Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 11:13pm PT
|
Andrew Jackson knew more about American character than current NRA.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 11:30pm PT
|
The GOP:
Don't you think it funny they want to defend corporations as people but not let gays get married?
Those who claim the sky will fall if corporations aren't people are being disingenuous. The courts haven't been calling them "people" for a long time.
Calling them people for the sake of campaign finance reform is madness. A large corporation has more money at stake in the political arena than any person, they have the motivation to spend more influencing politics than any person, so where's our protection against exactly what is happening now...that corporations have bought politics and we, the voting masses, are just being given lip service so we'll vote like sheep. Political/psychological/polling science is advanced enough now that we, the sheep, can be manipulated into voting as desired, imagining we'll get our representation while the corporations can't be fooled because they look at bottom line results.
Big corporate and elite money rules this country and they play that this is not true. If we look at the bottom line, it's obvious. Stats show the rich are getting far richer than 10, 20, 30 years ago and the middle class is disappearing. We are becoming more like mexico all the time.
Pretend it's not true but time will show it. By the time we all know it, it will be too late. That's why all these draconian "anti-terror" laws have given more power to the government (with those anti-government GOP guys cheering them on) So that when we wake up screwed, dissenters will be controlled and imprisoned. All the second amendment rights you think will protect you and make revolution possible is wishful thinking. You have no hope against the military and will be labeled terrorists and put away.
Hope I'm wrong!
Peace
karl
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 11:47pm PT
|
The courts haven't been calling them "people" for a long time.
The courts have been calling corporations legal persons for just about as long as corporations have existed, going back to the 16th century in England.
That is why there is so much law built up around the idea. That is why the Supreme Court was able to make the case in a 5 to 4 vote that they have 1st Amendment rights.
More specifically, corporations have the right to have contracts honored the same as contracts entered into by natural persons, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, decided in 1819.
In the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, the Supreme Court recognized that corporations were recognized as persons for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The right to lobby the government, the right to due process and compensation before being deprived of property, and the right, as legal entities, to speak freely. All of these rights have been upheld by the U.S. courts.
|
|
Jingy
Social climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 12:02am PT
|
DR F - Holy shite....
Thank you for your front page post. This shows me....
I'm not alone...........
While I am in the belly of the beast.. I actively work to show that it is a bad idea to do things the way we do...
All for money.
Cheers mate.
Me?
Anti-Corporate person hood all the way
I'd even die for it die for it
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 12:12am PT
|
The courts have been calling corporations people for just about as long as corporations have existed, going back to the 16th century in England. Corporate bodies of one kind or another go back centuries if not millenia. The roots of the modern business share capital corporation are often seen in the trade and banking houses of northern Italy, in the 13th century CE. But it's a pretty complicated subject.
From what I remember from law school, and an interest in medieval history. (JE probably knows this stuff better.) The modern business corporation arose in the 19th century. That is, entities with a distinct persona from their owners, with share capital, limited liability for shareholders, and with many of the rights of persons - own property, sue and be sued, carry on business. Another change then was that one no longer had to get consent (letters patent) from the government to form a corporation. If you met the minimum requirements, that was that. A final thing, in the later 19th century, was the so-called corporate veil, which said that for the most part the owners/shareholders, employees, and officers couldn't be personally sued for the acts of the corporation. (That was never as black and white as corporate lawyers claim, and has gradually been reduced anyway.) The rights and governance of business corporations, and their proper place in the world, has been a challenge ever since.
At one time, in some jurisdictions, corporations actually had the right to vote. Amazing but true.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 02:36am PT
|
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.
So is freedom of speech. How, then, is Citizens United a dangerous conservative adventure in judicial activism? The activism -- and intellectual dishonesty -- is in trying to portray that decision as fundamentally different from centuries of jurisprudence. If there was anything unprecedented about that decision, it was the President's deliberate, cowardly mischaracterization of it in the State of the Union speech.
John
|
|
Chinchen
climber
Way out there....
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 02:38am PT
|
That Repugnican looked like a dumass on Anderson Cooper just now. Heelariouse!!!
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 11:17am PT
|
I would never look to the UK as a beacon for civil rights or for even holding the interests of her citizens before the corporate masters. Its quite the opposite.
So tout 16th century English bullshit all you want - its law like that why the US became the US to begin with. House of Lords can KISS MY AMERICAN ASS.
The conservatives are just being consistent here, Dingus. After all, they fought for the King in the revolution.
|
|
Jingy
Social climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 11:17am PT
|
They're calling them anchor babies.....
putting fear 20 years from now on the front page....
we got better things to think about...
Like revoking the personhood of corporations!
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 11:24am PT
|
Your hero, Dingy Harry introduced this bill in 1993
Mr. Reid introduced a bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee as the Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993. The bill, which died in committee after it was referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Affairs, includes tough immigration provisions that would make many wonder where Mr. Reid truly stands on the immigration and border debate.
Title X of the Reid introduced bill shows the Nevada Democrat took Senator Lindsey Graham's, South Carolina Republican, idea on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and documented it into legislation:
"TITLE X—CITIZENSHIP 4 SEC. 1001. BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP CLARIFIED. In the exercise of its powers under section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth."
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 11:27am PT
|
Sweet, Harry Reid is even in favor of repealing/modifying the 14th??
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 11:29am PT
|
Does anyone have accurate data on the actual number of so-called "anchor babies" yearly, and what % of them remain in the US a year or more after birth?
Personally, I think this is just another ginned up BS culture war issue that in reality has such a small effect, with actual "anchor" baby numbers so low, that it's pretty f*#king stupid to be haggling over this when there are real, pressing problems facing the country.
But that's the GOP agenda, isn't it? Gin up any fake controversy possible in pursuit of power, which once attained, causes them to conveniently forget all those "principles" they claim to stand by...small govt, individual liberties, etc.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 11:35am PT
|
For Elcap...
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/article_443330d0-a574-11df-b2bf-001cc4c002e0.html
From the link;
That percentage of children of illegal immigrant parents might be increasing.
The overall figure is about 6.8 percent of all children 17 and younger have at least one illegal immigrant parent.
But the center calculated that about 340,000 of the 4.3 million babies born in the United States in 2008 were offspring of “unauthorized” immigrants. That computes out to 7.9 percent.
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 11:40am PT
|
Well the effort is there Bluedude, but the "study" has a problem...let's see if we can spot it:
"The overall figure is about 6.8 percent of all children 17 and younger have at least one illegal immigrant parent."
WTF is that? I don't care if ONE parent is "illegal" and one is "legal", I want to know how many are ACTUAL "anchor babies" born of two "illegal"/non-citizen parents.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 12:06pm PT
|
New 14th Amendment proposal:
BY BIRTH: Birth within the territory of the United States does not automatically confer citizenship.
Child of a United States citizen father, born in wedlock, regardless of the child's country of birth will be granted citizenship.
Child of a United States citizen father and foreign mother, born out of wedlock, will obtain the citizenship of the mother.
Child born in the United States, out of wedlock, to a United States citizen mother and unknown father will be granted citizenship.
Child born out of wedlock to a United States citizen mother, born outside the country, will not be granted citizenship.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 12:10pm PT
|
uh oh...wedlock...
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 12:20pm PT
|
Well Lolli, they are just the rules one of our allies uses to determine citizenship. Where do you live? Maybe your county's rules are better.
Do you like this proposal better?
"Citizenship by descent: A child who is under 18 years of age at the time of the application may acquire citizenship by descent through registration, provided: At least one parent is a United States citizen at the time of the child's birth, and that person is the "responsible parent.""
Or this one:
"Child born in the United States, at least one of whose parents is a United States citizen or has settled in the United States. Child born in the United States whose parents are unknown."
However, with some of these alternatives, anchor babies are likely to be abandoned at birth to confer upon them citizen status. Odd twist.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 12:43pm PT
|
The first alternative is Saudi Arabian law, the second is Australian law, and the third is UK law.
I think it is very interesting that all the countries in the New World use the “if you are born here you are a citizen” rule. Plus France, Nepal, and Zambia.
Nobody else does. (Might have missed a few.)
Maybe it is a combination of freedom and the society’s openness to immigration.
So, is it true that all Swedes are Republican?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 12:49pm PT
|
We all on the forum were given citizenship simply because we were born here.
So, what has changed since the 1860s when the 14th Amendment was passed that
that is reason to deny citizenship to people born here?
what has changed since then?
What, we now don't want to collect income taxes from the earnings of illegal
immigrant's children when they grow up and start making money?
They are going to be here anyway, 10 million of them already here and no one
is being "rounded up" and sent back to Cuba, or Italy, or El Salvador.
Let's make them pay income taxes legally, just like the rest of us do.
Because when they are in the shadows and undocumented, they work cash jobs and pay no taxes.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 12:53pm PT
|
I am lucky. I am descended from illegal immigrants. Changed their names. Worked on the farms. Avoided the constables. But they got here before the revolution.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!