 |
You are the one ioff the rails...
YOU failed to provide ANY reference in the Constitution the supports YOUR claim that Corporations have no rights at all. Most in them here ARE Americans
You also failed to prove where in the COnstitution that Foreign Terrorists ARE. THey aren't Americans...
I know you can read english... The Constitution is written in english.
You can't dream this stuff up as you go.
Incidentally... Under your same argument ex... what rights do NPR. CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN have to promote the democrat candidates over Republicans ones like they do when they don't HAVE any rights?
They are corporations... then they are violating the law interfering with elections under your argument. Care to take action against them? I'm not going to hold my breath.
Hello again, smoothy:
I'll try again...
This isn't about ME proving that corporations don't have rights. The constitution doesn't list the entities that DON'T have rights. They list the ones that DO.
This is about YOU proving your assertion that corporations HAVE rights, and it's right there in PLAIN ENGLISH. I'm waiting to read the PLAIN ENGLISH, because, I don't SEE the word corporation in the words, "we the people". You do..
Cool, smootho. THAT'S an interpretation... I'm not going to teach you ENGLISH here smoothy... I have no patience with people who can't keep up with the argument... I HATE repeating myself.
excon
Really... I missed the section that says "as interpreted bty the left".
Where exactly is that now anyway?
You are on the losing end of this argument so you keeop making noise rather than admit it.
Corporations are People... Many are AMericans... Corporations aren't new. THey existed Centuries before the USA did.
THe COnstitution IS VERY specific about what powers the Federal Government has... its also very clear to say the Federal Government has NO rights not specifically granted.
No part of the Constitution does the same for businesses or Coprporations.
Its not there, because it wasn't intended to be there.
THe Contitution is clear... its not written by mushmouth lefties.
I think YOU have a problem with the English language. Its pretty damn clear to me... and most other Americans.
There is ONLY one way to modify the Constitution... and that's VIA amendments and the ratification process is specific...
No place in it does it say... "or whatever you want it to mean".
Its NOT open to any whacked out interpretation.
Hello again, smoothy:
So, what you're saying, is you can't find the words in PLAIN ENGLISH that you said was there... I got it.
excon
Excon losses... Check-mate.
It means what it says... Its not a liberal document than means nothing and everything at the same time.
Hello again, smoothy:Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
If that floats your boat, but people here CAN read, you know.
excon
Regarding whether corporations have the same rights as people, consider this - people have the right to assembly and free speech, but corporations do not. Specifically, it is illegal for corporations to get together and collude on pricing or dividing markets - it runs afoul of antitrust laws. Corporatons do not have a right to vote (they don't even count as 3/5 of a person). So Smoothy: do you believe that restrictions such as anti-trust laws are unconstitutional?
Knowing how and why antitrust laws were put in place. I don't disagree with them. And completely agree they should be applied towards Unions as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by ebaines
Get a bunch on non-corporate types trying that and you have RICO act implications.
As far as why Corporations don't have a vote per say... that is logical because the People have a vote... corporations without people are nothing but paper. It would in effect allow some people more than one vote. So that is logical.
And they all know you are ranting and your argument doesn't hold water... The constitution IS... its not for the left to discard when its not convenient for their agenda. Which for the most part is AntiAmerican in forcus.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Plain English
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....
Is religion established for an individual ,a group ,or both.. There is an implied plurality in that right. Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
When the founders used the word people are they talking of individual rights ? No petition and assembly are the actions of groups of people.
Ebaine I won't get into the constitutionality of the anti-trust laws . Corporations are licensed by the states. They do have to live within the rules established to keep that arrangement, just as an individual does when they are licensed... no difference.
Come on!! I thought everyone here was big 14th Amendment equal protection types. Are we really saying here that corporations are not due 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 ?
What is this Soviet Russia ?
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
That's an excellent interpretation of that clause.. But, plain English, it's NOT.
Your interpretation of the First Amendment is about as noteworthy as my interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, where I say gays are granted the right to marry. They're BOTH interpretations. Plain English, they're not.
excon
The fact is that a corporation being entitled to rights is as old as the country . You can find it in the earliest opionions of the courts and in the writing of James Madison (chief architect of the Constitution)
"The great object of an incorporation is to bestow the character and properties of individuality on a collective and changing body of men." (1st Chief Justice John Marshall)
Federalist Papers #10
"[f]actions will necessarily form in our Republic, but the remedy of destroying the liberty of some factions is worse than disease. Factions should be checked by permitting them all to speak and by entrusting the people to judge what is true and what is false." (James Madison)
There is no doubt that a corporation has the rights of the individual is consistent with originalist thinking .
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I suggest there PLENTY of doubt about a corporations personhood. Be that as it may, your viewpoint is how you INTERPRET the writings of the founders... It's also what the Supreme Court found, even though 100 years of precedent said otherwise.. But, unless you can show me the plain English, it's an INTERPRETATION. In fact, it's blatant judicial ACTIVISM, pure and simple.
excon
Can't do any better than the words of Madison in the papers he wrote to explain the Constitution to the people..
Hello again, tom:
Instead of explaining it, he could have inserted, in plain English, the words "and corporations" right after the word "people". But he didn't, I suggest intentionally so.Quote:
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Excon
Hamilton, Madison ,and Jay wrote 85 essays now called the 'Federalist Papers' explaining, in the plain language of their time, every aspect of the founders intent . John Marshall was the 1st Chief Justice of SCOTUS and was a member of the ratifying committee.
Their words represent the best understanding of original intent.
Hello again, tom:
We began this discussion with you saying the Constitution cannot be changed without being amended... I believe you're not so convinced now.
excon
Correct... it can't be constitutionally changed except with an amendment. Your argument that a corporation is not entitled to constitutional protection is historically inaccurate .
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
That's not my point... I SAY my argument is correct. You SAY it isn't... The fact is, there is NO plain English to confirm either yours or my arguments... There is ONLY interpretation... You can SAY that your interpretation is correct, but that doesn't make it so...
But, whether it's correct or not, the THRUST of this argument is whether the Constitution can be changed in OTHER ways besides the amendment process... I think we've established over these last few pages, that if the Supreme Court has a particular INTERPRETATION of the Constitution, they can make it mean what THEY want, WITHOUT an amendment.
excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:30 PM. |