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 41 of 71 FirstFirst ... 31394041424351 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 410 of 710

Thread: Corporate Personhood

  1. #401
    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
    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?
    Fine. If a corporation can't speak anyway, why not give it that "additional" right? Why did this case exist?

  2. #402
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:55 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,502

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Look, if it's a "fiction" that corporations can speak, can spend money, etc., and the "truth" is that only individuals are physically capable of doing these things, and individuals are covered, then there's no issue, because it will only be individuals doing these things at any time.

    You can't have it both ways.
    “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

  3. #403
    Student pugetsoundwa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    02-10-10 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    252

    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?

    A couple of you have produced court cases that prove the courts have granted rights, that should only apply to people, to corporations. It's judicial activism.

    Our country has slowly become a Corporatocracy and this latest affront is just another nail in the coffin of democracy and another boon for corporations.

    The corporatists have no morality, allowing corporations to use company funds to influence elections is morally wrong because "the people" cannot compete financially and therefore lose control. Sure, we can vote but based on what information? Who decided what candidates to offer us to choose from? Corporate rule has destroyed this country.
    Agreed. If Corporations are just a group of people as some, myself included believe, then the individuals have their rights and abilites to vote, donate to whomever they want. Thus Corporations, a non-living thing HAS NO RIGHTS. Corporations shouldn't be able to donate, the individuals from the corp can. Otherwise some Americans are given more rights then others.All a corp is is a way to sidestep laws. They should be illegal. Adam Smith hated Corps..He knew there was no real Free Trade unless their was no Corps. If you love Capitalism then you must dislike Corps..that simple.

  4. #404
    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 pugetsoundwa View Post
    Agreed. If Corporations are just a group of people as some, myself included believe, then the individuals have their rights and abilites to vote, donate to whomever they want. Thus Corporations, a non-living thing HAS NO RIGHTS. Corporations shouldn't be able to donate, the individuals from the corp can. Otherwise some Americans are given more rights then others.All a corp is is a way to sidestep laws. They should be illegal. Adam Smith hated Corps..He knew there was no real Free Trade unless their was no Corps. If you love Capitalism then you must dislike Corps..that simple.
    Hookay......

  5. #405
    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 Harshaw View Post
    Show that. Show that the framers didn't intend for the Bill of Rights to apply to corporations or to groups.
    Thomas Jefferson:
    "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

    It is the cases of the 19th century that established the concept of corporate personhood. The framers viewed corporations cautiously at best. As Carl Pope put it ".. once a state gave a corporation a privilege it constituted a contract that must be honored but also that the specific privileges granted came with its charter and did not extend beyond it". Activist judges of the 19th century changed all that.

    Even Rehnquist in a 1978 case that restricted the right to limit corporate spending on ballot measures, dissented specifically because he did not feel that corporations were persons for purposes of political speech. This week Sandra Day O'Conner has been vocal in her distaste for the court's decision saying that it is like 'ignoring an alligator in a bathtub'.

  6. #406
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    Thomas Jefferson:
    "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

    It is the cases of the 19th century that established the concept of corporate personhood. The framers viewed corporations cautiously at best. As Carl Pope put it ".. once a state gave a corporation a privilege it constituted a contract that must be honored but also that the specific privileges granted came with its charter and did not extend beyond it". Activist judges of the 19th century changed all that.

    Even Rehnquist in a 1978 case that restricted the right to limit corporate spending on ballot measures, dissented specifically because he did not feel that corporations were persons for purposes of political speech. This week Sandra Day O'Conner has been vocal in her distaste for the court's decision saying that it is like 'ignoring an alligator in a bathtub'.
    Corporations are going to fund politics/political ads either way. At least this way, the small corporations (5+ people employed?) can state their case. As it previously stood, only the big corporations who could figure out ways around laws and/or violate them without being noticed were really able to.

    At least IMO.
    Education.

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

  7. #407
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    Corporations are going to fund politics/political ads either way. At least this way, the small corporations (5+ people employed?) can state their case. As it previously stood, only the big corporations who could figure out ways around laws and/or violate them without being noticed were really able to.

    At least IMO.
    But now, these big corporations can bluntly do what they did. And now we can't do anything about it. A perfect example of what they can do now, is what Jon Stewart was talking about, on Jan. 23 (I think). John Oliver represented a corporation, which aired a commerical about Jon Stewart, claiming he was a molestor, and other bull. The thing was, Stewart couldn't say anything about, because thats the nature of advertisement.

    The problem I foresee, is politicians making deals with corporations to support certain bills in return for vicious campaigns against political rivals. I'm sure politicians on both sides of the political spectrum would do this, because its just good business. And from what I can tell, it would be perfectly legal, and the layman would be ill-suited to discern fact from fiction.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  8. #408
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

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

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    But now, these big corporations can bluntly do what they did. And now we can't do anything about it. A perfect example of what they can do now, is what Jon Stewart was talking about, on Jan. 23 (I think). John Oliver represented a corporation, which aired a commerical about Jon Stewart, claiming he was a molestor, and other bull. The thing was, Stewart couldn't say anything about, because thats the nature of advertisement.
    I'm not by any means well versed in this area, but aren't there anti-slander laws? Or do they not apply to political ads?
    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    The problem I foresee, is politicians making deals with corporations to support certain bills in return for vicious campaigns against political rivals. I'm sure politicians on both sides of the political spectrum would do this, because its just good business. And from what I can tell, it would be perfectly legal, and the layman would be ill-suited to discern fact from fiction.
    I didn't say it was the optimum situation, I just find it better than it was before.

    Optimum solution IMO would be to separate politics and money completely. But that is impossible. So removing/severely limiting politics is the next possibility. Also impossible. Eliminating money? Possible, but it wouldn’t affect many of the deals which go down…favors could be argued as being a type of money, after all.

    All in the name of eliminating corruption, these thoughts are. A nearly impossible goal.
    Education.

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

  9. #409
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:55 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,502

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    Thomas Jefferson:
    "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

    It is the cases of the 19th century that established the concept of corporate personhood. The framers viewed corporations cautiously at best. As Carl Pope put it ".. once a state gave a corporation a privilege it constituted a contract that must be honored but also that the specific privileges granted came with its charter and did not extend beyond it". Activist judges of the 19th century changed all that.

    Even Rehnquist in a 1978 case that restricted the right to limit corporate spending on ballot measures, dissented specifically because he did not feel that corporations were persons for purposes of political speech. This week Sandra Day O'Conner has been vocal in her distaste for the court's decision saying that it is like 'ignoring an alligator in a bathtub'.
    Jefferson didn't like political parties, either, but that -- and none of this -- means the Framers (of which Jefferson was NOT one, by the way) wouldn't think the Bill of Rights applies to their activities.
    “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

  10. #410
    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 The Mark View Post
    Corporations are going to fund politics/political ads either way. At least this way, the small corporations (5+ people employed?) can state their case. As it previously stood, only the big corporations who could figure out ways around laws and/or violate them without being noticed were really able to.

    At least IMO.
    How would a small business have the funds necessary to buy political speech ( ads) to a degree that would compete with a large corporation?

    Strikes me that we can engage in this banter about corporate personhood till the cows come home. At the end of the day, the results of the ascendance of corporate power have been so pernicious that it boggles my mind that anyone would be happy about furthering an already ghastly situation. I would suggest that all political spending be limited to the average income of an American, per year. Thats it. Across the board. Period

Page 41 of 71 FirstFirst ... 31394041424351 ... 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
  •