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 39 of 71 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 390 of 710

Thread: Corporate Personhood

  1. #381
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:24 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,606

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    If the framers had intended corporations to have the rights our courts have given them over the years, and I should point out that judges aren't supposed to make laws, that's the job of Congress, regardless, don't you think they would have addressed them somewhere in the Constitution?
    It's funny; there are a whole slew of things not actually mentioned in the Constitution that I'm sure you think are indisputably sacrosanct, Mr. Zygote.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  2. #382
    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 Harshaw View Post
    It's funny; there are a whole slew of things not actually mentioned in the Constitution that I'm sure you think are indisputably sacrosanct, Mr. Zygote.
    Oh, you mistakenly think that I am in favor of Roe V wade. Foolish. I believe in States rights. Abortion should be a States issue. But you keep on making uninformed opinions, I'm sure it makes you feel better about... something.

  3. #383
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:24 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,606

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    But you keep on making uninformed opinions, I'm sure it makes you feel better about... something.
    Uh . . . says the guy who doesn't think the Bill of Rights applies to corporations.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  4. #384
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    So long as you acknowledge that long-standing Supreme Court precedent holds that corporations do indeed have many first amendment rights, that's fine. I don't have a problem debating what you think might be best in terms of policy, but I have a hard time with those who are denying the existence of facts in front of them (not referring to you with this).
    I understand that it is law, I'm not denying that.
    My problem is with interpretation.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Here you're talking about something different. While you're right that many of the cases dealing with the particular types of rights enjoyed by Corporations have been close, it is the uniform opinion of the Court that corporations enjoy some rights. The framework you're arguing in support of simply doesn't exist. If you read Stevens' dissent, he's not saying that corporations can't have rights - he explicitly acknowledges that they have many rights. His disagreement is simply over the extent of a portion of those rights and whether there can be particular limitations on them.
    Then how can it be uniform, if it has some rights but not all?

    How can it be a person if it doesn't have all rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Using this logic, a company cannot build a defective product, only an individual can. Yet we allow people who are injured to sue the corporation. Why?
    Exactly.

    Individuals build the products, however, the owners are liable for defects.
    It is their responsibility to ensure that a product is safe for the end user, unless there is an assumed risk involved(guns for instance).

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Corporate personhood is not a method of avoiding liability, it is a method of ensuring valid liability exists.
    Consequently though, it does avoid liability.

    It protects the owners personal assets from seizure which shouldn't be the case as they earn those assets from operating the corporation.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  5. #385
    Professor
    Cassandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Last Seen
    11-02-17 @ 02:39 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,319

    Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    You're attributing these beliefs to those "pesky right wingers"?

    Do me a favor:

    1) Read this: First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    2) Go here: FindLaw | Cases and Codes

    3) Look at the names of the Justices in the majority:



    Yea, only right wingers like Justice Stevens or the author of Roe v. Wade could possibly agree that corporations enjoy some constitutional rights.
    "SOME" being the operative word.

    The point is that Scalia and friends are the self-described "originalists" and they have ignored the original intention of the framers.

  6. #386
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    "SOME" being the operative word.

    The point is that Scalia and friends are the self-described "originalists" and they have ignored the original intention of the framers.
    In this case, I think they hit on the original intent quite nicely.

  7. #387
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:24 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,606

    Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    The point is that Scalia and friends are the self-described "originalists" and they have ignored the original intention of the framers.
    Show that. Show that the framers didn't intend for the Bill of Rights to apply to corporations or to groups.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  8. #388
    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 Harry Guerrilla View Post
    I understand that it is law, I'm not denying that.
    My problem is with interpretation.
    That's fair.

    Then how can it be uniform, if it has some rights but not all?

    How can it be a person if it doesn't have all rights?
    I didn't mean to imply that the rights are uniform, but rather that there is unanimity on the court that corporations enjoy some of the same rights. The Justices often disagree about the scope or character of those rights, but there isn't much argument over whether some basic rights exist in the first place.

    Consequently though, it does avoid liability.

    It protects the owners personal assets from seizure which shouldn't be the case as they earn those assets from operating the corporation.
    If an owner improperly accumulates assets due to something that the corporation did wrong, those assets can be recovered. However, there are a multitude of policy reasons why Congress explicitly decided to grant corporations limited liability.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    "SOME" being the operative word.

    The point is that Scalia and friends are the self-described "originalists" and they have ignored the original intention of the framers.
    And the point is that I don't think you have any idea what the original intention of the framers was.

    It's funny - whenever we have a liberal-friendly court decision and conservatives are arguing that it doesn't comply with the intent of the framers, the liberals are the first to tell you that we have a living, breathing document and we should ignore what the framers wanted. Now that there's a decision that they mistakenly think is conservative-friendly, they're concerned about what Madison wrote in the margins of his diary.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  9. #389
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 11:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,320

    Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Show that. Show that the framers didn't intend for the Bill of Rights to apply to corporations or to groups.
    Show that they did.

  10. #390
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    Show that they did.
    Ah, a convenient moment of strict contructionism.

    Is only speech, as in with your mouth, protected? Is only the press, meaning someone who uses a printing press to publish, protected?

Page 39 of 71 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... 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
  •