• 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!

Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

This discussion is totally out of control. It's getting to be as absurd as a mouse trying to rape an elephant.

Time to put on tin foil hat. Turn of computer. Good night everyone.

End of transmission.
 
Ethereal said:
You're just a troll. You make claims, refuse to back them up, and have the nerve to suggest it's somehow my responsibility to refute assertions you failed to substantiate.

Either provide evidence in support of your assertions or stop wasting our time.
Click to expand...

Your ad hominem attack proves what kind of person you are. Meet me in the basement or maybe the sewer where your language belongs.:shock:
 
Ikari said:
Churches don't have rights. The individual has right to free practice and expression of religion as well as association.
Click to expand...

Really? Now churches don't have rights either? So the government could shut down a church and seize its property?
 
Vader said:
Judicial Activism is when a judge intentionally decides a particular way in a case because doing so furthers his/her political interests.
Click to expand...

Ah, I thought you had not idea what judicial activism is.

No, that's not it at all.
 
misterman said:
Really? Now churches don't have rights either? So the government could shut down a church and seize its property?
Click to expand...

Not without infringing upon the individual's right to freely practice and express their religion and of association.
 
Vader said:
That was a rather unwarranted personal attack.

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I apologize for the attack, however, it's getting hard to have a rational discussion with you.
 
Ikari said:
Not without infringing upon the individual's right to freely practice and express their religion and of association.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. The people can associate and practice their religion all they want. A church isn't an individual, it's a group - almost exactly like a corporation.
 
misterman said:
No it isn't. The people can associate and practice their religion all they want. A church isn't an individual, it's a group - almost exactly like a corporation.
Click to expand...

A church is a building on a plot of land.
 
Ikari said:
A church is a building on a plot of land.
Click to expand...

No, a church can also be an organization. You know, like the Roman Catholic Church, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. That kind of church.

You saying these organizations have no right to freedom of religion? Are you going to say that, out loud?
 
misterman said:
No, a church can also be an organization. You know, like the Roman Catholic Church, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. That kind of church.

You saying these organizations have no right to freedom of religion? Are you going to say that, out loud?
Click to expand...

Well if it's a group of people then the government taking a building and a plot of land cannot be construed as shutting down the church. If instead you mean by "shutting down" that the people are prevented from meeting and practicing their religion, then that is most definitely violation of an individuals right to religion and association.
 
Ikari said:
Well if it's a group of people then the government taking a building and a plot of land cannot be construed as shutting down the church.
Click to expand...

I'll let you think that one over and delete it if you want to, no questions asked.

If instead you mean by "shutting down" that the people are prevented from meeting and practicing their religion, then that is most definitely violation of an individuals right to religion and association.
Click to expand...

Hey, if you think it would be "freedom of religion" to shut down a church and seize its building and assets because the members of that church could just as easily meet at the local town hall on Sunday, come out and say so. You can take that back too if you want.
 
misterman said:
I'll let you think that one over and delete it if you want to, no questions asked.
Click to expand...

Merely going by your definition. Sorry pal. You said it's not a building on a plot of land, but a group of people. If it's just a group of people, the government taking the building cannot be construed as shutting down the church since the group is not dispensed or in any way prohibited from congregating elsewhere. Of course, I think it's ridiculous; but hey I didn't make the definition. Plus, there's always property rights, but I don't think you wanted a serious discussion on rights the way you're responding.

misterman said:
Hey, if you think it would be "freedom of religion" to shut down a church and seize its building and assets because the members of that church could just as easily meet at the local town hall on Sunday, come out and say so. You can take that back too if you want.
Click to expand...

You said it was a group of people, that makes the church. The building is therefore inconsequential. Unless the building is part of what the "church" is as well.
 
Ikari said:
Merely going by your definition. Sorry pal. You said it's not a building on a plot of land, but a group of people. If it's just a group of people, the government taking the building cannot be construed as shutting down the church since the group is not dispensed or in any way prohibited from congregating elsewhere. Of course, I think it's ridiculous; but hey I didn't make the definition.

You said it was a group of people, that makes the church. The building is therefore inconsequential. Unless the building is part of what the "church" is as well.
Click to expand...

Okay, you're strangely confusing yourself into saying that churches (the organizations) have no freedom of religion. I'm not sure how you did it, but you managed. It feels too weird to be leading you on like this, it's like seducing a minor or something, so I'm going to just drop it and slowly walk away.
 
Everything is explained by the rights of the individual. Only individual's possess rights. These include religion (practice and expression), assembly, and property among others. The government may not properly infringe upon these without due process of law, and all law is to respect and acknowledge the rights of the individual. We may grant privilege and legal status to other entities, but those are not innate and inalienable rights.
 
RightinNYC said:
So it's your argument that where it says "or of the press," it really means "or of media publishing corporations," and that where it says "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," it really means "or prohibiting the free exercise of a religious 501c3 organization by regulating its actions," but then that none of the rest of the amendment applies to anyone other than individuals?
Click to expand...
Eh...yeah?



Unless I'm mistaken, private corporations employ something like 80% of the nation. I'd say that's a fairly positive contribution to society. Regardless, that's neither here nor there, because the existence of a constitutional right is not predicated on whether the speaker is someone who is generally seen as advancing the common good.
Click to expand...
The rising tide lifts all boats fallacy? Actually the ones enumerated in the constitution are, Take the press for example:
"The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823.



Which is exactly what interest groups like the NRA or ACLU do.
Click to expand...
The NRA and the ACLU do not have the leverage on their voters in the same way as a corporation hason it's workers.



First National v. Belotti includes a great survey of the law:
Click to expand...
Have you read this bit?


Whether or not a particular guarantee is "purely personal" or is unavailable to corporations for some other reason depends on the nature, history, and purpose of the particular constitutional provision.
Click to expand...

And here is an interesting one from the footnote;

[ Footnote 15 ] It has been settled for almost a century that corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 118 U.S. 394 (1886); see Covington & Lexington Turnpike R. Co. v. Sandford, 164 U.S. 578 (1896).
Click to expand...
That amendment regards civil rights and due process. Not the 1st. Guess which one of those two the judgement refers to?

And no the constitution in it's entriety does not apply to corporations. It can't. A corporation can't stand for office, it can't be an officer in the US military, or a judge (14th regarding insurrection). It can be taxed though - Again the 14th.
It can bear arms (2nd)
And the ruling you cite explains why.
 
Last edited:
Alvin T. Grey said:
Eh...yeah?
Click to expand...

And where are you getting that from? What part of the language in the first amendment leads you to that conclusion?

The rising tide lifts all boats fallacy? Actually the ones enumerated in the constitution are, Take the press for example:
"The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with anything? You said that the press and churches deserved special protections because they benefited society. I noted that corporations benefit society too. You responded by providing me with a Jefferson quote from 35 years after the drafting, talking about how nice the free press is. I'm not denying that the press is good - I'm saying that corporations are good too.

The NRA and the ACLU do not have the leverage on their voters in the same way as a corporation hason it's workers.
Click to expand...

Which is relevant because...? This isn't about the leverage an organization has on its workers/voters, because the organization is not forcing the workers/voters to do anything. If an organization feels that its workers/voters would be best served by supporting a particular candidate, then they are advancing those interests by doing so.

Have you read this bit?

And here is an interesting one from the footnote;

That amendment regards civil rights and due process. Not the 1st. Guess which one of those two the judgement refers to?
Click to expand...

Think about why the Court would be relying on the 14th Amendment in order to invalidate a state law that restricted speech.

And no the constitution in it's entriety does not apply to corporations. It can't. A corporation can't stand for office, it can't be an officer in the US military, or a judge (14th regarding insurrection). It can be taxed though - Again the 14th.
It can bear arms (2nd)
And the ruling you cite explains why.
Click to expand...

Where did I say otherwise?
 
Ethereal said:
That is just your fascist opinion. In the real world, individuals have a right to speak on behalf of whatever group, idea, movement, or interest they please. The fact that it displeases you is of little consequence.
Click to expand...
You're right in that they certainly can. That doesn't however entitle them to any additional right. They have the right to free speech, when they join up with a "group" they still have that right. You're claim would be that the "group" itself, not simply the individuals in the "group", now has the right to free speech.
 
misterman said:
And I say again, it is irrelevant to freedom of speech, as restrictions on it are illegal regardless of who is speaking. And anyway, the First Amendment recognizes rights that it would be awful hard not to apply to groups, such as churches or newspapers.

But however you want to think about it is fine with me. I accept your statement.
Click to expand...

According to your interpretation of the Constitution, everyone and everything in the universe is protected by it. Some of us disagree.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
You're right in that they certainly can. That doesn't however entitle them to any additional right. They have the right to free speech, when they join up with a "group" they still have that right. You're claim would be that the "group" itself, not simply the individuals in the "group", now has the right to free speech.
Click to expand...

So what's the difference? How is this an "additional right?" What additional right would that be - extra double freedom of speech?
 
NoJingoLingo said:
According to your interpretation of the Constitution, everyone and everything in the universe is protected by it. Some of us disagree.
Click to expand...

And you are welcome to back up your disagreement with an argument.
 
misterman said:
Ah, I thought you had not idea what judicial activism is.

No, that's not it at all.
Click to expand...

Is it really that difficult for you to explain when you disagree with someone? Does it make you feel important to have some one ask... Then what do YOU think it means. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom