change by comparison.
Again it seems more like a nationalistic retoric than actual facts. Changing the constitution in Denmark has happened some times, but 4 different direct votes (+one indirect) on it with 2 of them being "qualified majority" votes, does not seem that easy to me.
|
On January 13 2012 02:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2012 02:05 Signet wrote:
No I saw that. The question remains whether corporations deserve all rights and protections granted by the Constitution or merely a subset of those. Should we allow corporations to vote in elections? Should corporations be counted towards Census population tallies used to calculate electoral representation? I think someone would have to be crazy to believe that all of the rights given by the Constitution were meant to apply to collective legal entities. Yes, this is the more appropriate question to ask. The reason why the judge's opinion that you cited is extreme is because that judge said that no Constitutional protections should apply.
I see what you're saying, but I also think it's odd to say that a corporation is a person but that it doesn't get full Constitutional rights.
Would you have found it reasonable if the judge had said something along the lines of Corporations only getting the Constitutional protections that are concomitant with their purpose as a limited liability vehicle?
|
On January 13 2012 02:15 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2012 02:09 xDaunt wrote:On January 13 2012 02:07 radiatoren wrote:On January 13 2012 01:21 xDaunt wrote:On January 13 2012 01:07 Signet wrote:
How does legal ownership of property not fall under the category of powers "concomitant with their legitimate function, that being limited liability investment vehicles for business"? You're missing the critical point. Look to the clause before that where the judge points out that those powers are granted by the legislature. The whole point of the Constitution is to ensure certain inalienable rights that no government -- federal or state -- can take away. That's what makes the United States different from most every other country in the world. We are governed by a core set of laws that are very difficult to change by design. If these Constitutional protections did not apply to corporations, then the state and federal governments would have a backdoor to seizing the property of individuals under the guise of seizing property from a "corporation," and they can do this by simply changing the law with majority vote. Having Constitutional protections apply to corporations protects and promotes personal civil liberties. I can't stress enough how important this is, and it's disturbing to me that so many Americans have zero understanding of this concept. Can you point to this "majority" of countries not having a constitution and not being governed by it? It's not that other countries don't have Constitutions, it's that the US Constitution is incredibly difficult to change by comparison. Again it seems more like a nationalistic retoric than actual facts. Changing the constitution in Denmark has happened some times, but 4 different direct votes (+one indirect) on it with 2 of them being "qualified majority" votes, does not seem that easy to me.
Well good for Denmark, and probably a few other countries.
|
On January 13 2012 02:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2012 02:07 radiatoren wrote:On January 13 2012 01:21 xDaunt wrote:On January 13 2012 01:07 Signet wrote:
How does legal ownership of property not fall under the category of powers "concomitant with their legitimate function, that being limited liability investment vehicles for business"? You're missing the critical point. Look to the clause before that where the judge points out that those powers are granted by the legislature. The whole point of the Constitution is to ensure certain inalienable rights that no government -- federal or state -- can take away. That's what makes the United States different from most every other country in the world. We are governed by a core set of laws that are very difficult to change by design. If these Constitutional protections did not apply to corporations, then the state and federal governments would have a backdoor to seizing the property of individuals under the guise of seizing property from a "corporation," and they can do this by simply changing the law with majority vote. Having Constitutional protections apply to corporations protects and promotes personal civil liberties. I can't stress enough how important this is, and it's disturbing to me that so many Americans have zero understanding of this concept. Can you point to this "majority" of countries not having a constitution and not being governed by it? It's not that other countries don't have Constitutions, it's that the US Constitution is incredibly difficult to change by comparison.
Why does the US Constitution even matter when it is totally ignored and not enforced in any manner?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
