@parados,
parados wrote:
Quote:A corporation IS a person.
The NRA is a corporation.
This raises an interesting problem David..
If the corporation is a person then they are also covered by the equal rights clause. That would mean a corporation can't be denied voting rights. I think this may leave the way open for some smart lawyer to argue that corporations are entitled to voting, owning guns and religious freedom.
I would love to see the USSC judges that vote to give voting rights to corporations. I wonder how long they would last on the bench.
What 's the difference? GM gets a vote, GE gets a vote, so what ?
The judges survived on the bench after insulting our intelligences
in
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942),
and in Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore
and in the Slaughterhouse Cases; I think that shows thay r immune no matter what.
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:There shouldn’t be. In these United States the Supreme Court of the land, NOT the legislature has the final say... and short of a constitutional amendment (that would never fly) this will remain the case.
This becomes quite simple then Bill
Amendment to Constitution
No corporation shall be afforded the rights of American Citizens granted in this constitution. Congress shall have the power to restrict or allow corporate rights as it deems fit.
@OmSigDAVID,
The difference David is I can personally incorporate 100 corporations and then get 100 votes.
@parados,
parados wrote:The difference David is I can personally incorporate 100 corporations and then get 100 votes.
Speculative theory; if that happens we can cross that bridge when we get there.
I seem to recall the 'corporate person' as being the original legal fiction.
@parados,
parados wrote:
Quote:There shouldn’t be. In these United States the Supreme Court of the land, NOT the legislature has the final say... and short of a constitutional amendment (that would never fly) this will remain the case.
This becomes quite simple then Bill
Amendment to Constitution
No corporation shall be afforded the rights of American Citizens granted in this constitution. Congress shall have the power to restrict or allow corporate rights as it deems fit.
There is nothing simple about amending the constitution, Parados. That's why it so seldom happens.
Besides, corporate personhood is usually beneficial. It affords multi-state corporations some continuity in dealing with the various states and other entities within them. Remove it, and you'd have an awful lot of work to do re-writing who knows how many bills. What precisely is your objection to corporate personhood anyway?
@parados,
Quote:Amendment to Constitution
No corporation shall be afforded the rights of American Citizens granted in this constitution. Congress shall have the power to restrict or allow corporate rights as it deems fit.
ASAP. Congress will attempt to pass legislation to damped the harm of this idiotic Supreme ruling, but we can't put this to rights without a Constitutional Amendment. Given the mood of the people, how sick we are of money held by the wealthy being used corrupt our democratic institutions and to subvert the will of the people, this Amendment will be created rapidly.
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:Quote:Amendment to Constitution
No corporation shall be afforded the rights of American Citizens granted in this constitution. Congress shall have the power to restrict or allow corporate rights as it deems fit.
ASAP. Congress will attempt to pass legislation to damped the harm of this idiotic Supreme ruling, but we can't put this to rights without a Constitutional Amendment. Given the mood of the people, how sick we are of money held by the wealthy being used corrupt our democratic institutions and to subvert the will of the people, this Amendment will be created rapidly.
The First Amendment will not be thrown out.
If it
were, then we might just as well invite the North Koreans to take over.
@OmSigDAVID,
nor should it be, but we will put down into the Constitution that corporations are not people, and are not afforded constitutional rights.
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:nor should it be, but we will put down into the Constitution that corporations are not people,
and are not afforded constitutional rights.
I 'd fight that as well as possible.
I doubt that it will become necessary.
@hawkeye10,
Hmmm, I'm going to have to agree with OccomBill here that there's nothing 'rapid' about amending the Constitution. If I'm not mistaken, ratification by at least 2/3 of the States is required and that could take decades.
There are simpler, less complicated remedies left to the voters. I can think of several.
@Irishk,
it only takes time if there is doubt about the need for action. I see no reason why this cant get done in a couple of years.
I however dont have a problem with it taking longer, if we use the corporate freedom to corrupt to drive the effort to correct the constitution, if we point out how this flawed Supreme ruling harms us over the next few years. Significant long term harm does not happen right away, if we instituted the fix with-in a decade I would be happy.
@hawkeye10,
Well, the last amendment (the twenty-seventh) was ratified in 1992. That one only took a little over 202 years LOL.
@Irishk,
Irishk wrote:
Hmmm, I'm going to have to agree with OccomBill here that there's nothing 'rapid' about amending the Constitution. If I'm not mistaken, ratification by at least 2/3 of the States is required and that could take decades.
There are simpler, less complicated remedies left to the voters. I can think of several.
Ratification would be required by 3/4 of the states after it was approved by 2/3's of both houses of Congress (in other words, "when pigs fly." )
Such an amendment would be unconstitutionally vague on its face, and therefore be unenforceable anyway. I’ve further heard not one person forward a valid reason to bar the consideration in the first place. In most scenarios I can dream up; the majority of people would want a corporation treated as a person anyway (discrimination dispute, property tax dispute, libel, bankruptcy, etc.) The idea of revisiting mountains of case law with an insistence that no opinion involving a natural person should be interpreted to include a “corporate person” is really pretty silly.
For anyone unclear about the mechanism for amending the constitution, this is Article Five of the constitution, in its entirety, which treats of the amendment of the constitution:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
For those who are mystified by the first clause of the last sentence, it protects slavery.
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:For those who are mystified by the first clause of the last sentence, it protects slavery.
You meant
protected slavery, of course, since it has obviously expired.
@OCCOM BILL,
You get the nit-picking prize for this subject.
When discussing the constitution, i have always felt that it is essential to know just what the constitution reads. I offered the text on that basis.
@Setanta,
Much appreciated. I meant no offense.
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:nor should it be, but we will put down into the Constitution that corporations are not people,
and are not afforded constitutional rights.
The special interest groups must be stoutly protected or we shud just
FORGET about democracy.
Its humorous; I very seldom listen to Rush,
but I did so today because of this case.
He said this woud really have u liberals seething.
He was
RIGHT.
The Constitution is
SAFE.
I have nothing to worry about.
Multiple be the chuckles !
David
@OmSigDAVID,
corporations are special interests with the primary objective of extracting wealth from the collective, which is not a worthy endeavor. They should not be afforded constitutional rights.
