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 40 of 71 FirstFirst ... 30383940414250 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 400 of 710

Thread: Corporate Personhood

  1. #391
    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
    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.
    I'm not a liberal so your generalization is noted.

    It's funny, whenever we have a conservative friendly court decision they don't much care if the Constitution was followed or not but let a liberal friendly court make a decision the conservatives disagree with all you hear is "judicial activism" and "follow the Constitution".

  2. #392
    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 misterman View Post
    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?
    OK so we know you can't show it, now we are waiting on Harshaw.

  3. #393
    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
    OK so we know you can't show it, now we are waiting on Harshaw.
    I don't have to show it.

    There's nothing that says anything about "persons" having freedom of speech either. It just says no restrictions on speech. Period.

  4. #394
    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 misterman View Post
    I don't have to show it.

    There's nothing that says anything about "persons" having freedom of speech either. It just says no restrictions on speech. Period.
    And corporations can't speak so someone must do it for them. Maybe a CEO, who already has a right to free speech so why give him and additional right?

  5. #395
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,601

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

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    And corporations can't speak so someone must do it for them. Maybe a CEO, who already has a right to free speech so why give him and additional right?
    Who says it's an "additional right"?
    “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

  6. #396
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,601

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

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    Show that they did.
    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.

    But you're still the one making the claim that they wouldn't want that to include corporations, so YOU have to prove it. YOU have to. We don't have to disprove it.

    So far, you haven't even tried.
    “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

  7. #397
    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
    I'm not a liberal so your generalization is noted.

    It's funny, whenever we have a conservative friendly court decision they don't much care if the Constitution was followed or not but let a liberal friendly court make a decision the conservatives disagree with all you hear is "judicial activism" and "follow the Constitution".
    If the decision is "conservative friendly", it obeys the Constitution.

    That's probably why you don't hear conservatives bitching about constitutional violations when the courts rule in their favor.

    Liberatarians....they'll occasionally bitch when a court ruling favors conservatives, but that's because we have a better view of the Constitution than either the left or right.

  8. #398
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

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

    First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that corporations had a First Amendment right to make contributions in order to attempt to influence political processes. In his opinion, Justice Lewis Powell ruled that a Massachusetts criminal statute prohibiting the expenditure of corporate funds "for the purpose of ... influencing or affecting" voters' opinions infringed on corporations' "protected speech in a manner unjustified by a compelling state interest."
    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.
    The court ruled the state can't prohibit corporations from engaging in political speech.

    Since that does not violate the First Amendment, in what way is it opposite to original intent?

  9. #399
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

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

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    Show that they did.
    The Tenth Amendment shows that the Framers did not intend the Congress to have the authority to muzzle speech by corporate entities.

    Also, the Ninth Amendment has some words to say on that matter, too.

  10. #400
    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
    I'm not a liberal so your generalization is noted.
    I wasn't referring to you in particular, so I don't really care how you categorize yourself.

    It's funny, whenever we have a conservative friendly court decision they don't much care if the Constitution was followed or not but let a liberal friendly court make a decision the conservatives disagree with all you hear is "judicial activism" and "follow the Constitution".
    So not only do you have trouble tracking the sentence structure of the first amendment, but you can't even come up with a sentence that tracks my initial point.

    Got another one for you:

    Congress passes a law to address traffic safety. The law says:

    "Running red lights and failing to use turn signals are felonies; speeders who text while driving shall be executed."

    Who does each of those clauses apply to?

    Using your interpretation, the entire sentence only applies to speeders, because that is the only subject.

    Looking at the plain language of the statute, the first two clauses apply to everyone, while the latter applies to speeders.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Page 40 of 71 FirstFirst ... 30383940414250 ... 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
  •