|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 14 2013 11:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 10:33 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 09:27 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 09:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 07:11 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 06:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 06:24 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 06:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Huh? I don't understand the question. A corporation is a legal construct. It's not just a group of people. It's independent of people. That's the whole point of a corporation. A corporation is something unto itself. The legal construct dictates how the group of people will collaborate. But it's still at it's core a group of people - the corporate veil doesn't fully change that. Yes it does. That's the whole point of creating a corporation. Read up on corporate personhood. One of the big effects is that shareholders are not held responsible for the corporations' debt or damages beyond their investment in the corporation. A group of people is not a corporation and a corporation is not a group of people. At its core, its not a group of people, but a robot constructed by a group of people. I'm fine with them having most of the rights they have. Obviously we want them to be able to make contracts and be sued and stuff. Even the shareholder stuff I'm cool with. Fine. However, they should not get the full protections of the constitution because they are not people, and the constitutional rights are reserved for people. It makes a mockery of our justice system. Yeah that's what the 'corporate veil' refers to. Err... so do you agree with then? I'm confused. That's an example of something that does change under corporations... As I said before, the corporate veil doesn't fully turn corporations into something other than groups of people. Things like corporate person-hood and limited liability are really just there to make it easier for the group to function. It does fully turn corporations into something other than groups of people. Legally, the people taken together and the corporation are separate entities. Is there something you don't understand about this or are you simply trying to obfuscate the issue? Yeah I know the legal distinction exists. It matters why the distinction exists too. DoubleReed started out this line of discussion by saying "fuck corporate personhood." Prior to corporations we just went directly to the owners in legal matters. Going back to that would just result in full free speech rights since we're dealing with real people all over again. Coming up with some new construct just brings us back to the point that, at their core, corporations really are groups of people. Ok, so you really are simply trying to obfuscate the issue. I know why legal personhood exists. Nobody is advocating removing corporate personhood. What DoubleReed very clearly said was that corporate personhood should not come with the same rights and liberties as "regular" personhood, in particular in terms of free speech. This would not mean placing any free speech restriction on the people who are behind the corporation, but it would prevent the corporation as a legal entity (= different from the group of people behind it) from having access to certain possibilities in terms of free speech (i.e. in terms of campaign financing). Maybe this will clear it up. The laws surrounding corporate personhood can't violate the constitution. Because corporations really are groups of people. Any legislation to restrict corporations will run against a couple hundred years of supreme court decisions that extend constitutional protections to corporations on the ground that corporations are groups of people. For example, the supreme court extended the 14th amendment to include corporations (because corporations are groups of people) way back in 1819: Show nested quote +Since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the reporter noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." While the headnote is not part of the Court's opinion and thus not precedent, two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania - 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution." This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since. Also, Show nested quote +The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and the people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively. In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction which allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions which would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association. Edit: The obligatory wikipedia link. Edit 2: or in other words, if you deny the corporation the right to free speech you are effectively denying the people who make up the corporation of the right to collectively voice their opinion through the corporation.
I suggest you read the dissenting opinion in Citizens United v. FEC - it would be perfectly okay with regards to SC jurisprudence to place certain limits on the access to free speech (in terms of campaign financing) of corporations. One could argue that all that'd be needed would be a fifth vote on the SC.
|
On August 14 2013 11:30 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 11:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 10:33 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 09:27 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 09:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 07:11 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 06:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 06:24 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 06:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
The legal construct dictates how the group of people will collaborate. But it's still at it's core a group of people - the corporate veil doesn't fully change that. Yes it does. That's the whole point of creating a corporation. Read up on corporate personhood. One of the big effects is that shareholders are not held responsible for the corporations' debt or damages beyond their investment in the corporation. A group of people is not a corporation and a corporation is not a group of people. At its core, its not a group of people, but a robot constructed by a group of people. I'm fine with them having most of the rights they have. Obviously we want them to be able to make contracts and be sued and stuff. Even the shareholder stuff I'm cool with. Fine. However, they should not get the full protections of the constitution because they are not people, and the constitutional rights are reserved for people. It makes a mockery of our justice system. Yeah that's what the 'corporate veil' refers to. Err... so do you agree with then? I'm confused. That's an example of something that does change under corporations... As I said before, the corporate veil doesn't fully turn corporations into something other than groups of people. Things like corporate person-hood and limited liability are really just there to make it easier for the group to function. It does fully turn corporations into something other than groups of people. Legally, the people taken together and the corporation are separate entities. Is there something you don't understand about this or are you simply trying to obfuscate the issue? Yeah I know the legal distinction exists. It matters why the distinction exists too. DoubleReed started out this line of discussion by saying "fuck corporate personhood." Prior to corporations we just went directly to the owners in legal matters. Going back to that would just result in full free speech rights since we're dealing with real people all over again. Coming up with some new construct just brings us back to the point that, at their core, corporations really are groups of people. Ok, so you really are simply trying to obfuscate the issue. I know why legal personhood exists. Nobody is advocating removing corporate personhood. What DoubleReed very clearly said was that corporate personhood should not come with the same rights and liberties as "regular" personhood, in particular in terms of free speech. This would not mean placing any free speech restriction on the people who are behind the corporation, but it would prevent the corporation as a legal entity (= different from the group of people behind it) from having access to certain possibilities in terms of free speech (i.e. in terms of campaign financing). Maybe this will clear it up. The laws surrounding corporate personhood can't violate the constitution. Because corporations really are groups of people. Any legislation to restrict corporations will run against a couple hundred years of supreme court decisions that extend constitutional protections to corporations on the ground that corporations are groups of people. For example, the supreme court extended the 14th amendment to include corporations (because corporations are groups of people) way back in 1819: Since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the reporter noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." While the headnote is not part of the Court's opinion and thus not precedent, two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania - 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution." This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since. Also, The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and the people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively. In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction which allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions which would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association. Edit: The obligatory wikipedia link. Edit 2: or in other words, if you deny the corporation the right to free speech you are effectively denying the people who make up the corporation of the right to collectively voice their opinion through the corporation. I suggest you read the dissenting opinion in Citizens United v. FEC - it would be perfectly okay with regards to SC jurisprudence to place certain limits on the access to free speech (in terms of campaign financing) of corporations. One could argue that all that'd be needed would be a fifth vote on the SC.
Scary thought 
|
On August 14 2013 11:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 11:30 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 11:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 10:33 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 09:27 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 09:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 07:11 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 06:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 06:24 DoubleReed wrote:[quote] Yes it does. That's the whole point of creating a corporation. Read up on corporate personhood. One of the big effects is that shareholders are not held responsible for the corporations' debt or damages beyond their investment in the corporation. A group of people is not a corporation and a corporation is not a group of people. At its core, its not a group of people, but a robot constructed by a group of people. I'm fine with them having most of the rights they have. Obviously we want them to be able to make contracts and be sued and stuff. Even the shareholder stuff I'm cool with. Fine. However, they should not get the full protections of the constitution because they are not people, and the constitutional rights are reserved for people. It makes a mockery of our justice system. Yeah that's what the 'corporate veil' refers to. Err... so do you agree with then? I'm confused. That's an example of something that does change under corporations... As I said before, the corporate veil doesn't fully turn corporations into something other than groups of people. Things like corporate person-hood and limited liability are really just there to make it easier for the group to function. It does fully turn corporations into something other than groups of people. Legally, the people taken together and the corporation are separate entities. Is there something you don't understand about this or are you simply trying to obfuscate the issue? Yeah I know the legal distinction exists. It matters why the distinction exists too. DoubleReed started out this line of discussion by saying "fuck corporate personhood." Prior to corporations we just went directly to the owners in legal matters. Going back to that would just result in full free speech rights since we're dealing with real people all over again. Coming up with some new construct just brings us back to the point that, at their core, corporations really are groups of people. Ok, so you really are simply trying to obfuscate the issue. I know why legal personhood exists. Nobody is advocating removing corporate personhood. What DoubleReed very clearly said was that corporate personhood should not come with the same rights and liberties as "regular" personhood, in particular in terms of free speech. This would not mean placing any free speech restriction on the people who are behind the corporation, but it would prevent the corporation as a legal entity (= different from the group of people behind it) from having access to certain possibilities in terms of free speech (i.e. in terms of campaign financing). Maybe this will clear it up. The laws surrounding corporate personhood can't violate the constitution. Because corporations really are groups of people. Any legislation to restrict corporations will run against a couple hundred years of supreme court decisions that extend constitutional protections to corporations on the ground that corporations are groups of people. For example, the supreme court extended the 14th amendment to include corporations (because corporations are groups of people) way back in 1819: Since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the reporter noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." While the headnote is not part of the Court's opinion and thus not precedent, two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania - 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution." This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since. Also, The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and the people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively. In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction which allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions which would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association. Edit: The obligatory wikipedia link. Edit 2: or in other words, if you deny the corporation the right to free speech you are effectively denying the people who make up the corporation of the right to collectively voice their opinion through the corporation. I suggest you read the dissenting opinion in Citizens United v. FEC - it would be perfectly okay with regards to SC jurisprudence to place certain limits on the access to free speech (in terms of campaign financing) of corporations. One could argue that all that'd be needed would be a fifth vote on the SC. Scary thought
Why would it be a scary thought? If anything, it's the post-Citizens United v. FEC situation with regards to campaign financing that's scary.
|
On August 14 2013 11:59 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 11:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 11:30 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 11:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 10:33 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 09:27 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 09:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 07:11 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 06:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Yeah that's what the 'corporate veil' refers to. Err... so do you agree with then? I'm confused. That's an example of something that does change under corporations... As I said before, the corporate veil doesn't fully turn corporations into something other than groups of people. Things like corporate person-hood and limited liability are really just there to make it easier for the group to function. It does fully turn corporations into something other than groups of people. Legally, the people taken together and the corporation are separate entities. Is there something you don't understand about this or are you simply trying to obfuscate the issue? Yeah I know the legal distinction exists. It matters why the distinction exists too. DoubleReed started out this line of discussion by saying "fuck corporate personhood." Prior to corporations we just went directly to the owners in legal matters. Going back to that would just result in full free speech rights since we're dealing with real people all over again. Coming up with some new construct just brings us back to the point that, at their core, corporations really are groups of people. Ok, so you really are simply trying to obfuscate the issue. I know why legal personhood exists. Nobody is advocating removing corporate personhood. What DoubleReed very clearly said was that corporate personhood should not come with the same rights and liberties as "regular" personhood, in particular in terms of free speech. This would not mean placing any free speech restriction on the people who are behind the corporation, but it would prevent the corporation as a legal entity (= different from the group of people behind it) from having access to certain possibilities in terms of free speech (i.e. in terms of campaign financing). Maybe this will clear it up. The laws surrounding corporate personhood can't violate the constitution. Because corporations really are groups of people. Any legislation to restrict corporations will run against a couple hundred years of supreme court decisions that extend constitutional protections to corporations on the ground that corporations are groups of people. For example, the supreme court extended the 14th amendment to include corporations (because corporations are groups of people) way back in 1819: Since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the reporter noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." While the headnote is not part of the Court's opinion and thus not precedent, two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania - 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution." This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since. Also, The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and the people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively. In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction which allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions which would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association. Edit: The obligatory wikipedia link. Edit 2: or in other words, if you deny the corporation the right to free speech you are effectively denying the people who make up the corporation of the right to collectively voice their opinion through the corporation. I suggest you read the dissenting opinion in Citizens United v. FEC - it would be perfectly okay with regards to SC jurisprudence to place certain limits on the access to free speech (in terms of campaign financing) of corporations. One could argue that all that'd be needed would be a fifth vote on the SC. Scary thought Why would it be a scary thought? If anything, it's the post- Citizens United v. FEC situation with regards to campaign financing that's scary.
Citizen's united was mainly about a non profit corporation creating and disseminating a political video. It's a scary thought to me that congress can restrict that form of speech so easily.
|
On August 14 2013 12:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 11:59 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 11:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 11:30 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 11:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 10:33 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 09:27 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 09:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 07:11 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Err... so do you agree with then? I'm confused. That's an example of something that does change under corporations... As I said before, the corporate veil doesn't fully turn corporations into something other than groups of people. Things like corporate person-hood and limited liability are really just there to make it easier for the group to function. It does fully turn corporations into something other than groups of people. Legally, the people taken together and the corporation are separate entities. Is there something you don't understand about this or are you simply trying to obfuscate the issue? Yeah I know the legal distinction exists. It matters why the distinction exists too. DoubleReed started out this line of discussion by saying "fuck corporate personhood." Prior to corporations we just went directly to the owners in legal matters. Going back to that would just result in full free speech rights since we're dealing with real people all over again. Coming up with some new construct just brings us back to the point that, at their core, corporations really are groups of people. Ok, so you really are simply trying to obfuscate the issue. I know why legal personhood exists. Nobody is advocating removing corporate personhood. What DoubleReed very clearly said was that corporate personhood should not come with the same rights and liberties as "regular" personhood, in particular in terms of free speech. This would not mean placing any free speech restriction on the people who are behind the corporation, but it would prevent the corporation as a legal entity (= different from the group of people behind it) from having access to certain possibilities in terms of free speech (i.e. in terms of campaign financing). Maybe this will clear it up. The laws surrounding corporate personhood can't violate the constitution. Because corporations really are groups of people. Any legislation to restrict corporations will run against a couple hundred years of supreme court decisions that extend constitutional protections to corporations on the ground that corporations are groups of people. For example, the supreme court extended the 14th amendment to include corporations (because corporations are groups of people) way back in 1819: Since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the reporter noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." While the headnote is not part of the Court's opinion and thus not precedent, two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania - 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution." This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since. Also, The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and the people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively. In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction which allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions which would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association. Edit: The obligatory wikipedia link. Edit 2: or in other words, if you deny the corporation the right to free speech you are effectively denying the people who make up the corporation of the right to collectively voice their opinion through the corporation. I suggest you read the dissenting opinion in Citizens United v. FEC - it would be perfectly okay with regards to SC jurisprudence to place certain limits on the access to free speech (in terms of campaign financing) of corporations. One could argue that all that'd be needed would be a fifth vote on the SC. Scary thought Why would it be a scary thought? If anything, it's the post- Citizens United v. FEC situation with regards to campaign financing that's scary. Citizen's united was mainly about a non profit corporation creating and disseminating a political video. It's a scary thought to me that congress can restrict that form of speech so easily.
The legal consequences of Citizens United went further than that, and it is of these consequences that I'm talking about. Basically going back to the situation before the ruling isn't that scary to me :p
|
On August 14 2013 09:05 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 08:59 sunprince wrote:On August 14 2013 08:36 DoubleReed wrote:I agree that Republicans as a group are currently insane (thanks Tea Party!), so we are in agreement that they are not all the same. My point is to remind people that the Democrats are far from flawless either, and should be approached with caution rather than reckless abandon when running away from the Republicans. Oh I see the disconnect here. I'm not ideological for the Democrats. No no no. I'm ideological for the ACLU. And they have changed my mind about a good deal of pragmatic things, like Affirmative Action. While I agree with the ACLU on some issues, I disagree with them on others: Affirmative Action is one of them: I consider AA to be unconstitutional discrimination ("positive discrimination" is still discrimination), so regardless of the efficacy I am opposed to it. They also consider AA to be necessary due to a lack of equal outcomes, which clashes with my belief in equal opportunity over equal outcomes. They use misleading/false data such as the racial and wage gaps as indicators of discrimination (the gender wage gap myth is especially pernicious in relation to AA, given that women outnumber men 2-to-1 in undergrad, worse than the gap between men and women when Title 9 was implemented). On that topic, the ACLU is one of the perpetuators of the wage gap myth. The ACLU has also recently worked to restrict the due process rights of college students accused of sex offenses. For anyone who is unfamiliar with the legal issues being discussed here, the stricter federal guidelines mandate that schools make it easier to punish the innocent for offenses they haven't been proven guilty of committing. Specifically, the federal government is requiring schools to lower the standard of proof for sex offenses in order to find more persons guilty. The ACLU's position on this clear-cut restriction of civil liberties is hilariously hypocritical, especially given that the impact of these policies disproportionately falls upon minority men that the ACLU theoretically fights to protect. In short, I find that the ACLU is also ideologically motivated by the various liberal groups that support it. Yea but on all those issues I disagree with you. The accusation of liberalism is strange, considering how often they defend conservative's rights as well. It's as if you think no one could ever reasonably disagree with you on these issues, even though you constantly run into people who do. On these very forums. All the time.
The fact that they defend the rights of conservatives doesn't change the fact that they are pushing a liberal agenda. Just like conservatives defending the "religious rights" of liberals doesn't change the fact that they are pushing a conservative agenda.
On August 14 2013 09:05 DoubleReed wrote:Edit: I don't understand the hypocrisy in the third case. The ACLU defends Title IX, and ensuring the rights of the accuser in due process. You may disagree, but that doesn't make it hypocritical. They defend policies that help stop the cycle of violence. Their stance is that discrimination against survivors is sex discrimination. I should probably stop talking, or else you'll start talking about the Matriarchy or something.
You betray your ignorance of the situation. Try reading up on the situation, so that you may understand how the ACLU is defending policies that undermine due process. Not to mention the fact that sexual assault cases should be left to the actual criminal justice system in the first place, rather than being prosecuted by ideologically appointed undergraduates.
|
On August 14 2013 12:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 11:59 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 11:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 11:30 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 11:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 10:33 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 09:27 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 09:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 07:11 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Err... so do you agree with then? I'm confused. That's an example of something that does change under corporations... As I said before, the corporate veil doesn't fully turn corporations into something other than groups of people. Things like corporate person-hood and limited liability are really just there to make it easier for the group to function. It does fully turn corporations into something other than groups of people. Legally, the people taken together and the corporation are separate entities. Is there something you don't understand about this or are you simply trying to obfuscate the issue? Yeah I know the legal distinction exists. It matters why the distinction exists too. DoubleReed started out this line of discussion by saying "fuck corporate personhood." Prior to corporations we just went directly to the owners in legal matters. Going back to that would just result in full free speech rights since we're dealing with real people all over again. Coming up with some new construct just brings us back to the point that, at their core, corporations really are groups of people. Ok, so you really are simply trying to obfuscate the issue. I know why legal personhood exists. Nobody is advocating removing corporate personhood. What DoubleReed very clearly said was that corporate personhood should not come with the same rights and liberties as "regular" personhood, in particular in terms of free speech. This would not mean placing any free speech restriction on the people who are behind the corporation, but it would prevent the corporation as a legal entity (= different from the group of people behind it) from having access to certain possibilities in terms of free speech (i.e. in terms of campaign financing). Maybe this will clear it up. The laws surrounding corporate personhood can't violate the constitution. Because corporations really are groups of people. Any legislation to restrict corporations will run against a couple hundred years of supreme court decisions that extend constitutional protections to corporations on the ground that corporations are groups of people. For example, the supreme court extended the 14th amendment to include corporations (because corporations are groups of people) way back in 1819: Since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the reporter noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." While the headnote is not part of the Court's opinion and thus not precedent, two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania - 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution." This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since. Also, The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and the people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively. In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction which allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions which would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association. Edit: The obligatory wikipedia link. Edit 2: or in other words, if you deny the corporation the right to free speech you are effectively denying the people who make up the corporation of the right to collectively voice their opinion through the corporation. I suggest you read the dissenting opinion in Citizens United v. FEC - it would be perfectly okay with regards to SC jurisprudence to place certain limits on the access to free speech (in terms of campaign financing) of corporations. One could argue that all that'd be needed would be a fifth vote on the SC. Scary thought Why would it be a scary thought? If anything, it's the post- Citizens United v. FEC situation with regards to campaign financing that's scary. Citizen's united was mainly about a non profit corporation creating and disseminating a political video. It's a scary thought to me that congress can restrict that form of speech so easily.
There is a reasonable argument to be made that Citizens United opened things up to to much money the elections. It does not favor one side, but it does cause problems when the volume and number of ads is so large that the candidates are overshadowed by the third party groups. There are also issues with the third party groups being shell companies that are just used to funnel money. AP did a report on them last time around and it took them nearly 4 months to track down one of the guys buying the ads spots in Florida and he didn't even know who he worked for. He got paid per ad did it as a part time job.
I dont' disagree with free speech, but the entire process is not regulated enough to even allow people to track down who is buying the ads and how they are funded.
|
On August 14 2013 09:13 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 08:43 sunprince wrote:On August 14 2013 08:17 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 08:06 sunprince wrote:On August 14 2013 07:18 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 14 2013 07:14 sunprince wrote:On August 13 2013 21:32 DoubleReed wrote: The takeaway is that American political parties are hilariously hypocritical, and pasted together from various groups on the basis of political expediency rather than any coherent philosophy. Really, because my takeaway is that liberals are driven by a pragmatic desire to solve problems, while conservatives and libertarians are driven simplistic ideologies that sound nice but have no bearing on the real world (taxation is theft!). Biased much? Conservatives do have a disturbing trend of being detached from reality. "Women's bodies fight off rape babies!" "Racism/sexism don't exist anymore!" "Being able to fight three different wars at once is the only way any country can ever be safe!" "Everyone is able to get a job whenever they want, regardless of their circumstance, and pay to move their way up in the world, get an education, and move up in socioeconomic status! I did it, so obviously everyone can!" "Kids can just get jobs anywhere to pay off those student loans, and young kids can just get jobs anywhere and save for college while they're in high school!" I could go on, but you get the point. I would certainly agree that conservatives are more "anti-science". However, liberals also ignore reality when it suits them, ranging from ignoring the criminological literature on gun control, to their obsession with blank slates in spite of biological evidence that nature matters as much as or more than nurture, to pretending that there is a gender wage gap, to ignoring consensus among economists that minimum wage increases unemployment among low-skilled workers. Essentially, every side lies and ignores science in order to support their views, and while I would agree conservatives do it more often, that doesn't excuse liberals either. A number of these examples are sketchy at best - for example, what "criminological literature on gun control"? Contrary to gun control advocates telling us that "gun control lowers violent crime" and gun rights proponents telling us that "gun rights deter violent crime", the consensus in the field of criminology (as reflected by undergraduate level textbooks and literature reviews in peer-reviewed scholarly journals) is that gun control has no proven significant effect (positive or negative) on crime. There's a difference between not having definitely proved causation (which is often a hard task in social sciences) and causation not existing. Plenty of studies have shown a correlation between stricter gun control laws and smaller numbers of gun-related deaths.
Your argument here misses the point. Obviously, lower gun availability will reduce gun-related deaths, just like fewer cars will reduce automobile related deaths. The question, however, is whether reducing gun availability would reduce violent crime. Criminological consensus (which focuses on the issue of violent crime, rather than mere gun deaths) concludes that there is insufficient evidence to even justify any sort of cautionary policy change, let alone conclusively prove a causation.
The problem America has, when compared to other first-world nations, is not with gun violence. It is with violent crime in general. Even if you removed all instances of gun violence (which is charitable considering that in many cases the violence would simply be carried out through different means), America is still a bizarre outlier in terms of violent crime. The reasons for this are complex, but range from high levels of social stratification, to racial tensions, to the poor public education system, to the War on Drugs, to high rates of teen pregnancy, to the increasing prevalence of single parent households, and so forth.
It's a tangled web for which both Democrats and Republicans have much to answer for. It's also not a simple problem that can be fixed (or even helped) by something as narrow as reducing gun availability.
|
On August 14 2013 13:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 12:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 11:59 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 11:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 11:30 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 11:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 10:33 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 09:27 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 09:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
As I said before, the corporate veil doesn't fully turn corporations into something other than groups of people. Things like corporate person-hood and limited liability are really just there to make it easier for the group to function. It does fully turn corporations into something other than groups of people. Legally, the people taken together and the corporation are separate entities. Is there something you don't understand about this or are you simply trying to obfuscate the issue? Yeah I know the legal distinction exists. It matters why the distinction exists too. DoubleReed started out this line of discussion by saying "fuck corporate personhood." Prior to corporations we just went directly to the owners in legal matters. Going back to that would just result in full free speech rights since we're dealing with real people all over again. Coming up with some new construct just brings us back to the point that, at their core, corporations really are groups of people. Ok, so you really are simply trying to obfuscate the issue. I know why legal personhood exists. Nobody is advocating removing corporate personhood. What DoubleReed very clearly said was that corporate personhood should not come with the same rights and liberties as "regular" personhood, in particular in terms of free speech. This would not mean placing any free speech restriction on the people who are behind the corporation, but it would prevent the corporation as a legal entity (= different from the group of people behind it) from having access to certain possibilities in terms of free speech (i.e. in terms of campaign financing). Maybe this will clear it up. The laws surrounding corporate personhood can't violate the constitution. Because corporations really are groups of people. Any legislation to restrict corporations will run against a couple hundred years of supreme court decisions that extend constitutional protections to corporations on the ground that corporations are groups of people. For example, the supreme court extended the 14th amendment to include corporations (because corporations are groups of people) way back in 1819: Since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the reporter noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." While the headnote is not part of the Court's opinion and thus not precedent, two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania - 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution." This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since. Also, The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and the people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively. In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction which allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions which would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association. Edit: The obligatory wikipedia link. Edit 2: or in other words, if you deny the corporation the right to free speech you are effectively denying the people who make up the corporation of the right to collectively voice their opinion through the corporation. I suggest you read the dissenting opinion in Citizens United v. FEC - it would be perfectly okay with regards to SC jurisprudence to place certain limits on the access to free speech (in terms of campaign financing) of corporations. One could argue that all that'd be needed would be a fifth vote on the SC. Scary thought Why would it be a scary thought? If anything, it's the post- Citizens United v. FEC situation with regards to campaign financing that's scary. Citizen's united was mainly about a non profit corporation creating and disseminating a political video. It's a scary thought to me that congress can restrict that form of speech so easily. There is a reasonable argument to be made that Citizens United opened things up to to much money the elections. It does not favor one side, but it does cause problems when the volume and number of ads is so large that the candidates are overshadowed by the third party groups. There are also issues with the third party groups being shell companies that are just used to funnel money. AP did a report on them last time around and it took them nearly 4 months to track down one of the guys buying the ads spots in Florida and he didn't even know who he worked for. He got paid per ad did it as a part time job. I dont' disagree with free speech, but the entire process is not regulated enough to even allow people to track down who is buying the ads and how they are funded.
The thing is, Citizen United isn't actually giving citizens any more free speech, as Orwellian as that is. Any American citizen was free to contribute to any political campaign they liked. Any limits to citizens contributing to politics wasn't effected by Citizens United. I'm still limited to the $2,600 limit.
It fixed a "problem" that didn't even exist, but in reality simply let a select FEW citizens effectively double-down (and a whole lot more) on their political contribution as any acting head of any business could contribute "on behalf of the business", as if every employee and shareholder in that business wholeheartedly approved the contribution.
It's a disgusting perversion of our Republic into something that I see as textbook Oligarchy. Nothing more. Free speech has somehow become equated to letting power do its thing. Thanks partisan Supreme Court, it's amazing we let 9 people who disagree on everything 4-5 somehow be the purveyors of common sense.
They make a good case that any major decision with nation-wide ramifications should require a 6-3 vote if any new laws are to be created. Our entire political system was overhauled by a 5-4 vote. That's a little fucked up, imo. That's also why every Presidential election matters in a big way that self-claimed centrists aren't seeing.
|
On August 14 2013 13:58 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 13:39 Plansix wrote:On August 14 2013 12:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 11:59 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 11:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 11:30 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 11:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 10:33 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 09:27 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
It does fully turn corporations into something other than groups of people. Legally, the people taken together and the corporation are separate entities. Is there something you don't understand about this or are you simply trying to obfuscate the issue? Yeah I know the legal distinction exists. It matters why the distinction exists too. DoubleReed started out this line of discussion by saying "fuck corporate personhood." Prior to corporations we just went directly to the owners in legal matters. Going back to that would just result in full free speech rights since we're dealing with real people all over again. Coming up with some new construct just brings us back to the point that, at their core, corporations really are groups of people. Ok, so you really are simply trying to obfuscate the issue. I know why legal personhood exists. Nobody is advocating removing corporate personhood. What DoubleReed very clearly said was that corporate personhood should not come with the same rights and liberties as "regular" personhood, in particular in terms of free speech. This would not mean placing any free speech restriction on the people who are behind the corporation, but it would prevent the corporation as a legal entity (= different from the group of people behind it) from having access to certain possibilities in terms of free speech (i.e. in terms of campaign financing). Maybe this will clear it up. The laws surrounding corporate personhood can't violate the constitution. Because corporations really are groups of people. Any legislation to restrict corporations will run against a couple hundred years of supreme court decisions that extend constitutional protections to corporations on the ground that corporations are groups of people. For example, the supreme court extended the 14th amendment to include corporations (because corporations are groups of people) way back in 1819: Since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the reporter noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." While the headnote is not part of the Court's opinion and thus not precedent, two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania - 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution." This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since. Also, The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and the people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively. In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction which allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions which would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association. Edit: The obligatory wikipedia link. Edit 2: or in other words, if you deny the corporation the right to free speech you are effectively denying the people who make up the corporation of the right to collectively voice their opinion through the corporation. I suggest you read the dissenting opinion in Citizens United v. FEC - it would be perfectly okay with regards to SC jurisprudence to place certain limits on the access to free speech (in terms of campaign financing) of corporations. One could argue that all that'd be needed would be a fifth vote on the SC. Scary thought Why would it be a scary thought? If anything, it's the post- Citizens United v. FEC situation with regards to campaign financing that's scary. Citizen's united was mainly about a non profit corporation creating and disseminating a political video. It's a scary thought to me that congress can restrict that form of speech so easily. There is a reasonable argument to be made that Citizens United opened things up to to much money the elections. It does not favor one side, but it does cause problems when the volume and number of ads is so large that the candidates are overshadowed by the third party groups. There are also issues with the third party groups being shell companies that are just used to funnel money. AP did a report on them last time around and it took them nearly 4 months to track down one of the guys buying the ads spots in Florida and he didn't even know who he worked for. He got paid per ad did it as a part time job. I dont' disagree with free speech, but the entire process is not regulated enough to even allow people to track down who is buying the ads and how they are funded. The thing is, Citizen United isn't actually giving citizens any more free speech, as Orwellian as that is. Any American citizen was free to contribute to any political campaign they liked. Any limits to citizens contributing to politics wasn't effected by Citizens United. I'm still limited to the $2,600 limit. It fixed a "problem" that didn't even exist, but in reality simply let a select FEW citizens effectively double-down (and a whole lot more) on their political contribution as any acting head of any business could contribute "on behalf of the business", as if every employee and shareholder in that business wholeheartedly approved the contribution. It's a disgusting perversion of our Republic into something that I see as textbook Oligarchy. Nothing more. Free speech has somehow become equated to letting power do its thing. Thanks partisan Supreme Court, it's amazing we let 9 people who disagree on everything 4-5 somehow be the purveyors of common sense. They make a good case that any major decision with nation-wide ramifications should require a 6-3 vote if any new laws are to be created. Our entire political system was overhauled by a 5-4 vote. That's a little fucked up, imo. That's also why every Presidential election matters in a big way that self-claimed centrists aren't seeing.
There's a distinction between spending money voicing your opinion and making campaign contributions. While the decision potentially reaches beyond it, citizen's united directly dealt with how much you can spend to voice your political opinion.
|
On August 14 2013 13:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 12:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 11:59 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 11:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 11:30 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 11:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 10:33 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 09:27 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 09:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
As I said before, the corporate veil doesn't fully turn corporations into something other than groups of people. Things like corporate person-hood and limited liability are really just there to make it easier for the group to function. It does fully turn corporations into something other than groups of people. Legally, the people taken together and the corporation are separate entities. Is there something you don't understand about this or are you simply trying to obfuscate the issue? Yeah I know the legal distinction exists. It matters why the distinction exists too. DoubleReed started out this line of discussion by saying "fuck corporate personhood." Prior to corporations we just went directly to the owners in legal matters. Going back to that would just result in full free speech rights since we're dealing with real people all over again. Coming up with some new construct just brings us back to the point that, at their core, corporations really are groups of people. Ok, so you really are simply trying to obfuscate the issue. I know why legal personhood exists. Nobody is advocating removing corporate personhood. What DoubleReed very clearly said was that corporate personhood should not come with the same rights and liberties as "regular" personhood, in particular in terms of free speech. This would not mean placing any free speech restriction on the people who are behind the corporation, but it would prevent the corporation as a legal entity (= different from the group of people behind it) from having access to certain possibilities in terms of free speech (i.e. in terms of campaign financing). Maybe this will clear it up. The laws surrounding corporate personhood can't violate the constitution. Because corporations really are groups of people. Any legislation to restrict corporations will run against a couple hundred years of supreme court decisions that extend constitutional protections to corporations on the ground that corporations are groups of people. For example, the supreme court extended the 14th amendment to include corporations (because corporations are groups of people) way back in 1819: Since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the reporter noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." While the headnote is not part of the Court's opinion and thus not precedent, two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania - 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution." This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since. Also, The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and the people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively. In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction which allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions which would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association. Edit: The obligatory wikipedia link. Edit 2: or in other words, if you deny the corporation the right to free speech you are effectively denying the people who make up the corporation of the right to collectively voice their opinion through the corporation. I suggest you read the dissenting opinion in Citizens United v. FEC - it would be perfectly okay with regards to SC jurisprudence to place certain limits on the access to free speech (in terms of campaign financing) of corporations. One could argue that all that'd be needed would be a fifth vote on the SC. Scary thought Why would it be a scary thought? If anything, it's the post- Citizens United v. FEC situation with regards to campaign financing that's scary. Citizen's united was mainly about a non profit corporation creating and disseminating a political video. It's a scary thought to me that congress can restrict that form of speech so easily. There is a reasonable argument to be made that Citizens United opened things up to to much money the elections. It does not favor one side, but it does cause problems when the volume and number of ads is so large that the candidates are overshadowed by the third party groups. There are also issues with the third party groups being shell companies that are just used to funnel money. AP did a report on them last time around and it took them nearly 4 months to track down one of the guys buying the ads spots in Florida and he didn't even know who he worked for. He got paid per ad did it as a part time job. I dont' disagree with free speech, but the entire process is not regulated enough to even allow people to track down who is buying the ads and how they are funded.
I think the concept of free speech is that you don't gripe about the number and volume of ads. Every person and group of persons has their right to voice their opinion, to gather their money to project that to as large an audience as they can afford or reach. If you want to campaign for new forced-disclosure rules, I'd like to hear your ideas on the subject. Otherwise, Citizens United is still about the ability of a group of citizens to speak their views. There is no such thing as opening things up to too much money when it comes to free speech. You must be against free speech if a subgroup demarcated by money is unable to express it.
Let me add that even prohibitions on anonymous speech is dangerous territory. See McIntyre vs. Ohio Elections Commission for some history on that. The Supreme Court's majority opinion there talked specifically about whether providing voters with additional relevant information is cause enough to abridge the (as the opinion words it) "right to anonymous speech." The consequences can be intimidation, as in the case of Prop. 8. Publish a list of everybody that donated over 100$ (happened), web sites organized it (happened), donors suffered property damage, threats of death (happened). Non-profits were formed to confront donors to conservative groups with the express intent to hurt contributions. Go too far in the opposite direction and you endorse intimidation to curtail and prevent the peaceful exercise of first amendment rights.
|
The fact that they defend the rights of conservatives doesn't change the fact that they are pushing a liberal agenda. Just like conservatives defending the "religious rights" of liberals doesn't change the fact that they are pushing a conservative agenda.
Oh my god that may be the worst equivocation I have ever heard on this forum. And it came from you, not xDaunt or Danglars. The ACLU defended Rush Limbaugh in court. They've defended NAMBLA in court. They've defended Nazis in court. They defended the Chickfila guy when he said that anti-gay stuff. Not nominally. They have lawyers at the ready.
That was some prime cut bullshit, dude. Wow.
You betray your ignorance of the situation. Try reading up on the situation, so that you may understand how the ACLU is defending policies that undermine due process. Not to mention the fact that sexual assault cases should be left to the actual criminal justice system in the first place, rather than being prosecuted by ideologically appointed undergraduates.
Again, this isn't some hidden agenda of the ACLU. They defend Title IX and are trying to ensure that colleges are doing what they are supposed to be doing to protect women from sexual assault on campus. Failure to do this is considered sex discrimination.
Man, it like really bothers you that people might disagree with your MRA-like stances. It sounds like anything you disagree with is dismissed as "ideological." When I say ideological, I just mean in contrast to pragmatic. I don't really consider them good or bad. And the ACLU actually is more on the pragmatic side with many of their stances, because a lot of what they argue is specific implementations.
Which I'm sure bothers you, being a libertarian who favors a simplistic and unrealistic ideology. You don't like pragmatism. Like in AA, you even said that the efficacy doesn't matter. Well, I and the ACLU disagree. Efficacy does matter.
|
On August 14 2013 13:46 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 09:13 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 08:43 sunprince wrote:On August 14 2013 08:17 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 08:06 sunprince wrote:On August 14 2013 07:18 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 14 2013 07:14 sunprince wrote:On August 13 2013 21:32 DoubleReed wrote: The takeaway is that American political parties are hilariously hypocritical, and pasted together from various groups on the basis of political expediency rather than any coherent philosophy. Really, because my takeaway is that liberals are driven by a pragmatic desire to solve problems, while conservatives and libertarians are driven simplistic ideologies that sound nice but have no bearing on the real world (taxation is theft!). Biased much? Conservatives do have a disturbing trend of being detached from reality. "Women's bodies fight off rape babies!" "Racism/sexism don't exist anymore!" "Being able to fight three different wars at once is the only way any country can ever be safe!" "Everyone is able to get a job whenever they want, regardless of their circumstance, and pay to move their way up in the world, get an education, and move up in socioeconomic status! I did it, so obviously everyone can!" "Kids can just get jobs anywhere to pay off those student loans, and young kids can just get jobs anywhere and save for college while they're in high school!" I could go on, but you get the point. I would certainly agree that conservatives are more "anti-science". However, liberals also ignore reality when it suits them, ranging from ignoring the criminological literature on gun control, to their obsession with blank slates in spite of biological evidence that nature matters as much as or more than nurture, to pretending that there is a gender wage gap, to ignoring consensus among economists that minimum wage increases unemployment among low-skilled workers. Essentially, every side lies and ignores science in order to support their views, and while I would agree conservatives do it more often, that doesn't excuse liberals either. A number of these examples are sketchy at best - for example, what "criminological literature on gun control"? Contrary to gun control advocates telling us that "gun control lowers violent crime" and gun rights proponents telling us that "gun rights deter violent crime", the consensus in the field of criminology (as reflected by undergraduate level textbooks and literature reviews in peer-reviewed scholarly journals) is that gun control has no proven significant effect (positive or negative) on crime. There's a difference between not having definitely proved causation (which is often a hard task in social sciences) and causation not existing. Plenty of studies have shown a correlation between stricter gun control laws and smaller numbers of gun-related deaths. Your argument here misses the point. Obviously, lower gun availability will reduce gun-related deaths, just like fewer cars will reduce automobile related deaths. The question, however, is whether reducing gun availability would reduce violent crime. Criminological consensus (which focuses on the issue of violent crime, rather than mere gun deaths) concludes that there is insufficient evidence to even justify any sort of cautionary policy change, let alone conclusively prove a causation. The problem America has, when compared to other first-world nations, is not with gun violence. It is with violent crime in general. Even if you removed all instances of gun violence (which is charitable considering that in many cases the violence would simply be carried out through different means), America is still a bizarre outlier in terms of violent crime. The reasons for this are complex, but range from high levels of social stratification, to racial tensions, to the poor public education system, to the War on Drugs, to high rates of teen pregnancy, to the increasing prevalence of single parent households, and so forth. It's a tangled web for which both Democrats and Republicans have much to answer for. It's also not a simple problem that can be fixed (or even helped) by something as narrow as reducing gun availability.
There is no true "consensus" on this topic. You're trying to make this sound like it's just as proven as climate change is, which is complete B.S.
|
Yea, plus I would argue that we have a severe problem with gun violence, as well as violence (although that's been going down). Accidental deaths (and suicides) make up a nontrivial amount of gun deaths in America. That would be evidence of a gun problem, not just a violence problem. Suicides make up the majority of gun deaths.
|
Its a very trivial number of deaths compared to any other health risk in america. Call me a racist but when its black people shooting other black people being the major result of gun violence in america makes its more about black people then guns.
|
On August 14 2013 13:46 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 09:13 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 08:43 sunprince wrote:On August 14 2013 08:17 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 08:06 sunprince wrote:On August 14 2013 07:18 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 14 2013 07:14 sunprince wrote:On August 13 2013 21:32 DoubleReed wrote: The takeaway is that American political parties are hilariously hypocritical, and pasted together from various groups on the basis of political expediency rather than any coherent philosophy. Really, because my takeaway is that liberals are driven by a pragmatic desire to solve problems, while conservatives and libertarians are driven simplistic ideologies that sound nice but have no bearing on the real world (taxation is theft!). Biased much? Conservatives do have a disturbing trend of being detached from reality. "Women's bodies fight off rape babies!" "Racism/sexism don't exist anymore!" "Being able to fight three different wars at once is the only way any country can ever be safe!" "Everyone is able to get a job whenever they want, regardless of their circumstance, and pay to move their way up in the world, get an education, and move up in socioeconomic status! I did it, so obviously everyone can!" "Kids can just get jobs anywhere to pay off those student loans, and young kids can just get jobs anywhere and save for college while they're in high school!" I could go on, but you get the point. I would certainly agree that conservatives are more "anti-science". However, liberals also ignore reality when it suits them, ranging from ignoring the criminological literature on gun control, to their obsession with blank slates in spite of biological evidence that nature matters as much as or more than nurture, to pretending that there is a gender wage gap, to ignoring consensus among economists that minimum wage increases unemployment among low-skilled workers. Essentially, every side lies and ignores science in order to support their views, and while I would agree conservatives do it more often, that doesn't excuse liberals either. A number of these examples are sketchy at best - for example, what "criminological literature on gun control"? Contrary to gun control advocates telling us that "gun control lowers violent crime" and gun rights proponents telling us that "gun rights deter violent crime", the consensus in the field of criminology (as reflected by undergraduate level textbooks and literature reviews in peer-reviewed scholarly journals) is that gun control has no proven significant effect (positive or negative) on crime. There's a difference between not having definitely proved causation (which is often a hard task in social sciences) and causation not existing. Plenty of studies have shown a correlation between stricter gun control laws and smaller numbers of gun-related deaths. Your argument here misses the point. Obviously, lower gun availability will reduce gun-related deaths, just like fewer cars will reduce automobile related deaths. The question, however, is whether reducing gun availability would reduce violent crime. Criminological consensus (which focuses on the issue of violent crime, rather than mere gun deaths) concludes that there is insufficient evidence to even justify any sort of cautionary policy change, let alone conclusively prove a causation. The problem America has, when compared to other first-world nations, is not with gun violence. It is with violent crime in general. Even if you removed all instances of gun violence (which is charitable considering that in many cases the violence would simply be carried out through different means), America is still a bizarre outlier in terms of violent crime. The reasons for this are complex, but range from high levels of social stratification, to racial tensions, to the poor public education system, to the War on Drugs, to high rates of teen pregnancy, to the increasing prevalence of single parent households, and so forth. It's a tangled web for which both Democrats and Republicans have much to answer for. It's also not a simple problem that can be fixed (or even helped) by something as narrow as reducing gun availability.
No, my argument doesn't miss the point, thank you very much. First, lowering the number of gun-related deaths is an objective in itself. Second, "violent crimes" is a large category which includes different possible scenarios - a robbery is not the same as a murder, but they're both violent crimes. If you had 1000 violent crimes per year in a given area, I'm pretty sure most people would rather have 1000 robberies without casualties than 1000 murders or 1000 robberies ending with a homicide. Third, like I was saying, research has shown that there is a significant correlation (again, causation is almost impossible to prove in such areas of study) between high levels of gun ownership and high homicide rates. Here's an academic article reviewing the scientific literature on the topic (don't reply with one study showing no correlation, since as a literature review this precisely takes into account as many of the peer-reviewed studies on the topic as possible): HEPBURN, Lisa; HEMENWAY, David, "Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature", Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal, Vol. 9, No 4, 2004, pp. 417-440.
The available evidence is quite consistent. The few case control studies suggest that households with firearms are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide. International cross-sectional studies of high-income countries find that in countries with more firearms, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide. This result is primarily due to the United States, which has the highest levels of household ownership of private firearms, the weakest gun control laws, and the highest homicide rates. Time series studies of particular cities and states, and for the United States as a whole, suggest a positive gun prevalence-homicide association. Finally, perhaps the strongest evidence comes from cross-sectional analyses of U.S. regions and states. Again, places with higher levels of gun ownership are places with higher homicide rates.
None of the studies can prove causation and none have completely eliminated the possibility that the association might be entirely due to reverse causation or omitted variables. But the available evidence is entirely inconsistent with the hypothesis that increased gun prevalence lowers the homicide rate. Instead, most studies, cross sectional or time series, international or domestic, are consistent with the hypothesis that higher levels of gun prevalence substantially increase the homicide rate.
|
On August 15 2013 00:36 Sermokala wrote:
Its a very trivial number of deaths compared to any other health risk in america. Call me a racist but when its black people shooting other black people being the major result of gun violence in america makes its more about black people then guns.
Think poor people would be a better distinction then black people. Poor people are often black or hispanic but what makes them use guns against other people more often is not the fact that they are black or hispanic, but the fact that they are poor,live in bad nabourhoods and dont see a good future for themselves.
Reason for the high crime rate in the usa is the huge difference between rich and poor.
|
On August 15 2013 01:19 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2013 00:36 Sermokala wrote:
Its a very trivial number of deaths compared to any other health risk in america. Call me a racist but when its black people shooting other black people being the major result of gun violence in america makes its more about black people then guns. Think poor people would be a better distinction then black people. Poor people are often black or hispanic but what makes them use guns against other people more often is not the fact that they are black or hispanic, but the fact that they are poor,live in bad nabourhoods and dont see a good future for themselves. Reason for the high crime rate in the usa is the huge difference between rich and poor.
I don't think so. Crime in the US peaked back in the late 80's / early 90's, inequality didn't.
Poverty plays a role for sure, but so do a whole host of other social issues including mental illness and drug use.
|
On August 14 2013 21:54 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +The fact that they defend the rights of conservatives doesn't change the fact that they are pushing a liberal agenda. Just like conservatives defending the "religious rights" of liberals doesn't change the fact that they are pushing a conservative agenda. Oh my god that may be the worst equivocation I have ever heard on this forum. And it came from you, not xDaunt or Danglars. The ACLU defended Rush Limbaugh in court. They've defended NAMBLA in court. They've defended Nazis in court. They defended the Chickfila guy when he said that anti-gay stuff. Not nominally. They have lawyers at the ready. That was some prime cut bullshit, dude. Wow.
I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse, or if you're simply so worked up into a foaming frenzy of liberal rage that your reading comprehension skills have been impacted.
If a conservative defends a liberal's gun rights, that conservative is still pushing a conservative agenda.
If a liberal defends a conservative's abortion rights, that liberal is still pushing a liberal agenda.
In other words, the actual person being defended is immaterial, because the actual goal is to defend a political/legal perspective.
On August 14 2013 21:54 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +You betray your ignorance of the situation. Try reading up on the situation, so that you may understand how the ACLU is defending policies that undermine due process. Not to mention the fact that sexual assault cases should be left to the actual criminal justice system in the first place, rather than being prosecuted by ideologically appointed undergraduates. Again, this isn't some hidden agenda of the ACLU. They defend Title IX and are trying to ensure that colleges are doing what they are supposed to be doing to protect women from sexual assault on campus. Failure to do this is considered sex discrimination.
You either did not read the article I linked, or you didn't understand it.
TL;DR: the ACLU is not defending Title IX, but a specific interpretation of Title IX by the Department of Education's "Dear Colleague" letter. The Dept. of Education is essentially pushing universities to punish students who have been accused of sexual assault but not determined to be guilty by the criminal justice system, or even in cases in which they have been found not guilty. The Dept. of Education is pushing for universities to use the preponderance of evidence standard in the universities' own investigations of sexual assault cases, instead of the standard guilty beyond a reasonable doubt standard employed in criminal cases. The Dept. of Education is more or less demanding that universities increase the number of students they punish for sexual assault, regardless of actual proven guilt, to inflate sexual assault numbers to match the epidemic that they perceive exists (or that exists in the minds of certain influential political groups).
Aside from the fact that university judicial processes should leave serious matters like sexual assault to law enforcement and the criminal justice system in the first place, this is a massive violation of due process on the part of the students who are targeted. Expelling students who have been found innocent by criminal courts of law is not sex discrimination, but a simple violation of their rights. Considering that the ACLU is supposed to support due process rights, this is absurdly hypocritical.
On August 14 2013 21:54 DoubleReed wrote:
Man, it like really bothers you that people might disagree with your MRA-like stances.
You're extremely desperate to categorize people into ideological boxes, so that you can dismiss their arguments via guilty by association and throw around pre-built talking points and shaming tactics. Newsflash: not everyone fits inside your little boxes. You should stop projecting; just because you're a die-hard liberal who supports liberal ideology without question doesn't mean that everyone else is an ideologue too.
On August 14 2013 21:54 DoubleReed wrote:
It sounds like anything you disagree with is dismissed as "ideological." When I say ideological, I just mean in contrast to pragmatic. I don't really consider them good or bad. And the ACLU actually is more on the pragmatic side with many of their stances, because a lot of what they argue is specific implementations.
By "ideological", I mean it in the sense of "political ideology" (since we are, after all, discussing politics). In the American context of political debate, this refers to the set of ideas pushed by major political groups. I therefore use "ideology" in contrast to "rational and consistent", because the ideology of political groups often reflects post-hoc justification for practical political alliances rather than any rational, consistent set of ethical principles.
On August 14 2013 21:54 DoubleReed wrote:
Which I'm sure bothers you, being a libertarian who favors a simplistic and unrealistic ideology. You don't like pragmatism. Like in AA, you even said that the efficacy doesn't matter. Well, I and the ACLU disagree. Efficacy does matter.
I'm actually quite fond of pragmatism. However, "pragmatic" doesn't allow us to ignore constitutionality. How much efficacy a given government policy has is irrelevant to whether or not it is constitutional, and thus, permissible. Summary execution of all accused criminals might be an "effective" means of reducing crime, but that doesn't mean it's acceptable.
The ACLU actually argued my exact position very recently in the case of New York's stop-and-frisk policy. They argued (and the judge concurred) that although the stop-and-frisk policy might be effective at reducing crime, it is not acceptable because it violates constitutional rights to equal protection, privacy, and protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
|
On August 15 2013 01:19 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2013 00:36 Sermokala wrote:
Its a very trivial number of deaths compared to any other health risk in america. Call me a racist but when its black people shooting other black people being the major result of gun violence in america makes its more about black people then guns. Think poor people would be a better distinction then black people. Poor people are often black or hispanic but what makes them use guns against other people more often is not the fact that they are black or hispanic, but the fact that they are poor,live in bad nabourhoods and dont see a good future for themselves. Reason for the high crime rate in the usa is the huge difference between rich and poor.
Surprisingly, evidence seems to go against this. For instance, during the Great Recession, violent crime went down, not up. Because violent crime has been consistently going down for some decades now. People have theories, but no one is quite sure why.
One study that was quite interesting was the study that linked environmental lead to violent crime. It actually correlated incredibly strongly with the timescale and geography. It's kind of weird to think of it as an environmental concern.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
