Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 04:50pm PT
|
The Republican Party is not keeping their feelings about citizenship quiet.
This issue has no doubt been festering for a long time.
Prominent Republican leaders are now coming out of their closet and openly
calling for repeal of the 14th.
Such GOP stalwarts include Senator Lindsey Graham, Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell, Senator Jon Kyl,
and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.
Heck, let's just come out and say it.
It is not about them being suddenly "worried" about the nuances of citizenship law.
It IS about they being honest about how they really feel about MEXICANS.
Never mind that people south of the border braved, and died, trying to cross the Arizona desert, or Cubans trying desperately to get their rickety rafts across shark infested waters, all simply to want a chance at a better life.
It is not about the taxpayer money being spent paying for the hospital
delivery fees for those babies born on US soil by non citizen mothers.
It IS about the psychology of modern "conservatives", their selfish and childish FEAR that someone, somewhere, somehow, is "getting something for nothing".
Mexican babies getting rights of citizenship JUST for being born here.
Goes hand in hand with conservatives FEAR of same sex couples having the same
marriage rights as heteros JUST for because they are US citizens.
Their FEAR that older Americans should get Social Security and healthcare (Medicare)
for NOTHING, just because they are US citizens.
(Republicans voted overwhelming AGAINST the creation of SS and Medicare)
Being a modern conservative is about being afraid of someone getting something for "not doing anything to deserve it".
Fear of upsetting their status quo, fear of change(healthcare reform).
Republicans, be afraid, be VERY afraid. Hispanics are the fastest growing
VOTING demographic, and they presently vote 70% NON Republican, because
they believe that Republicans do not share their "values" and will not
pass legislation that enables ALL Americans to pursue their rights and dreams.
So go ahead and tell Hispanics (mostly Mexicans) that you want their illegal immigrant parents and grandparents "rounded up" and sent "back to
where they came from".
Go ahead now and tell them even their babies born here should NOT be
US Citizens and should be "sent back" with them.
After all, you gotta DO something to be a citizen to the Repubs.
Like THEY "earned" their citizenship, JUST BY BEING BORN HERE.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 05:36pm PT
|
John writes
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
Corporations don't get equal protection under the law. They get extra protection. People's freedoms are regularly taken away for violating any number of laws but this doesn't not happen to corporate lawbreakers. Corporations are almost never dismemebered (which is a far cry from the death penalty) and are rarely hurt by it. How was Microsoft really hurt when found guilty of monopoly power.
You don't have to be a person to have legal protection. Get real. Guns aren't people but the constitution allow people to own them.
Freedom of the press shouldn't be the freedom for a few big corporations to buy up the major media and then spin the information we get to the exclusion of other views.
Peace
karl
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 06:48pm PT
|
Karl, you are giving logic and fact checking a bad name. Do you have any examples to illustrate your comparisons of people to corporations?
Microsoft was found guilty and did and is doing whatever the judge said the remedy is. If a person were found guilty of antitrust violations there would be a judicial remedy. Antitrust, in the absence of provable price fixing is really hard to prove and harder still to create a remedy, especially in a fast moving technology.
What does your statement about guns have to do with artificial persons? I would venture a guess, but I truly cannot guess what you are trying to say about guns.
Your assumption that we will lose our free press because of the recent Citizens United ruling shows that you don't seem to understand too much about how a free press works. And, I think the court was totally out of line overriding precedent and law in its ruling. It is much more interesting to note that Rupert Murdock bought the WSJ and many regular readers worried that it would lose its journalist independence. Not only has that continued to shine, its editorial content has shifter more toward the center. For a while the WSJ tired to shift rightward, but it ran out of good stuff (which is funny in itself) and also noted that its readers were not all happy. The readership of the WSJ is all over the map politically (the WSJ is the only large general circulation paper that I know of that has an extreme sports writer). Most businesses are very sensitive to not pissing off their customers with political views. Target and Best Buy took some very unwelcome heat by giving money to organizations that their respective customers found objectionable.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 07:14pm PT
|
There's also a very practical reason why the law adopted the definition of "person" to include a corporation. Otherwise, the individual rights of the corporations' owners would require unweildy lawsuits to determine.
As just one example, suppose that the government decided to confiscate all of Exxon's inventory of petroleum, and pay no compensation. Someone's property has clearly been taken. If we allow Exxon the standing of a person, we have a suit of Exxon vs. U.S. to determine if and how much compensation is required. If we did not allow that expedient, the suit would be every shareholder of Exxon individually vs. the U.S. The transactions costs of such arrangements would be monumental.
John
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 07:37pm PT
|
How do we have effective freedom of the press if corporations are not "persons" under the Constitution?
This was sort of answered, but to reiterate: The first admendment specifically grants freedom of the press. So that right is protected independent of corporations.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 07:41pm PT
|
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
Roger,
Maybe I don't understand what you are argueing, but here is my example again.
Congress doesn't like corporations spending unlimted amounts of money on polictical advertising. Congress passes a law that the president signs prohibiting it.
End of story? No. A constitution is a person under the bill of rights. Said "person" goes to the supreme court who says, congress, that law is void. Corporation, spend whatever you like.
I say that problem is caused by corporations being persons. The constitution says nothing directly about whether corporations are persons under the constitution or not. The supreme court has arbitrary decided they are (in fairness, it is perhaps just as arbitrary to say they are not). Corporations get the fundamental rights of "minority protection" and the majority (ie congress/democracy) can't change/take them away.
I wish the Court would change its mind. Or an admendment was enacted that says Corporations do not get the rights that "persons" have under the Bill of Rights. But our constitution is too difficult [in my opinion] to change. States representing something around 6% (?) of the population can block an admendment (but that's a different rant...).
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 07:42pm PT
|
If we allow Exxon the standing of a person, we have a suit of Exxon vs. U.S. to determine if and how much compensation is required. If we did not allow that expedient, the suit would be every shareholder of Exxon individually vs. the U.S. The transactions costs of such arrangements would be monumental.
That's why class action law suits were created.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 07:44pm PT
|
I also would like to point out that I realize there is some down sides to stripping corporations of the rights of "persons". But overall I think it would make for a healthier society.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 07:50pm PT
|
The "people" elect congressmen, who then pass a law limiting campaign spending (McCain-Finegold)
The Supreme Court dominated by "conservatives" votes 5-4 to overturn
what congress has passed.
THAT is Judicial Activism, that is NOT "calling balls and strikes"
The financial ability of "unions" to buy media time to try to influence
voters to elect candidates favorable to a working man's benefit is
positively dwarfed by the ability of corporations to buy media time
to influence voters to vote for candidates favorable to increasing corporate profits.
It is government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, and for the PEOPLE.
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 08:23pm PT
|
The first amendment expressly prohibits congress from limiting a free press, regardless of whether the press is a person or a corporation. The free press argument is a red herring.
And so is the lawsuit argument. Corporations have standing to sue and there has never been a requirement that individual investors have to file independent actions.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 08:30pm PT
|
It is government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, and for the PEOPLE.
So why does our current Prez/Congress rally against public opinion???
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 08:50pm PT
|
Congress recently passed, and the President just signed a comprehensive
consumer Financial Reform Law.
How does the public feel?
Nearly two-thirds of Americans support stricter regulation of financial institutions, according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll out Monday.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36343.html#ixzz0wRSiBIPI
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 09:06pm PT
|
If we allow Exxon the standing of a person, we have a suit of Exxon vs. U.S. to determine if and how much compensation is required. If we did not allow that expedient, the suit would be every shareholder of Exxon individually vs. the U.S. The transactions costs of such arrangements would be monumental.
I would also add that if corporations were not "persons", it is not like it is open season on corporations. Corporations have powerful lobbiest. The "democratic" laws that congress passes will still protect shareholders. For instance, rich, western, democracies can, in most countries, "take" whatever congress/parliment passes without compensation being decided by Justice Kennedy (ahem, I mean the Supreme Court). And they seem, to me, to be rich, western, democracies that are doing alright.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 09:10pm PT
|
Snap!
Dingus is on fire.
And in response to Dingus' slam on my wife, Pate says this?
You're a f*#king dick, Pate. Same with DMT, Mister righteous. F*#k you!
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 09:11pm PT
|
The "people" elect congressmen, who then pass a law limiting campaign spending (McCain-Finegold)
The Supreme Court dominated by "conservatives" votes 5-4 to overturn
what congress has passed.
THAT is Judicial Activism, that is NOT "calling balls and strikes"
I don't like that corporations are persons (if you hadn't gathered that by now).
But the Bill of Rights is, by definition, anti-democratic. It says every person (and strangly enough corporations) has certain rights (ie, freedom of religion) that the majority can not take away despite how many congressmen vote for it. As long as Kennedy (oh right, 5 justices) agree.
If the Bill of Rights is to mean something, it requires some ability to overturn/strike down democratic initiatives. Otherwise, it is just a platitude.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 09:14pm PT
|
August, I think I understand your pointing to the lever that our Supremes used in their particularly onerous bit of activism, whereas, I think the issue is the conservative activism of the court and some other lever would be found.
The courts overturned precedent (don't take the artificial person bit too far) and the Congress. I don't know how this activism is going to work itself out. In Andrew Jackson's day, he just said that the court would just come on down and enforce their rules. The court backed down. Andrew Jackson lives today: the recent ruling on gun laws in DC has created a solid wall of DC residents, city workers, and politicians who are effetely thwarting the ruling. From what I have read, it is almost impossible to buy a hand gun in DC. Mild-mannered middle aged guys like me are willing to publically push back against conservative friends who think that it is okay for them to use their high-minded ideals based on original intent (I love to ask them how they are so much more knowing about the original intend when constitutional lawyers have been mulling it over for over a hundred years.) I evoke State's Rights (even thought DC is not a state) and ask how it is that the Federal government or someone in Texas should be telling people of Washington DC how to manage their problems. I ask them when they are going to tire of big government.
Back to first amendment rights for corporations. For starters, as a big company businessman, it is not at all clear to me that there will be a flood of businesses buying media time. Most big companies divvy up any political support they give across the board, because they fully understand the political process of give-and-take. It makes a lot more sense for them to give through PACs. Most CEOs don't get too involved in big money politics: they have too many colleagues and too many board members and work-a-day employees, and too many shareholders who don’t agree with them. If some take advantage of the court’s decision, they are likely to be local businesses who own the company or very wealthy individuals who will be the ones spending for local causes. But these individuals could pretty much spend what they wanted under the old law; they just had to spend it out of their own pocket. But even if they do, their money will be spent across the broad spectrum of issues, just as it is now. I get the feeling that many of the posters on this thread think that corporate CEOs think a certain way. It gets really tricky to have political views in the business world. Upthread, I relay the experience of the WSJ and Target and BestBuy.
But let's assume that we are suddenly in a world in which corporations are no longer legal persons, the law is overturned by a Constitutional amendment. All the current corporate law that rely on legal person status will have to be rewritten by the Congress. All the views expressed on this thread will have to be accounted for as the laws are redone. All the local politicians are going to be lobbying for laws that help the employers in their districts. Given all this, with the give and take, the new laws are going to look a whole like the old laws. If the congress, in this imaginary world, is as conservative as our Supreme's we are going to get a law that says Corporations' political views are protected speech.
So my view is that the mechanism of the law is just a mechanism. What matters is the effect of the law, not its mechanism. But this is just my opinion. I will discuss it with my constitutional lawyer daughter and may have to eat crow.
BTY, August, I don't think any of our original laws mention corporations. I think that legal status all came from court rulings.
|
|
AndyG
climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 09:39pm 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.
Actually, as of a few minutes ago it is still listed as an accomplishment at the link I posted above.
(repost)
http://www.gop.com/index.php/issues/accomplishment/
Andy
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 09:45pm PT
|
Do you remember Bush and Cheney spitting in the face of public opinion??
At the end they had a 18% approval rating
Thats means only 18% of the people agreed with him, Cheney was at 6%
So you agree the Prez should follow public opinion???
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 10:10pm PT
|
He is following public opinion
Just not yours!!!
Which bell weather poll is he following?
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 10:52pm PT
|
Roger
DC might be able to thwart the ruling in the short term, but that is presumably only a matter of more NRA lawsuits. But sure, rulings like laws don't usually create absolutes.
I don't want to take the political contributions too far. Many other examples could be used. Although I am fully behind keeping alcohol legal (and am for prop 19 for that matter), I think we should prohibit all alcohol advertising. You can go to a bar or store and buy it. But absolutely no billboards or commercials. I don't see why we should allow corporations to push this product, but I don't think prohibition is a good idea either (more like cigs, but even that still has some ads). So if congress actually passed this law, I don't think we should also have to win in the court of the Supreme court. And my example about environment laws creating a takings under the 5th is, unfortunately, not completely facetious.
Yea, a sudden big change causes problems. But just because you have dug a hole, doesn't mean you have to stay there. And you can be sophisticated in changing things. Pass a constitional admendment that says any rights that corporations currently have (because they were considered "persons" under the constitution) continues to exist (subject to change). But corporations can no longer challenge any new laws that congress passes from here on out, on any constitional grounds (relating to "persons").
Yes, it is my memory from law school that the legal status all came from court rulings. So a court could arbitrarily change this (subject to the usual complaints of judicial activism.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!