View Poll Results: Should Corproations have "personhood" rights?

Voters
99. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, corporations are just like a person

    18 18.18%
  • No, corporations are not just like a person

    81 81.82%
Page 35 of 71 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 710

Thread: Corporate Personhood

  1. #341
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

    There is only one period in that paragraph. This indicates that all things in the paragraph are related to what is be said.
    Yes, it means Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. Since it does not specify "of people", Congress cannot pass a law forbidding your dog to make political speech.

    Slanderous speech is something else, your dog can be sued for slander. But if he's barking for a candidate, Congress can't muzzle him.

  2. #342
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    OK, after 8 pages of you saying that and me explaining it to you, I'll give it one more shot.
    You explained nothing. This is your first try. Don't just give up now, I'm willing to have a good debate if you are.

    Your argument seems to be that since the first amendment doesn't say only people have free speech then it should apply to... "anything". You happen to be arguing for corporations in place of "anything"

    BY YOUR OWN LOGIC. My truck has free speech. My dog has free speech.
    Sure, your truck has freedom of speech. The next time it speaks, let us know.

    Seriously - let's look at this. Yes, the Constitution says that Congress cannot make a law restricting the freedom of speech of your truck. When and if it makes such a law, and you sue on behalf of your truck, the courts will strike it down. But you really don't have to worry about it, as you know.

    I could play this game too - a dead person is still a person, so by your logic dead people have freedom of speech. Babies have freedom of speech because they are persons, even before they learn to speak. Mute people have freedom of speech too.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

    There is only one period in that paragraph. This indicates that all things in the paragraph are related to what is be said.
    Oooh, nice try. But no. They said exactly what they meant, in the order they meant.

    Would you say that only people have freedom of religion, meaning that the government could shut down a church since a church is a group and not a person? Would you say the government could shut down a newspaper because it's not a person?
    Last edited by misterman; 01-25-10 at 08:40 PM.

  3. #343
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 11:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,320

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Like homes, cars, wallets and backpacks, corporations are extensions of the person. It's not that the corporation has its own rights, it's that the corporation is a part of a person or persons who have those rights.
    That's ridiculous, my homes, cars, wallets and backpacks, are not an extension of me, they are items I own.

  4. #344
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    But you can't simply stop at and excise the context.

    "The law treats a corporation as a legal "person" that has standing to sue and be sued, distinct from its stockholders."
    I bolded the part I felt relevant. I included the rest of the paragraph, and the link still works in your post.

    How do those further words in any way contradict my point, or support yours?
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  5. #345
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    That's ridiculous, my homes, cars, wallets and backpacks, are not an extension of me, they are items I own.
    So the government can search them at will. They don't have rights. Only people have rights.

  6. #346
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 11:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,320

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    By repeating your opinions, which are not supported by the caselaw at all.
    I never argued that there was case law. I am arguing that corporations do not deserve nor are they entitled to "personhood". You have given a reason why you think they should and I have given you the wording of the Constitution and some quotes from some Founding Fathers.

    The Constitution speaks of corporations in the 14th amendment, which should indicate that someone knew there is a difference between a person and a corporation.

    The first amendment mentions Religion, The Press and The People. No mention of corporations.

  7. #347
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 11:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,320

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    No, you have a right to no unreasonable search and seizure, but not your house! The cops can search your house all they want without a warrant. Houses aren't people!

    Does the Constitution specifically deal with this issue that you poke fun at?

    Amendment IV

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    The Constitution is not just some rag that we should just change for political or financial benefit. It does a pretty good job and maybe we shoudl follow it a bit more. Sure some things need to be updated due to technological advances but we should be very stingy on our interpretations and changes.

  8. #348
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

    There is only one period in that paragraph. This indicates that all things in the paragraph are related to what is be said.
    I don't think this is a sustainable reading of the text.

    Let's pretend the Constitution says the following:

    "Congress shall make no law banning television, nor any law banning movies, nor any law abridging the right of cats to eat kibble."

    Does that mean that Congress can ban everyone other than cats from watching TV or movies, simply because it refers to cats in the last clause? Or does it mean that Congress cannot ban TV or movies, and that cats can eat kibble?

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    I never argued that there was case law. I am arguing that corporations do not deserve nor are they entitled to "personhood". You have given a reason why you think they should and I have given you the wording of the Constitution and some quotes from some Founding Fathers.
    So you acknowledge that there is nothing to support your position other than your own interpretation of the Constitution and some irrelevant quotes. Good.

    The Constitution speaks of corporations in the 14th amendment, which should indicate that someone knew there is a difference between a person and a corporation.
    Uh, what? Here's the 14th Amendment:

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

    Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

    Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

    Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
    Can you highlight the portion that refers to corporations?
    Last edited by RightinNYC; 01-25-10 at 08:54 PM.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  9. #349
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    The Constitution is not just some rag that we should just change for political or financial benefit. It does a pretty good job and maybe we shoudl follow it a bit more. Sure some things need to be updated due to technological advances but we should be very stingy on our interpretations and changes.
    The US Supreme Court just rejected a law restricting speech and thereby re-affirmed the Constitutional importance of Freedom of Speech.

    So what's your problem here?

  10. #350
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 11:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,320

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I think it was a bad decision and disagree with the court's analysis. However, I acknowledge that the case exists and is good law.
    Good law? How can it be a bad decision but good law? That is an oxymoron because the decision and the law are the same thing.

    You think this was a bad decision and disagree the court's analysis. You're then claiming that the hundred+ years of jurisprudence providing a basis for this decision didn't happen. You're going much farther than the dissent in this case, making demonstrably false statements about the state of the law without offering one iota of support for your position or demonstrating any understanding of how the Constitution should be interpreted.
    Then demonstrate that my statements about the state of the law are false.

    I think the recent SCOTUS decision is bad law. I think that Corporate personhood is bad. I see no Constitutional justification for it when Congress can and does set ALL of the rules and regulations for corporations. Corporations are not analogous to people. They are entities that exist and are regulated at the will and by license of the State.

    Without a Constitutional amendment giving corporations personhood, those court rulings that add pieces of "personhood" to corporations to be in violation of the Constitution.

    So your rebuttal is basically a strawman. I did not claim "You're then claiming that the hundred+ years of jurisprudence providing a basis for this decision didn't happen."
    Nor am I "making demonstrably false statements about the state of the law"

    All the support I've needed and used has been either The Constitution itself, quotes from the founding fathers or definition from Cornell Law School.

Page 35 of 71 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •