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 37 of 71 FirstFirst ... 27353637383947 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 710

Thread: Corporate Personhood

  1. #361
    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
    Exactly, they are your property, and as you have a right to be secure in your property, no one can search your things without due cause.
    Wow, I'm glad we cleared that up...

  2. #362
    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 The Mark View Post
    It was obviously an analogy.
    And I showed it was not a valid analogy.

  3. #363
    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
    What are corporations for?
    A liability shield.

  4. #364
    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
    Think of it this way:

    You see a political ad on TV. You don't know who ran it. Does it really matter if the money came from a bunch of people who got together and pooled their money, or from a bunch of people who got together and formed a corporation to do it? Does it make any difference? It's still the same ad.
    Neither should be allowed because those people already have the right to run an ad. They don't need additional rights to do it.

  5. #365
    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
    I don't know that this is true. It would seem that the police may enter Wal-Mart without a warrant whereas they cannot walk into my home without a warrant. I believe those personnel records are protected by the rights of the people who's information it is, not Wal-Marts 4th amendment right.
    And you would be very, very wrong about that.

    FindLaw | Cases and Codes

    4. Although, for the reasons above stated, we are of the [201 U.S. 43, 76] opinion that an officer of a corporation which is charged with a violation of a statute of the state of its creation, or of an act of Congress passed in the exercise of its constitutional powers, cannot refuse to produce the books and papers of such corporation, we do not wish to be understood as holding that a corporation is not entitled to immunity, under the 4th Amendment, against unreasonable searches and seizures. A corporation is, after all, but an association of individuals under an assumed name and with a distinct legal entity. In organizing itself as a collective body it waives no constitutional immunities appropriate to such body. Its property cannot be taken without compensation. It can only be proceeded against by due process of law, and is protected, under the 14th Amendment, against unlawful discrimination.
    Note the other ways that corporations have constitutional rights noted in this section. There are many others.

  6. #366
    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
    Neither should be allowed because those people already have the right to run an ad. They don't need additional rights to do it.
    NEITHER? So a group of unincorporated persons doesn't have freedom of speech? You sure that's what you meant?

    And if individuals already have that right, then you should mean both should be allowed, not neither.

  7. #367
    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
    A liability shield.
    For...whom?

  8. #368
    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 misterman View Post
    Think of it this way:

    You see a political ad on TV. You don't know who ran it. Does it really matter if the money came from a bunch of people who got together and pooled their money, or from a bunch of people who got together and formed a corporation to do it? Does it make any difference? It's still the same ad.
    You see, goonion speech is protected in the views of some people.

    People using their money to protect themselves from goonions isn't acceptable to these people.

  9. #369
    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
    Neither should be allowed because those people already have the right to run an ad. They don't need additional rights to do it.
    Exactly.

    Groups of people do not need additional freedom to run advertising and the Congress is prohibited from impeding the efforts of groups of people to speak publicly.

    Corporations are "groups of people".

  10. #370
    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
    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.
    "Good law" is a legal term meaning that the principles in question retain predecential effect.

    http://west.thomson.com/documentatio...u/lskcqr03.pdf

    Roe is "good law" in that it is still in force.

    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.
    So you disagree with the court in terms of policy and interpretation. That's fine. I'm simply pointing out that:

    1) The court has repeatedly stated that your interpretation is wrong,
    2) Your interpretation is not now, nor has it ever been, the law of the land, and
    3) I don't see any chance that it ever will be.

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    Within the meaning of the 14th amendment! NOT THE 1ST AMENDMENT.
    Think about why the court is using the 14th Amendment to apply the 1st Amendment in a case involving a state limitation on corporate speech and you'll have the answer to your unspoken question.

    Courts seems to recognize that corporations are not persons but continually allow them protections afforded only to people. I wonder why that is? Judicial activism?
    No, it's because the protections are not afforded only to people.

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    Who was the Constitution written for, cats or people?
    "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,(for we the people) establish justice,(for we the people) insure domestic tranquility,(for we the people) provide for the common defense,(for we the people) promote the general welfare,(for we the people) and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, (all people)do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
    Which has what to do with my question of linguistic construction?

    If a sentence says two general things in its first clauses and then adds another thing referencing one subject at the end, that does not mean that you apply the subject from the end of the sentence to the entire sentence.

    My bad, I'm responding so quickly to 3 or 4 people, I made a mistake.
    No problem.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Page 37 of 71 FirstFirst ... 27353637383947 ... 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
  •