Occupy Wall Street Thread Reposted

War,

We're entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We have no entitlement to things from the government.

John

We the People of the United States, in Order to

1.form a more perfect Union,
2.establish Justice,
3.insure domestic Tranquility,
4.provide for the common defence,
5.promote the general Welfare, and
6.secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What you saw differs greatly from what I saw. If the governmental manipulation had not occurred, none of the private secondary markets would have been around. If this stuff was so profitable, how come so many financial institutions were in trouble?

Ken, as you know, I quoted the entire First Amendment, and then excerpted the part with freedom of speech and of the press. If the First Amendment is restircted to natural persons, why does it read "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, rather than place "the right of the people" before the prohibition on abridgment of freedom of speech and of the press?

Your meaning requires a Constitutional re-write; mine does not. More importantly, the intent of the restrictions on communication is precisely to prevent the spread of political ideas. Nothing could be more inimical to the spirit and letter of the Amendment.

To answer your Thirteenth Amendment/Orca argument, the definition of a "slave" is, according to Webster, "A person who is the property of and wholly subject to another." [emphasis supplied] The Orca suit loses because the amendment, which states that slavery shall not exist in the United States, by definition does not apply to non-human organisms.

John

it never occurred to the Founding Fathers to directly address corporations in America when they wrote the Constitution. While we can only speculate, it is not hard to understand why this would be the case. The Constitution speaks to control of government by the people…for the people…and of the people. Why would it even occur to the Founders that a corporation would ever be perceived as one of ‘the people’? History makes clear that they viewed these entities as forces that preyed on people (see The Boston Tea Party.) Indeed, but for a legal determination made in a perverse Supreme Court holding in 1886, who would rationally see a legal entity as a person? Is a trust a ‘person’? Does it eat, breathe, etc.?

Still, since we are forced to speculate, there is evidence of how the Founders, and the society they created, viewed these legal entities.

After the nation’s founding, corporations were, as they are today, the result of charters granted by the state. However, unlike today, they were limited in how long they were permitted to exist (typically 20 or 30 years), only permitted to deal in one commodity, they could not own shares in other corporations, and their property holdings were expressly limited to what they needed to accomplish their corporate business goals.

Do any of those attributes and limitations apply to people?

Neither the Constitution nor laws of any governmental entity ever limited our lifetimes to a set period of time, never required that we trade in only one business or commodity, never attempted to limit our ability to buy shares in a variety of companies and never limited how much property we can own, or for what purposes.

Clearly, the society created by The Constitution did not see people as the same as corporations or vice-versa.

But here’s the biggie.

Back in the early days of the nation, most states had rules on the books making any political contribution by a corporation a criminal offence.

Over time, these restrictions have changed. BUT NOT BECAUSE THEY WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The founders were pretty clear on this.

If the First Amendment is restircted to natural persons, why does it read "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, rather than place "the right of the people" before the prohibition on abridgment of freedom of speech and of the press?

1: a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
2: one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence
3: a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another
4: drudge, toiler

but they have presented no viable solutions, just complaints.

All the OWS protesters wants is high paying jobs for their worthless degrees, student loans, and unwashed piercings.

What kind of debt related to the operation of a company is paid with after-tax dollars? It is paid with pre-tax dollars.

I think the picture proves it quite completely.

The movement isn't about limiting the very wealthy's control over our government or the increasing and unsustainable income and wealth inequality, it's about people wanting $100,000 jobs for humanities degrees.

Ken M, Do you own a corporation? What kind?

Edit to add: from what I've read about Walt Disney he would have been firmly against OWS. He took credit/profit for what a lot of people under him did. And a lot left to to go places like Warner Bros.