• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

misterman said:
And I say again, it is irrelevant to freedom of speech, as restrictions on it are illegal regardless of who is speaking. And anyway, the First Amendment recognizes rights that it would be awful hard not to apply to groups, such as churches or newspapers.

But however you want to think about it is fine with me. I accept your statement.
Click to expand...

Newspapers are often incorporated companies. Churches are protected by the constitution by freedom of religion.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
It's judicial activism. It's as if the court had made a new law concerning the right of free speech. I think it is up to congress to decide what "is" free speech.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with judicial activism.

No, it is very much NOT just Congress's power alone to decide what is free speech. You are questioning the idea of judicial review. The courts have many times protected individuals from unjust laws using this power. You should know better.

Corporations are granted special privileges and immunities by corporate law.

For example. If you are a corporation and you break a law, you as a person running the corporation can not be tried for certain crimes. The corporations are tried, not individual people, even though they are the actual ones who caused the crime. Why should they get special privileges?
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech isn't a special privilege, it's a right.

And by the way, the corporation being tried for a crime has the same legal rights in the trial an individual would have.

If a small business owner owns a company he can usually get sued for his own personal wealth. This is against the basic american principle of equality.
Click to expand...

Small business owners can form corporations too, and most do. This is not about big vs. small.

Also, the stockholders, who are people, are not permitted to exercise their free speech when it comes to running the corporation.
Click to expand...

They're not? Where'd you get that idea?
 
Coronado said:
:crazy3:No, actually it is the court's job to interpret law and the Constitution.

If the small business owner is a sole proprietorship, that is true. But any small business owner with two brain cells to rub together incorporates his business and keeps separate books for the exact reason that it protects their personal property from being forfeited in any action against the business.

They exercise their speech every year at election time.
Click to expand...

Right, only at election time. Some time this does not give them the right before the elections.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Corporations are granted special privileges and immunities by corporate law.
Click to expand...

If corporations cannot have rights, then how can "they" be given special privileges and immunities? And what are these privileges and immunities you're referring to?

Please provide specific answers to both of my questions.

For example. If you are a corporation and you break a law...
Click to expand...

Again, the language you're using is totally contradictory. You previously asserted that corporations are incapable of possessing rights because they are nothing more than legal entities, yet you assume "they" are somehow capable of breaking the law.

How can a legal entity with no rights break the law or be given privileges?

...you as a person running the corporation can not be tried for certain crimes. The corporations are tried, not individual people, even though they are the actual ones who caused the crime. Why should they get special privileges?
Click to expand...

Do you have any specific examples of this happening? What happened to the executives at Enron and WorldCom?

If a small business owner owns a company he can usually get sued for his own personal wealth. This is against the basic american principle of equality.
Click to expand...

A lot of small business owners are corporations, too.

Also, the stockholders, who are people, are not permitted to exercise their free speech when it comes to running the country. So, in this case free speech for an entity [corporation], trumps the people [stock holders.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely false. The stockholders have many ways of influencing a corporation's operations, the most obvious of which is withdrawing their investment.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
It's judicial activism. It's as if the court had made a new law concerning the right of free speech. I think it is up to congress to decide what "is" free speech.

Corporations are granted special privileges and immunities by corporate law.

For example. If you are a corporation and you break a law, you as a person running the corporation can not be tried for certain crimes. The corporations are tried, not individual people, even though they are the actual ones who caused the crime. Why should they get special privileges?

If a small business owner owns a company he can usually get sued for his own personal wealth. This is against the basic american principle of equality.

Also, the stockholders, who are people, are not permitted to exercise their free speech when it comes to running the corporation. So, in this case free speech for an entity [corporation], trumps the free speech of people [stock holders.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is judicial activism, and there is no denying this fact. Alito, Roberts, and the rightests in the SCOTUS are nothing but severants of the right wing conspiracy to allow business to lie, cheat, steal, rape, and buy politicians without consequences.

The left is just as bad there is no denying that either. It's time to return the government to the people and kick business the **** out of Washington.

It's time for big business to be removed from any contact with government.

It's time for lobbyists to be banned from politics. It's time to cut the balls of these big business ********ers once and for all. The same applies for the unions.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Right, only at election time. Some time this does not give them the right before the elections.
Click to expand...
What more rights do stockholders need? They elect directors, and if they don't like how the comapny is going, they can sell their stock or call for an election.

Have you ever owned stock?
 
LiberalAvenger said:
I feel like we are going in circles on this one.:)
Click to expand...

You noted that newspapers are often incorporated, yet have rights, and that churches, which are groups, have rights. I don't see how that supports your idea that corporations don't rights.
 
misterman said:
And I say again, it is irrelevant to freedom of speech, as restrictions on it are illegal regardless of who is speaking. And anyway, the First Amendment recognizes rights that it would be awful hard not to apply to groups, such as churches or newspapers.

But however you want to think about it is fine with me. I accept your statement.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on the issue of free speech. I just thought you were arguing a specific point from a faulty premise. Forgive my nitpicking...:2razz:
 
Last edited:
Vader said:
Yes, it is judicial activism, and there is no denying this fact.
Click to expand...

I deny it.

Define judicial activism please, so we are all on the same page.

The left is just as bad there is no denying that either. It's time to return the government to the people and kick business the **** out of Washington.
Click to expand...

Fine. The people still have the only votes and control all elections, shouldn't be hard.

It's time for big business to be removed from any contact with government.
Click to expand...

:roll:

It's time for lobbyists to be banned from politics.
Click to expand...

Lobbying is also protected by the First Amendment. And you have a lobbyist representing you too, for something. I gaurantee it.

It's time to cut the balls of these big business ********ers once and for all. The same applies for the unions.
Click to expand...

It's time for you to take your meds.
 
Ethereal said:
I'm agree with you on the issue of free speech. I just thought you were arguing a specific point from a faulty premise. Forgive my nitpicking...:2razz:
Click to expand...

No problem.
 
misterman said:
You noted that newspapers are often incorporated, yet have rights, and that churches, which are groups, have rights. I don't see how that supports your idea that corporations don't rights.
Click to expand...

Churches don't have rights. The individual has right to free practice and expression of religion as well as association. The Press is specifically covered in the 1st amendment and is again a guarantee for the People. Corporations themselves do not have rights, the individuals in a company certainly do; but not the corporation itself.
 
Ethereal said:
If corporations cannot have rights, then how can "they" be given special privileges and immunities? And what are these privileges and immunities you're referring to?

Please provide specific answers to both of my questions.



Again, the language you're using is totally contradictory. You previously asserted that corporations are incapable of possessing rights because they are nothing more than legal entities, yet you assume "they" are somehow capable of breaking the law.

How can a legal entity with no rights break the law or be given privileges?



Do you have any specific examples of this happening? What happened to the executives at Enron and WorldCom?



A lot of small business owners are corporations, too.



This is absolutely false. The stockholders have many ways of influencing a corporation's operations, the most obvious of which is withdrawing their investment.
Click to expand...

Approach the bench your honor. Call for a short recess. I can not answer your prolix questions like three minute oatmeal.

I will answer but actually it is up to you to prove my assertion wrong. The burden of proff is on you not me. But I will answer.

I need a cigarette and some rice crispies right now.
 
Vader said:
Yes, it is judicial activism, and there is no denying this fact. Alito, Roberts, and the rightests in the SCOTUS are nothing but severants of the right wing conspiracy to allow business to lie, cheat, steal, rape, and buy politicians without consequences.

The left is just as bad there is no denying that either. It's time to return the government to the people and kick business the **** out of Washington.

It's time for big business to be removed from any contact with government.

It's time for lobbyists to be banned from politics. It's time to cut the balls of these big business ********ers once and for all. The same applies for the unions.
Click to expand...

Seriously, would you shut up? You're offering nothing in the way of substantive or intelligent analysis. You just keep regurgitating the same inane talking points over and over again. So, unless you actually want to demonstrate (not claim) that this decision will result in corporations "buying" politicians, please cease with your infantile blather.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Approach the bench your honor. Call for a short recess. I can not answer your prolix questions like three minute oatmeal.

I will answer but actually it is up to you to prove my assertion wrong. The burden of proff is on you not me. But I will answer.

I need a cigarette and some rice crispies right now.
Click to expand...

Good grief. Are you even remotely familiar with the protocols of a debate? How does the onus fall upon me to disprove your assertion?

If I assert that you're a rank simpleton, does the onus fall upon you to disprove my assertion?

My! What a wonderful debate tactic! Let me try!!!

Hey everyone! I'm right about everything. Every opinion I've every espoused is absolutely 100% correct, and if you disagree with me even in the slightest, the onus falls upon you to disprove my assertions.

Haha!!! I'm God now! You hear!? Disprove me! I dare you!
 
Your honor. I had my smoke and cereal and now I'm sleepy. I feel like, "I'm wasted and I can't find my way home. Vader can take my place for a while. Thank you vader.:)
 
misterman said:
I deny it.

Define judicial activism please, so we are all on the same page.
Click to expand...

Judicial Activism is when a judge intentionally decides a particular way in a case because doing so furthers his/her political interests.

Since Roberts and Alito are behind this rather poor decision (and we all know which party those two assclowns work for) we can rest quite assured that the interests of big business were placed over those of the people.


misterman said:
Lobbying is also protected by the First Amendment. And you have a lobbyist representing you too, for something. I gaurantee it.
Click to expand...

Ummm... somehow I doubt the framers of the constitution intended to protect big business special interst groups and their cronies.

Big business needs to be removed from government. PERIOD.

misterman said:
It's time for you to take your meds.
Click to expand...

That was a rather unwarranted personal attack.

:mrgreen:
 
Ethereal said:
Good grief. Are you even remotely familiar with the protocols of a debate? How does the onus fall upon me to disprove your assertion?

If I assert that you're a rank simpleton, does the onus fall upon you to disprove my assertion?

My! What a wonderful debate tactic! Let me try!!!

Hey everyone! I'm right about everything. Every opinion I've every espoused is absolutely 100% correct, and if you disagree with me even in the slightest, the onus falls upon you to disprove my assertions.

Haha!!! I'm God now! You hear!? Disprove me! I dare you!
Click to expand...

Burden of proof
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the evidentiary concept in common law jurisprudence. For other uses, see Burden of proof (disambiguation).

Evidence
Part of the common law series
Types of evidence
Testimony · Documentary
Physical / Real · Digital
Exculpatory · Scientific
Demonstrative
Eyewitness identification
Genetic (DNA) · Lies
Relevance
Burden of proof · Laying a foundation
Public policy exclusions
Character · Habit · Similar fact
Authentication
Chain of custody
Judicial notice · Best evidence rule
Self-authenticating document
Ancient document
Witnesses
Competence · Privilege
Direct examination · Cross-examination · Redirect
Impeachment · Recorded recollection
Expert witness · Dead Man's Statute
Hearsay and exceptions
in English law · in United States law
Confessions · Business records
Excited utterance · Dying declaration
Party admission · Ancient document
Declaration against interest
Present sense impression · Res gestae
Learned treatise · Implied assertion
Other common law areas
Contract · Tort · Property
Wills, trusts and estates
Criminal law
v • d • e
The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to shift the accepted conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position. The burden of proof may only be fulfilled by evidence.
The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which seems to be: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges." This is a statement of a version of the presumption of innocence that underpins the assessment of evidence in some legal systems, and is not a general statement of when one takes on the burden of proof. The burden of proof tends to lie with anyone who is arguing against received wisdom, but does not always, as sometimes the consequences of accepting a statement or the ease of gathering evidence in its defense might alter the burden of proof its proponents shoulder. The burden may also be assigned institutionally.
He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party.
The burden of proof is an especially important issue in law and science.

Talk to ya later:2wave:
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Your honor. I had my smoke and cereal and now I'm sleepy. I feel like, "I'm wasted and I can't find my way home. Vader can take my place for a while. Thank you vader.:)
Click to expand...

Neither of you have contributed anything worth reading thus far. Just a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions and wild insinuations.
 
Coronado said:
What more rights do stockholders need? They elect directors, and if they don't like how the comapny is going, they can sell their stock or call for an election.

Have you ever owned stock?
Click to expand...

Chicken stock which I use to make chicken and dumplings.:)
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Look in the mirror.:)
Click to expand...

You're just a troll. You make claims, refuse to back them up, and have the nerve to suggest it's somehow my responsibility to refute assertions you failed to substantiate.

Either provide evidence in support of your assertions or stop wasting our time.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Chicken stock which I use to make chicken and dumplings.:)
Click to expand...

Mayhap you should purchase stock in chicken feet exporters. I hear the Chinese like the large feet our chicken growers produce.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom