• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Corporate Personhood

Should Corproations have "personhood" rights?

  • Yes, corporations are just like a person

    Votes: 6 9.4%
  • No, corporations are not just like a person

    Votes: 58 90.6%

  • Total voters
    64
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

:doh:doh:doh

So I guess you're not against the Christmas day bomber having his miranda rights read to him, right? Because everything and everyone in the universe is covered by our constitution, right? I mean, that's your argument at least.
 
Oh nonsense. I made it quite clear that I am talking about quantity not type of advertisements ("speech" if you can really call it that). We are talking about drowning the T.V. viewing audience with advertisements representing one point of view- the point of view of corporations.

As if all corporations have one point of view.

Tell me, do you think it's unfair that only Democrats and Republicans have such a big voice? Shouldn't we pass a law limiting their expenditures on ads and give money to all the other parties?

What about you? Shouldn't you limit the number of posts on this forum so you don't drown out other voices?

If you're going to ration speech so everything is "fair" get to work.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

So I guess you're not against the Christmas day bomber having his miranda rights read to him, right? Because everything and everyone in the universe is covered by our constitution, right? I mean, that's your argument at least.

Yes. Of course - if he's being charged with a crime.

Would you want to skip a trial altogether and just take him out back to be shot?

Our system has worked so far without compromising our own principles, we can do it now.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

Yes. Of course - if he's being charged with a crime.

Would you want to skip a trial altogether and just take him out back to be shot?

Our system has worked so far without compromising our own principles, we can do it now.
Well at least you're consistent in your position. Even if your position is wrong. :2razz:
 
I am curious.

If you, NoJingoLingo (or whatever your real name is), were part of writing a new constitution for the USA, what type of free speech protections would you place in it?

Screw what the founders think, would think, or whatever, what would YOU do?
Well, the thread is actually on Corporate personhood, we've kinda gotten side tracked with the free speech diversion.

But to answer your question. I wouldn't change the first amendment at all. It protects freedom of religion (ancillary), freedom of the press (the mechanism of delivery) and free speech of the people. Some people want to include other "entities" based on a flawed premise that if the Constitution doesn't exclude corporations, it means they were meant to be included. I say they weren't included because they weren't meant to be included as religion and the press were.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

Well at least you're consistent in your position. Even if your position is wrong. :2razz:

I'm not afraid to be consistent.

Let's test your consistency - how do we know when the government can simply ignore constitutional rights and when it can't?
 
But to answer your question. I wouldn't change the first amendment at all. It protects freedom of religion (ancillary), freedom of the press (the mechanism of delivery) and free speech of the people. Some people want to include other "entities" based on a flawed premise that if the Constitution doesn't exclude corporations, it means they were meant to be included. I say they weren't included because they weren't meant to be included as religion and the press were.

How do you know that though?

The idea that corporations are somehow different is silly. They are just bank accounts. Corporations can't speak, as many have noted - they are run by people who do.
 
Because they didn't exist? (Just a wild guess.)

So anything that isn't expressly mentioned in the Constitution doesn't exist?

Not that it matters at all - the First Amendment simply says the government can't limit speech, period.
 
Well, the thread is actually on Corporate personhood, we've kinda gotten side tracked with the free speech diversion.

But to answer your question. I wouldn't change the first amendment at all. It protects freedom of religion (ancillary), freedom of the press (the mechanism of delivery) and free speech of the people. Some people want to include other "entities" based on a flawed premise that if the Constitution doesn't exclude corporations, it means they were meant to be included. I say they weren't included because they weren't meant to be included as religion and the press were.

"religion" is an entity? Not in the First Amendment. It's a practice, a verb not a noun. Just like speech. It applies to everyone and everything. Individuals AND groups (churches etc.) both have freedom of religion, even though churches and other religious groups aren't mentioned. The same principle applies to speech.
 
Agreed. A shield, thus no need for human rights as it isn't human but a legal shield.

Nobody gave them human rights. The people running the corporations have human rights already. This decision just says the fact that they run a corporation doesn't mean they lose those rights.
 
Nobody gave them human rights. The people running the corporations have human rights already. This decision just says the fact that they run a corporation doesn't mean they lose those rights.

Owners never did lose their individual human rights. As a INDIVIDUAL. Some want to treat a Corp as if it was them or as if it was a real person. Its not....With ownership comes responsibilties...
 
Owners never did lose their individual human rights. As a INDIVIDUAL. Some want to treat a Corp as if it was them or as if it was a real person. Its not....With ownership comes responsibilties...

Who said there were no responsibilities?
 
Owners never did lose their individual human rights. As a INDIVIDUAL.

Yes they did. The law said they couldn't say certain things, just because they wanted to pay for it with a check from a different bank account.
 
Yes they did. The law said they couldn't say certain things, just because they wanted to pay for it with a check from a different bank account.

They can say things as a Individual....
 
Because they didn't exist? (Just a wild guess.)

Untrue, corporations did exist and have existed long before America was even discovered. The writers of the Constitution were all businessmen and knew plenty about corporations. This and their own quotes indicate that they didn't imagine anyone would be stupid enough to give corporations personhood.
 
How do you know that though?

The idea that corporations are somehow different is silly. They are just bank accounts. Corporations can't speak, as many have noted - they are run by people who do.

Because they weren't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. The idea that corporations are somehow the same as a person is just silly.

If corporations can't speak then why were they given free speech rights? The people who work there already have that right, so there is no need. What the SCOTUS did was say that it's ok to use corporate funds, not personal, individual funds, to use as they see fit in politics.
 
"religion" is an entity? Not in the First Amendment. It's a practice, a verb not a noun. Just like speech. It applies to everyone and everything. Individuals AND groups (churches etc.) both have freedom of religion, even though churches and other religious groups aren't mentioned. The same principle applies to speech.
Try rereading. I didn't say religion was an entity.
 
Nobody gave them human rights. The people running the corporations have human rights already. This decision just says the fact that they run a corporation doesn't mean they lose those rights.

You're wrong, it said that the corporation can use its money, not the money of the people who work there but corporate funds.

I guess you just can't see the inconsistency of your view coupled with the SCOTUS view.
 
They can say things.
you said corporations aren't people and can't speak yet the SCOTUS gives corporations free speech. So who's wrong, you or the SCOTUS?
 
You're wrong, it said that the corporation can use its money, not the money of the people who work there but corporate funds.

I guess you just can't see the inconsistency of your view coupled with the SCOTUS view.

But corporate funds ARE the funds of the people who work there.

They are one and the same.

Through their work, they generated those funds.
 
Because they weren't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. The idea that corporations are somehow the same as a person is just silly.


All this does is prove the Repubs fools. They crow if its not in the Constitution it has no rights( abortion, health care and such) yet are willing to give a Corp equal footing with a human. Hypocritical of them.
 
But corporate funds ARE the funds of the people who work there.

They are one and the same.

Through their work, they generated those funds.

Oh, so the guy in the mail room can just make a withdrawl from the corporate bank account because it's his money. Nice try... well, not really even that good.
 
Back
Top Bottom