15
   

FREEDOM IS RESTORED: 1st AMENDMENT WINS!

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 01:48 am
@OCCOM BILL,
Very well said, Bill; a work of beauty



David
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 08:09 am
@engineer,
Some states are looking to get around this engineer by no longer having open judicial elections.

The governor appoints justices. They are then voted only on whether to retain the seat or not. No one can run for the seat. A majority of those that voted in the election have to vote to remove them. Once removed the governor would appoint someone to the open seat. Not a perfect solution but it would prevent buying judge seats.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 08:32 am
@parados,
I've heard of that system. It sounds better than open elections.
0 Replies
 
yrjohnnyc
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 12:10 am
This country, through USSC findings and decisions is indulging in a legal fiction that gives corporations legal personhood. Corporations are "legal" people. You and I are "natural" people.

As "natural" persons we have a right to free speech. But as "legal" persons should corporations have those same rights?

The "corporate personhood" argument is at the bottom of this issue.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 12:26 am
@yrjohnnyc,
Quote:
The "corporate personhood" argument is at the bottom of this issue.


Do you have a position to offer, or did you just decide that we need a teacher around here???
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 02:37 am
@yrjohnnyc,
yrjohnnyc wrote:
This country, through USSC findings and decisions is indulging in a legal fiction
that gives corporations legal personhood.
Corporations are "legal" people. You and I are "natural" people.

As "natural" persons we have a right to free speech. But as "legal" persons
should corporations have those same rights?

The "corporate personhood" argument is at the bottom of this issue.
MORE Fundamental than that
is the fact that Congress is commanded by the Instrument of its creation,
its father and mother: the US Constitution, that:
"Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW . . . abrigding the freedom of speech,
or of the press . . . "; but Congress DID IT ANYWAY,
in rebellion against the Constitution and its Founders.

The correct thing for Congress to have done
was to say: "we cannot consider this, inasmuch as we have NO
jurisdiction
over freedom of speech nor of the press.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 07:05 am
Based on the idea of "no taxation without representation", then if you tax corporations (which we do), then doesn't that imply that they are entitled to a vote (representation)?

OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 07:55 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
Based on the idea of "no taxation without representation",
then if you tax corporations (which we do), then doesn't that imply
that they are entitled to a vote (representation)?
Yeah; makes sense to me. Let 's give @ corporation a vote,
to be decided by shareholders, or by their elected board of directors.
Any citizen who is held to comply with the law
has a moral right to vote for those who enact those laws.

Legislation can be enacted for severe criminal penalties
for creating corporations just for their vote alone.



David
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 08:20 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Based on the idea of "no taxation without representation",
then if you tax corporations (which we do), then doesn't that imply
that they are entitled to a vote (representation)?
Yeah; makes sense to me. Let 's give @ corporation a vote,
to be decided by shareholders, or by their elected board of directors.
Any citizen who is held to comply with the law
has a moral right to vote for those who enact those laws.

And it follows then that every small LLC that is taxed should also get a vote (even though many of them are composed of 1 or 2 individuals), thus giving many individuals 2 votes instead of 1.

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Legislation can be enacted for severe criminal penalties for creating corporations just for their vote alone.

First, it would be impossible to prove that an LLC existed solely for voting purposes. Too many LLC's exist in anticipation of possible future business (most local contractors).
Secondly, all any LLC would need to do would be to generate revenue which was taxed, and once taxed, they would be entitled to representation.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 08:35 am
@rosborne979,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Based on the idea of "no taxation without representation",
then if you tax corporations (which we do), then doesn't that imply
that they are entitled to a vote (representation)?
Yeah; makes sense to me. Let 's give @ corporation a vote,
to be decided by shareholders, or by their elected board of directors.
Any citizen who is held to comply with the law
has a moral right to vote for those who enact those laws.

rosborne979 wrote:
And it follows then that every small LLC that is taxed should also get a vote
(even though many of them are composed of 1 or 2 individuals),
thus giving many individuals 2 votes instead of 1.

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Legislation can be enacted for severe criminal penalties for creating corporations just for their vote alone.

rosborne979 wrote:
First, it would be impossible to prove that an LLC existed solely for voting purposes.
OK; it 'll be a question of fact, for the jury.



rosborne979 wrote:
Too many LLC's exist in anticipation of possible future business (most local contractors).
Secondly, all any LLC would need to do would be to generate revenue which was taxed, and once taxed,
they would be entitled to representation.
Yeah; it shoud be fun. It will make Election Day more worthwhile than it has been.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 08:47 am
@OmSigDAVID,
At least you are consistent in your interpretation of things.

What would you say if each citizen formed multiple LLC's and each one generated some tiny dribble of revenue. Many people control multiple LLC's already, and many of them are also employees of corporations run by others.

A single individual could end up having one vote for themselves, one vote for each LLC they run and a contributing vote in any corporation that employs them.

If we project the logical expansion of such a system, is it politically functional?
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 08:50 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
First, it would be impossible to prove that an LLC existed solely for voting purposes.
OK; it 'll be a question of fact, for the jury.

The lawyers will love that. Lots of court cases to litigate (millions of them, for every election). The entire population of the US could spend more time sitting on jury's than working.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 10:43 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
At least you are consistent in your interpretation of things.
I do my best.



rosborne979 wrote:
What would you say if each citizen formed multiple LLC's
and each one generated some tiny dribble of revenue.
If challenged, it will be an issue of fact for the jury,
as to whether @ corporation was created to get an extra vote.
I can 't see "each citizen" doing that.




rosborne979 wrote:
Many people control multiple LLC's already,
and many of them are also employees of corporations run by others.
One vote for @ person, natural or corporate


rosborne979 wrote:
A single individual could end up having one vote for themselves,
one vote for each LLC they run and a contributing vote
in any corporation that employs them.
A vote is a POLICY decision,
for owners or management, not for employees.

rosborne979 wrote:
If we project the logical expansion of such a system, is it politically functional?
I dunno, but I believe that it will not result in millions of new votes.
I doubt that there r so many corporations.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 11:26 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
What would you say if each citizen formed multiple LLC's and each one generated some tiny dribble of revenue.
If challenged, it will be an issue of fact for the jury,
as to whether @ corporation was created to get an extra vote.
I can 't see "each citizen" doing that.

Well, maybe not "each" citizen, but I can certainly see a lot of citizens doing that. Especially the ones who have more wealth.
OmSigDAVID wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
Many people control multiple LLC's already, and many of them are also employees of corporations run by others.
One vote for @ person, natural or corporate

I own two corporations already and I'm the sole proprietor. Each generate revenue and each are taxed. Should I get three votes?

OmSigDAVID wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
A single individual could end up having one vote for themselves,
one vote for each LLC they run and a contributing vote
in any corporation that employs them.
A vote is a POLICY decision, for owners or management, not for employees.

That remains to be seen. As it stands now there are no rules defining how a corporation wants to generate their "vote". And since you are a First Amendment Absolutist, to be consistent in your interpretation, I assume that you would want a corporation to have the freedom to define for itself how it generates it's "vote".

OmSigDAVID wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
If we project the logical expansion of such a system, is it politically functional?
I dunno, but I believe that it will not result in millions of new votes. I doubt that there r so many corporations.

There are probably more corporations than you realize. And there's no reason to think there wouldn't be more. But don't you need to anticipate the theoretical effect of the law, not just it's possible result?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 12:33 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
I own two corporations already and I'm the sole proprietor.
Each generate revenue and each are taxed.
Should I get three votes?
Yes; I thawt we had established that.


OmSigDAVID wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
A single individual could end up having one vote for themselves,
one vote for each LLC they run and a contributing vote
in any corporation that employs them.
A vote is a POLICY decision, for owners or management, not for employees.

rosborne979 wrote:
That remains to be seen. As it stands now there are no rules
defining how a corporation wants to generate their "vote".
And since you are a First Amendment Absolutist,
[YES; 2nd AMENDMENT, also]
to be consistent in your interpretation,
I assume that you would want a corporation to have the freedom
to define for itself how it generates it's "vote".
Yes; some owners have been very generous,
giving employees free trips around the world on classy ships, etc.
If the owner chooses to, he can cast the vote according to
the consensus of his employees; maybe take a vote.
It seems like much ado about nothing; or much ado about one vote.

If I feel like it, I can ask around and cast my vote
according to the consensus in my naaborhood.





rosborne979 wrote:
There are probably more corporations than you realize. And there's no reason to think there wouldn't be more. But don't you need to anticipate the theoretical effect of the law, not just it's possible result?
Yes, but that will not cause me to be untruthful about the proper logical operation of how the law plays out.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 01:15 pm
I would like to know in what world is a made-up corporate entity the equivalent of a person, and how the **** anyone can justify that bullshit. Seriously, how did it ever come to be that we give a corporation the same rights as a person? Corporations are not people, and money is not speech.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 01:16 pm
@kickycan,
kickycan wrote:

I would like to know in what world is a made-up corporate entity the equivalent of a person, and how the **** anyone can justify that bullshit. Seriously, how did it ever come to be that we give a corporation the same rights as a person? Corporations are not people, and money is not speech.


Damn right. Unfortunately the SC disagrees with you from a legal standpoint and these jokers have run as far as possible with that idea.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 01:26 pm
@kickycan,
kickycan wrote:
I would like to know in what world is a made-up corporate entity the equivalent of a person,
U know dam well, its THIS ONE.

kickycan wrote:
and how the **** anyone can justify that bullshit.
Seriously, how did it ever come to be that we give a corporation the same rights as a person?
U can research the history of corporations as well as anyone.


kickycan wrote:
Corporations are not people, and money is not speech.
Well, not everyone sees everything your way.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 02:31 pm
@kickycan,
kickycan wrote:

I would like to know in what world is a made-up corporate entity the equivalent of a person, and how the **** anyone can justify that bullshit. Seriously, how did it ever come to be that we give a corporation the same rights as a person? Corporations are not people, and money is not speech.

I think the government Kind of opened this can-o-worms when they started taxing corporations. The idea of "no taxation without representation" tends to imply that corporations have all the rights of representation that an individual does.

Churches as barred from political activity, but they are also exempt from taxation. I'm not sure the government can have it both ways. Maybe the root of the problem here lies with the tax code.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 02:41 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
On this matter I see it kicky's way. And I know we have a corporate manslaughter trial underway in France over the Concorde crash.

But they can't sentence the corporations to jail. Nor, harking back, to a whipping.

It's merely a legal device to ease the pain of those who lost loved ones in the accident, or Act of God. Which cannot be now we live in a Godless world. It must be somebody's fault now and thus compensation is due.

Not long ago, a coach crash down a ravine say, the locals would have rifled all the pockets and baggage, carried off the bits of coach they fancied and left the rest to nature. All that was known of them was that they never arrived. By the time a skull fetched up on a sandbank downstream, which the barefoot rascals played ball games with, all the inheritances had been settled and many an offspring catapulted into a mansion etc unexpectedly with the grief subsiding because only rich people travelled in coaches near ravines wheras all the Concorde passengers were in debt, or enough of them to cause this legal device to arise, and fingering the human being who the blame could be fastened to was nigh impossible, except in the most extreme flagrant cases, as the corporation has a system where every back is covered to avoid this very thing, being personally fingered.

If you thought the corporation is concerned with the safety of their customers, as their spokespersons, the PR team, so loudly proclaim, perhaps rather too loudly, you might have been slightly hoodwinked into overlooking that it is more covering the arse that actually leads to improved safety and not good intentions.

So it's easy to see how much we have progressed in such a short time under the Christian dispensation with its moral injunction to love thy neighbour.

In a little older days that coaches the rush to an earthquake was motivated exclusively by easy pickings.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/17/2024 at 09:01:13