Yes, corporations are just like a person
No, corporations are not just like a person
No further interpretation necessary.
It doesn't protect people, or entities - just speech.
Do you think it?How could I think that when religion and the press are specifically mentioned?
The First Amendment doesn't say anything about a right to free speech. It limits the power of the government to abridge speech.Corporations do not have inalienable rights endowed by their creator, therefore they must be granted them. No we are not following the Constitution, we seem to be interpreting it for corporate interests.
Does the newspaper as an organization, an entity, have those rights? Yes or no?The free press is the idea we want to protect from the government. The people who work for a company involved in the free press have rights as people under the constitution.
You want to play dueling resumes?I assure you that you are mistaken.
I don't recall you clearly establishing that but you are correct. The Preamble has no legal force.I've already clearly established that the preamble has no legal force, nor does it say the Constitution was written "for" people, only "by the people."
What is the purpose of the Constitution? To protect the rights of the people from abridgment by the government.Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government, 1 the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. 2 ''Its true office,'' wrote Joseph Story in his COMMENTARIES, ''is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, 'to provide for the common defense.' No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence. But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted?'' 3
1 Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905).
2 E.g., the Court has read the preamble as bearing witness to the fact that the Constitution emanated from the people and was not the act of sovereign and independent States, McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 403 (1819) Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 471 (1793); Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 324 (1816), and that it was made for, and is binding only in, the United States of America. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 251 (1901); In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 464 (1891).
3 1 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston: 1833), 462. For a lengthy exegesis of the preamble phrase by phrase, see M. Adler & W. Gorman, The American Testament (New York: 1975), 63-118.
People own guns too, do guns have free speech? People own and control dishwashers, do they have rights protected too?People own and control corporations. The distinction is silly. This is about what bank account can buy advertising, by people.
Maybe on a different thread.I don't recall you clearly establishing that but you are correct. The Preamble has no legal force.
That's one of them, yes.What is the purpose of the Constitution? To protect the rights of the people from abridgment by the government.
Ownership isn't what gives them rights, but we can play this absurdity game if you want. Sure, guns have a right to free speech. A law outlawing speech by guns would be disallowed too. Let me know when one is passed and I'll call the ACLU.People own guns too, do guns have free speech? People own and control dishwashers, do they have rights protected too?
Seriously, if you want to think of this decision as affirming that the people who own corporations having the right to use corporate funds to spend on speech, feel free.
Last edited by misterman; 02-04-10 at 07:09 PM.
You want to pretend people are things. This certainly explains your socialism, but doesn't aid you in your quest to understand the First Amendment. Since the Constitution was written for people, your assumption that people are things does not apply.