Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 02:11am PT
|
Thomas Jefferson was right. The Revolution is lost.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 02:17am PT
|
Interesting and bizarre idea. At the same time.
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 02:50am PT
|
Knock it off, man, you're scaring the crap outta me.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 03:14am PT
|
Kinda funny that conservatives think being born in the United States is so important that they are really upset at the (False) suspicion that Obama wasn't born in the United States (even though there's no doubt his mom was a citizen)
and yet they want to remove the law that makes people born in the US citizens
Go figure
Peace
karl
|
|
Eric Beck
Sport climber
Bishop, California
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 12:15pm PT
|
Does anyone know how other countries handle this; what the laws determining citizenship are?
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 12:39pm PT
|
. . . if the left-wingers can abolish the fiction of corporate personhood.
Left-wingers may have helped with corporate personhood, because they wanted corporations to be bound by "no person shall..." type clauses.
However, I think from the corporations perspective, they are way better off being considered persons and as a generally left-winger, I would be delighted to find that the bill of rights no longer automatically applies to corporations.
Corporations would be giving up first amendaments free speech, fifth amendment taking clause/fair compensation. You could pass a law regulating the environment without having to pay corporations money for taking away their "right" to pollute. What a concept!!!
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 01:02pm PT
|
Interesting question, Eric.
A report summarizing all the countries is available online. http://www.multiplecitizenship.com/worldsummary.html I scanned through it and think the answers are:
Most countries do not confer automatic citizenship by birth.
Most NA and SA countries do.
France does, but no other EU country does.
Nepal does. Zambia does.
Many have rules that allow citizenship if one parent is a citizen
All statist countries have complex rules unless both parents are citizens
Some have rules driven by marriage.
Most grant citizen to newborns if the parents are unknown.
Some have rules that allow citizen to be granted at a later date when the child is 18 years old and upon application.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 01:08pm PT
|
Dr. F, your statement as far as anchor babies, no other countries allow it, its just a holdover form colonial times, so we can build a population of immigrants seems to be false. Do you have some evidence that our laws are different than the laws of the countries I cite in my post?
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 01:18pm PT
|
Lolli,
In US law, corporations are considered persons. There are pros and cons. If the law is changed, a whole new set of laws would have to be enacted to cover the same ground. US law governing corporations is not that different from most other countries. It sounds strange but it isn't.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 01:55pm PT
|
Roger
Most countries might treat corporations as persons for their laws. But the laws passed by congress aren't the point. Congress can say whether the law applies to only corporations, only indviduals, or both.
The question is whether a corporation is a person as far as the constitution, in general, and the bill of rights in particular. Most countries do not grant corporations constitutional protection the way the US does.
If you try to restrict advertising, the corporation can sue under the first admendent as an unconstitional restriction. This doesn't mean they automatically win (child porn is not protected speech, cigarette ads can be resrticted in order to protect minors, etc), but it makes things more difficult (other countries generally don't have this issue).
The supreme court recently ruled (on first admendment grounds) that corporations can spend how ever many billions they want on political ads, despite congresses attempt to prevent that. What other country does that?
It is not true that corporations are "persons" for everything in the constitution. The Supreme court has specifically ruled that corporations are persons for specific parts. There are admentments to the constitution where corporations are either not persons, or at least the court hasn't yet ruled. Law school was too long ago, but I don't think corporations are "persons" as far as the second admendment.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 02:36pm PT
|
August,
How do we have effective freedom of the press if corporations are not "persons" under the Constitution? Virtually every media outlet is a corporation, yet longstanding jurisprudence (predating New York Times v. Sullivan) recognized that the corporate status of a publisher did not abridge that First Amendment right.
The same is true of the takings clause under the Fifth Amendment. The hysteria over Citizens United simply shows the extent to which the opponents of the majority's decision are willing to sacrifice intellectual honesty for political expediency -- and economic catastrophe.
John
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 02:50pm PT
|
Persons are subject to jail and the death penalty. If a person goes to jail, it often costs them their job and losing your house is quite likely too. IF corporations are persons, why do they get a pass?
There are plenty of alternatives to making corporations "Persons" for preserving freedom of speech. Don't be silly John, you know better.
Peace
Karl
|
|
AndyG
climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 03:09pm PT
|
The really funny thing is at this very moment you can go to the official Republican National Committee website and they list as one of their premier historical accomplishments that they were responsible for passing the 14th amendment.
http://www.gop.com/index.php/issues/accomplishment/
Scroll down a little bit and there it is in 1866. They really ought to update this now that they think the 14th amendment is evil.
Andy
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 03:25pm PT
|
Karl,
Under antitrust law, corporations can be dismembered. Under virtually every criminal statute, they can be fined.
I'm not being silly -- I'm waiting to hear a principled reason why freedom of the press exists for corporations because of the First Amendment, but corporations aren't citizens under the Constitution.
John
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 03:53pm PT
|
Say there John... can Rupert Murdoc fire an editor for one of his news organizations, simply for editing in a manner not suitable to Murdoc?
Of course Murdoch can do that, assuming the relevant organization gives him that right. The First Amendment doesn't prevent private citizens from deciding what their organizations say or print. It prohibits Congress and, through the Fourteenth Amendment, government, from abridging freedom of speech and of the press.
I'm debating you on two fronts now (i.e. the bolts in the HS), but I need to make some money, so I'll sign off for while.
John
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 04:01pm PT
|
August, my sense is that if Congress passed a law that said corporations could not have the rights of natural persons and only rights granted by legislatures, then those legislatures would pass laws that grant corporation more or less the same rights and obligations that they currently have. The reason I think that this is true is the very argument that you make in your post: the legislatures and courts pass laws all the time that only apply to corporations. Free speech is a good example. No natural person has to comply with “Truth in Advertizing Laws” that govern corporations.
Under the Federal Trade Commission Act:
• Advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive;
• Advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; and
• Advertisements cannot be unfair.
Additional laws apply to ads for specialized products like consumer leases, credit, 900 telephone numbers, and products sold through mail order or telephone sales. And every state has consumer protection laws that govern ads running in that state.
Now, personally, I would like nothing more than a set of Federal laws that make natural posters responsible to the same tests, but I just click away when I it starts to get to me.
If Corporations are doing something that people don’t like, history says that the laws are changed. If the laws governing corporations become onerous and corporations move to other states or move their operations overseas, legislators change the laws to protect the tax base and to protect their constituents’ jobs. The idea that “Corporate personhood” is somehow to blame for corporate law is specious.
Lolli, (I hope that you read my comments to August above) the main benefit of granting corporations artificial personhood is to apply all the same laws to corporations that apply to natural persons. As artificial persons, corporations can enter into contracts and sue and be sued in the same courts as people. But that is just starting point. There are lots of laws at both the local and Federal level that limit the rights and increase the liabilities of corporations that are not applied to real people.
Technically, treating corporations as legal persons is part of the protection of the owners and employees of corporations—the limited liability—by making the corporation the ‘legal person’ responsible. But this feature has been in the commercial laws of England and the US for a long time. Wikipedia notes that in 16th century England the courts made corporations accept the responsibilities of artificial persons so laws worded “No person shall…” also applied to them. The Lawyers for the corporations were arguing that since they were not people, the laws did not apply. It was Shakespeare who wrote, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".
Treating corporations as artificial persons is also a quick way to create legal stability across the states. By guaranteeing that the State cannot deny any corporation within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution which was originally enacted to protect freed slaves after the Civil War, corporations could expect the more or less rational treatment in all jurisdictions. This is also the reason that it makes more sense for the US to treat corporations as artificial persons as compared to most other countries. No other large country has such limited federal control and as much local control as the US. (Keep in mind that this aspect of the law does not say what a jurisdiction can pass as law, only that all of its laws must be applied equally.)
Generally the courts have not given corporations strong rights as legal persons and have instead settled cases by using other parts of our laws. The recent Supreme Court decision allowing free political speech to corporations is a departure from previous judicial moderation.
Welcome to America.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 04:17pm PT
|
They really ought to update this now that they think the 14th amendment is evil.
Andy, they only want to change the part that grants citizenship to the children of 'slaves' who had come here against their will.
That part is no longer valid and is being abused/misinterpreted to grant citizen ship to children born here by people who broke our laws.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 04:18pm PT
|
So Kyl and Graham acknowledge that the 14th Amendment confers citizenship on "anchor babies" (in and of itself kind of a dehumanizing term):
"There is a constitutional provision in the 14th Amendment that has been interpreted to provide that, if you are born in the United States, you are a citizen no matter what. ... And so the question is, if both parents are here illegally, should there be a reward for their illegal behavior?"
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has said: "birthright citizenship is a mistake." We should change our Constitution and say if you come illegally and you have a child, that child is automatically not a citizen."
It's important to note that neither Senator is arguing with how the amendemnt has been interpreted. Rather, and the kicker is that, because they're unhappy with the logical result of the 14th A., that it should be changed to suit the political climate or, worse, for fiscal reasons.
So when did the Constitution become reduced to an political impediment that needs altering when the wind changes direction?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 04:21pm PT
|
Up until three days ago, the Republican Party listed as one of its "Achievements" the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment.
That reference has now been REMOVED from the GOP's website.
The Republican Party of today reflects a growing consensus within conservative ranks
that being born here is NOT sufficient for US Citizenship.
Clearly, the party of Lincoln in the 1860s is not the party of Sarah Palin,
Rush Limbaugh, Mitch McConnell, Shawn Hannity, and John Boner.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!