Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Just a quick correction . Thankfully ,Jefferson was on assignment in Europe at the time of the founding and was therefore not able to input some of his French Revolution type philosophies into the construct of the Constitution.



Interesting argument . Waiting to hear how restricting free speech promotes free speech.



The First Amendment also identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government. Sorry guys ,this is not artifical constructs . This is a basic right . Some call it the right of association ,and some call it the freedom of assembly . A corporation is no more an artificial construct than a political party ;and has the same right to influence the direction of the politics of the country.

---

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the correction my American history is rather poor. However, my wrong example doesn't change the substance of my argument.

We can pick any point we like in the historical process and claim that point represents true original intent. I am saying that someone else can pick a different point and claim that point to be the actual original intent. There is absolutely nothing wrong with me going right back to the beginning and claim that the original intent can be found in the formulation of natural laws and these natural laws only apply to individuals. This point is as valid as any other point in history.

When SCOTUS hands down a decision some people want to complain that this is judicial activism. Legislation from the bench if you like.
However, when SCOTUS hands down a decision from the bench they agree with,these very same people agree that it is within the keeping of the letter of the law, the spirit of the law and original intent.

This is tantamount to saying that sometimes SCOTUS hands down decisions that suit my politics and at other times it hands down decisions that are against my political views.

How does restricting freedom of speech promote freedom of speech? Glad you asked that question. I can out line my argument in relation to access speech versus content of speech, but first I will make a few comments in relation to substantive due process and procedural due process.

You seem to be saying that corporations have no legal rights unless they have the opportunity to access a civil code. What is the basis of your argument for this position?

Tut

Quote:

---

You seem to be saying that corporations have no legal rights unless they have the opportunity to access a civil code. What is the basis of your argument for this position?

---

To bring this back to the case at hand, Armendariz imposed fines and costly corrective actions on Range Resources even thought the facts showed that they had done nothing that justified such impositions by the government. The 14th amendment guarantee of due process would seem to mean that they have both the right to procedural due process and substantive due process .

When life, liberty, or property is deprived , it is essential to notify why the deprivation will happen. The person(s) must also be given the occasion for others to hear their side; officials need to conduct the hearing in a fair manner. If these requisites are not followed ,then a violation of the person(s)constitutional rights exists . That is their procedural right. Substantive due process, deals with the right to live without unnecessary and arbitrary government interference.

But without the gurarantees of the Constitution then I am not going to assume that a corporation has any protections from anything. How many people in this country would cheer if the plug was pulled on the life of a corporation (lets say Haliburton ,or Goldman Sachs ) by the government under any pretense ? Who would shed a tear if the government went in and seized the assets of Chase ;or silenced FOX ?

I ask you , what happened to the legal protections of the General Motors bond holders when the Obots completely ignored their rights in the government takeover of GM ? They used taxpayer money to do the takeover . They then steered the company through a unique bankruptcy procedure that included placing the investors stock in a Motors Liquidation Company( MTLQQ).
After the reorganization they held a new public offering for GM.. 20.1 billion shares were sold at around $35 per share.
The shares in TLLQQ were rendered useless. Who received the new stock ahead of the IPO? The General Motors Trade Union and the U.S. Treasury. The old share holders were left out even though their interest had to be represented under anything that resembles due process ;either substansive or procedural.

A precedent has now been set where the government can confiscate the ownership of a company, reorganize it, and pay off its political supporters. The former investors were betrayed by political decree .

And that happened in a land where corporations have constitutional protections. This type of Hugo Chavez fascism where corporations exist to serve the interest of the state or the people is not an economic model for a free people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The First Amendment also identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government. Sorry guys ,this is not artifical constructs . This is a basic right . Some call it the right of association ,and some call it the freedom of assembly . A corporation is no more an artifical construct than a political party ;and has the same right to influence the direction of the politics of the country.

---

How you love to run with the strawman Tom, a political party is an artificial construct and it represents the opinions of its members It has no life of its own and no opinion of its own, As soon as the members are of a different opinion it adapts or ceases to exist. Political parties and corporations exist because men have found it convenient for them to exist as as soon as it is no longer convenient they will be consigned to history as was the idea of democracy as founded by the greeks or liberty as conceived by the French. Already we see the political process within your country being modified by convenience. Do corporations have the right of assembly or the right to vote, to suggest they have right of free speech is a nonsense.

No strawman there at all . Corporations are organizations made up of people. The strawman is to say that groups of people exercising their right of speech collectively is an individual . I'm also not wrong in saying that corporations need and have the right to expect the same constitutional protections from arbitrary government action that every citizen has. That includes a socialist style seizure of corporate property . Your voting example is nonsense. Every individual in the corporation that meets the requirement to vote ,can vote. A corporation voting would then be a 'more than their fair share ' case (that should make you thrilled that I used the concept of fair share in my position). But that is not the case in speech. As I've said already ,all that happens in the case of speech is that individuals are speaking "collectively" (another turn of phrase you should be thrilled about). .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

no strawman there at all . Corporations are organizations made up of people. the strawman is to say that groups of people exercising their right of speech collectively is an individual . I'm also not wrong in saying that corporations need and have the right to expect the same constitutional protections from arbitrary government action that every citizen has. That includes a socialist style seizure of corporate property . Your voting example is nonsense. Every individual in the corporation that meets the requirement to vote ,can vote. A corporation voting would then be a 'more than their fair share ' case (that should make you thrilled that I used the concept of fair share in my position). But that is not the case in speech. As I've said already ,all that happens in the case of speech is that individuals are speaking "collectively" (another turn of phrase you should be thrilled about). .

---

Individuals cannot speak collectively Tom any more than corporations can speak collectively, in fact few if any corporations existed at the time when freedom of speech became popular and enshrined in law so suggesting that corporations, an artificial construct that post dates the amendment, are heirs to the constitutional rights is an absurdity. Corporations can exercise only those rights which are confired under corporations law and their governance is according to those same laws. Corporations exist to create a perpetuity and limit the liability of the participants, not to exercise "collective" free speech. They can only reflect the ideas of those who lead them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Corporations exist to create a perpetuity and limit the liability of the participants, not to exercise "collective" free speech. They can only reflect the ideas of those who lead them

---

Hello again,

Isn't THAT a fact? Now, if a corporation VOTED on a political position to take, THAT would "collective" free speech.. But, when the CEO speaks, that ain't collective anything. It's HIM getting MORE free speech because he has more MONEY. Republicans think money is speech.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

individuals cannot speak collectively Tom any more than corporations can speak collectively, in fact few if any corporations existed at the time when freedom of speech became popular and enshrined in law so suggesting that corporations, an artificial construct that post dates the amendment, are heirs to the constitutional rights is an absurdity. Corporations can exercise only those rights which are confired under corporations law and their governance is according to those same laws. Corporations exist to create a perpetuity and limit the liability of the participants, not to exercise "collective" free speech. They can only reflect the ideas of those who lead them

---

I would agree. It is a fallacy of composition to say that if something is true of its parts, it must be true of the whole. I guess this is why it is regarded as legal fiction.

As I said before, original intent says that natural rights were only every designed to apply to individuals. So I would agree corporations inheriting individual rights is an adjunct, or amendment.

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

Isn't THAT a fact? Now, if a corporation VOTED on a political position to take, THAT would "collective" free speech.. But, when the CEO speaks, that ain't collective anything. It's HIM getting MORE free speech because he has more MONEY. Republicans think money is speech.

excon

---

Hi ex A CEO speaks for the corporation but the views expressed are either his own or the views of the Board. A corporation cannot vote, only the members of the Board vote, usually on policy presented by the CEO. This is not collective free speech. When a corporation publicises a view it is the view of the CEO not a collective view and the view is worth no more than an individual view even if it represents the result of accumulated financial resource. A corporation is not a collective, it is according to law an individual entity with a right to own assets and conduct commercial pursuits for the benefit of its stockholders. Nowhere is it confered a right to pursue political objectives

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, odinn:

It's not ALL armed white guys. Personally, I support the Second Amendment with the same vociferousness as I do the rest. I don't think I'm a liberal anomaly, either.

I'm a political animal. I LOVE the back and forth. But, having spilled MY blood on the battlefields of Vietnam, it PISSES me off when I get accused of being ANTI American by a DRAFT dodging SOB like Nugent. If He thinks I'm his enemy, I'll oblige the bigmouthed bastard.

excon

---

Im going to try to steer this thread back to where it began. What we are seeing in today's times and will see throughout this election is the dragging out of the wackos on both sides. Each with their own agendas. Does this amount to civil war? No not yet. I say not yet because as Obama was making his rise in the presidents seat many states were reaffirming the second amendment rights for their states and signing packs of secession. Are there angry people who are ticked off at today's situations.. Yes. Do they have a right to be angry for the way the current situation is treating their cause? Yes. But true believers and true countrymen will reserve their anger for the law to settle it out and the ballot box to change the laws. Is there rederick and division being spewed by both sides. Yes. But in this election year we can change direction once again and calm the swell of division. Its going to be a nutty year with the election and the coming of 12-21-12 (mayan calendar ending) and the nuts will be highlighted by our media. But by exposing out faults to the world we also find that we do have much in common on both sides. And together we can all stand in unison to meet the future head on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

Im going to try to steer this thread back to where it began. What we are seeing in todays times and will see throughout this election is the dragging out of the wackos on both sides. Each with their own agendas. Does this amount to civil war? No not yet. I say not yet because as Obama was making his rise in the presidents seat many states were reaffirming the second amendment rights for their states and signing packs of secession. Are there angry people who are ticked off at todays situations .. Yes. Do they have a right to be angry for the way the current situation is treating their cause? Yes. But true believers and true countrymen will reserve their anger for the law to settle it out and the ballot box to change the laws. Is there rederick and division being spewed by both sides. Yes. But in this election year we can change direction once again and calm the swell of division. Its going to be a nutty year with the election and the coming of 12-21-12 (mayan calander ending) and the nuts will be highlighted by our media. But by exposing out faults to the world we also find that we do have much in common on both sides. And together we can all stand in unison to meet the future head on.

---

Dad I applaud your attempt to get back to somewhere rather than debating absurdity but in doing so you have exposed your own dilemna. First you say there are those who would succeed, I had a crazy idea that a) you fought a war against such ideas and the matter was decided b) that the idea that succession was possible was a dullision and that you say you stand in unison. Make up your mind; succession or unity and just maybe the new Mayan calendar ushers in a better period one without the wars of the last twelve thousand years

We use to solve our problems and meet our needs by meeting in the middle, but now all we can do is sit in our corners and grab for the power to do it whatever way we please. One side blasts the other, and nothing gets done. At least nothing that helps. Even more evident is the assault on people by the multinationals, you know the ones, who lobby congress for laws and regulations to make more money and invest it in overseas sweat shops, swiss bank accounts and foreign investments they shelter.

And we wonder where the economy went. Or where our rights are going, not just to bear arms, worship, or speech, but our rights to self govern through our votes. We use to trust the ones we voted for to do right by us, but now we must insure, through information that's what they do, and if we don't and keep listening to others with agendas tell us what to do, we get the government we deserve that's no longer of the people, for the people, and by the people.

November 2012, the next chance to win back our own country, democracy, and government from those that rob us blind so they can use us to get what they want. Power, and wealth. It's a very old story.

Good luck with that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Dad I applaud your attempt to get back to somewhere rather than debating absurdity but in doing so you have exposed your own dilemna. First you say there are those who would succeed, I had a crazy idea that a) you fought a war against such ideas and the matter was decided b) that the idea that succession was possible was a dullision and that you say you stand in unison. make up your mind; succession or unity and just maybe the new Mayan calendar ushers in a better period one without the wars of the last twelve thousand years

---

What you have to understand is my standing goes with the law. I was using the example to show the mood of the country at a certain period. Now the time is different. We are nearing the election cycle and we have greater division in this country then before. I am a firm believer in the constitution and states rights as covered by law. What was happening 4 years ago was legal and was in the wings to be put into place.

So the mermerings of a "civil war" were already being talked about in some sectors years ago. The reality is that it didn't happen.

Yes Dad it is unfortunate that your electorate is polarised, this happens when you have ineffective government, but that is the result of the actions of the electorate who have censored the administration as well as continuing to censor the actions of a past administration.

It ia fortunate we are a great country despite our failures, because only in America, can we wage war, yet command the disagree greatly, have a polarized electorate, yet command the safest most sought after haven for investment in the world.

The American dollar, be it weak, or strong, is the best investment in the world. Ask China!

don't mistake China's need for a stable market in america for support of your currency, they are happy for the value of your currency to erode rather than have to revalue theirs. Always remember the communist maxim, we will sell the last capitalist the rope to hang himself. Russia couldn't do it but China might.

You have made the mistake of making China strong and entwined your economy with theirs, they can't afford for you to fail but at the same time they can't afford for you to win either. We may have made the same mistake but our exports are ultimately your imports

Our own exports are rising also Clete, especially to China. Actually it helps a lot when the villagers move to the city, and the tribes exchange their rural rice patties for the conventional city jobs. It makes more consumers in every country, especially China.

For the Chinese to survive, they must accommodate more of their population into the global economic system, both as consumers and producers, or fall under their own weight. Any nation that cannot meet the demands of its own people will change, and that includes us here also, and that change has begun.

China is no threat to us, neither was Russia, as we are capitalistic, therefore need as much competition as we can get to thrive and survive. Sure we may argue fight and throw rocks, that's also what we do, but we are evolving to get better, and so is the rest of the countries in the world, as they experiment in their own way.

The result for us all is a common consensus on how to do business with each other.

Pax Americana, Tal, but what happens in China is they fill those potemkin tower blocks with peasants, there are no nice city plots just concrete. If China is as benign as you say, withdraw your forces from the Pacific, you see you don't believe it, the vision of the yellow peril is still strong. Your trade with China has fueled movement of a few hundred million people from the country but you still have a billion to go. Your economy, in fact the economy of the world doesn't have the capacity to fuel and fund the movement of the rest of the population, it is niaive to think it can.

Of course they have the capacity to fuel, and fund the recovery of the global economy, its been done before, after WWII to give one example. They rebuilt Europe. They can do it again with the same co operation. Why haven't they, or us for that matter? GREED, pure and simple. The new slavery is economic dependence. Those that say what can't be done are those that are afraid to risk themselves. They are the few, but they are also very rich.

And look at your map again, as the yellow sea is not just the province of China, but also a gate way of trade between many nations around it. Not all of them good neighbors to any of us. One in particular NK, and another where we have a vested interest SK. Never know what NK, and Iran are cooking up do we?

Tal I am not worried about NK and Iran. NK are paranoid and I think Iran also. And with good reason perhaps. They don't want the interference of outside interests particularly the US. Iran has modified its rhetoric now that the US has left Iraq and will do more so once they leave Afghanistan. I don't think they want the bomb but their influence in Iraq is disturbing, but then if it is what the Shiia population want who can deny them.

We would all like to see NK come in from the cold war but it is hard to say to the people we have been wrong. SK is the best hope there, not foreign intervention.

We need to be much more concerned with what is going on in Africa, there is potential for open warfare there and no ability to send a gunboat up the river. Both your special forces and ours are there and you have to wonder, why? Your President must have a special interest in what is happening in Kenya even if he says nothing.

The vexing question is what to do about Pakistan, it has become a haven of terrorist activity directed at Afghanistan and it is nuclear armed. If anything fuels Iranian aspirations it is having a neighbour like Pakistan nuclear armed. Really the situation there is little different to the situation which sent the US after Al Qaeda and I don't believe the rhetoric surrounding the attack on that Pakistani outpost. They have played both sides for a long time and got caught that time. Pakistani's have figured promently in many terrorist attacks