 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
|
||||
 Originally Posted by excon
Corporations only need "permission" to exist because government said so. Corporations, partnerships, LLC's etc. are only creations of the government because the government decided to take the power of regulation upon themselves, usurping the powers of the Constitution. Before the government got involved (primarily via tax law used to regulate corporate entities) there were only COMPANIES and INDIVIDUALS. And you didn't need permission to create them. Individuals, businesses and partners have been selling and bartering since the beginning of time. The Talmud tells stories of sea-faring traders and partnerships that bought and sold stuff going back as far as the last century BC. The existence of companies that buy and sell is NOT the creation of the government. You are just so tied into the idea of government control of the economy that you cannot imagine a time when government wasn't involved in such activities.
Now, if some group of businessmen DIDN'T want the benefits and subsidies that come with corporatehood, they could certainly CHOOSE to operate as a partnership, or an association, or some entity that DOESN'T get benefits. Then, they wouldn't BE subject to corporate laws... But, there's a tradeoff, if they want government largess.
There is only a difference between them BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT SAID THAT THERE IS. In reality, a two-man operation that calls itself a partnership operates no differently from a 1,000-man operation that calls itself a corporation, or a 15-man operation that calls itself an LLC. Any difference is artificial and created by the government, not a product of the marketplace.
That's as it should be, too. The above, by the way, is pretty damn Constitutional.
Excon You are saying that taxing different business entities differently and with differrent rules is Constitutional? So much for Article 1, Section 9 and the 16th Amendment. Elliot |
||||
|
||||
|
There are several individuals who have committed crimes, and have paid there debt to society. But, are not welcomed back into society with out a back being turned, and a wicked eye lash being batted. The practice of conviction without rehabilitation has become ludicrous. Thus, my journey and endeavor begins. I am writing to you knowingly that you share such interest, and that you do care. So my question, in which I will direct to you, first is. How does a person with a felony find employment after he/she has completed their sentence? This is a question that has yet to be answered. This is a question that many politicians turn a blind eye, and/or choose to ignore. Has man taken to contrary that he is not God? And, “those that judge shall be judged.” Our Judicial system was built on (or so I have read) that which is written on our very American currency (In God We Trust). I believe that every one deserves to be given a opportunity to redeem their character. Thus, this is the law of the very one that we bend our knees to, and bow our heads. The one we tell our children to respect But, as adults tend to disrespect. Convictions are painful enough to deal with, and incarceration is inevitable in most cases concerning poor folks. Our justice system has a double edge sword, in that if you lack financial means you will fail, and if you are financially successful retaining a hi-profiled attorney will set you free. The even more harsh reality is that you are released with said payment to society, and no where to go. But, back to the same community where you were subject to poverty and crime is the only mean for your next meal. So where does it leave mankind in the wake of this said correction system? I’ve learned that the system is designed for you to fail. Statistically several convicted felons will return to prison, due to the lack of resources. All being said, I am in the process of an endeavor to amend the laws of the so called rehabilitation process. If someone can not be rehabilitated... Then why incarcerate? Why have a judicial system? Why not go back to the days of court yard justice (hangings, guillotine, stoning, etc... ) This system we have has to change. If one can not find employment after conviction, then what is left? The only thing one has is to continue a life of criminal mischief, which would lead to recidivism. Thus, you have your judicial revolving door. Repulsive/heinous crimes are an exception to the rule (child molestation, rapist, repulsive murders’, etc.). If you are a constant repeat offender, then obviously you have not earned your membership back into this so call civil society. But a person who makes a one time mistake should not be an out cast for the duration of his/her life. Please join me in the endeavor to amend the employment after conviction laws. Convicted felons need a chance to redeem their character with out being a cast away for life…. Further, I will be persistent in my endeavor, and continue to contact you until I receive your support; and have this law amended. To conclude I have sited a few celebrity felony convictions to support my purpose/reason. Question? Should we stop buying Martha Stewart products because she is now a convicted felon? Should Don King be ousted because he committed a violent criminal act? Is he allowed to attend the same functions that our president attends? Are convicted felons human beings? When answering these questions, think of those who don’t have the celebrity status. All their asking for is an opportunity to rightfully reclaim their purpose in our so called civil society, and to have their claim without prejudice. My final question: Will you join me in restoring equal opportunity, and resurrecting the quote? “In God We Trust.” Please contact me at [email protected]. I have attached some web site with interest and concerns for your review: Text of President Bush's 2004 State of the Union Address Jan. 20, 2004 Courtesy FDCH E-Media “In the past, we've worked together to bring mentors to the children of prisoners and provide treatment for the addicted and help for the homeless. Tonight I ask you to consider another group of Americans in need of help. This year, some 600,000 inmates will be released from prison back into society. We know from long experience that if they can't find work or a home or help, they are much more likely to commit crime and return to prison. So tonight, I propose a four-year, $300 million Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative to expand job training and placement services, to provide transitional housing and to help newly released prisoners get mentoring, including from faith-based groups. (APPLAUSE) America is the land of second chance, and when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life.” President Bush's 2004 State of the Union Address | Jan. 20, 2004 (washingtonpost.com) |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by infocus282
The United States is currently undergoing a recession. We have 10.2% official unemployment. The real unemployment number, which includes those who have stopped looking for jobs due to frustration and those who are working only part time instead of the full time jobs they really need, is 17.5% nationwide. There are few enough jobs to be had right now. If it comes to a choice between giving one of those few jobs to a law-abiding citizen or a convicted felon, I choose the law-abiding citizen. And I don't feel the least bit guilty about it. Is it a "punishment" to give jobs to those without criminal records before those with criminal records? I don't think so. I think it is merely a consequence of the actions of the criminal. It is just the natural effect of his past actions, and he has to live with it. If one sticks ones hand into a fire, he gets burned. Getting burned isn't a punishment, it is simply a consequence of the action of putting your hand in a fire. And the person putting his hand in the fire has to live with that consequence. Similarly, if one commits a crime, he has to live with the consequences of that action... separate from any punishments he may have had to endure. Difficulty in finding a job is one of those consequences. As for your Martha Stewart/Don King argument, I find it interesting, but not very convincing. Nobody is arguing that sombody should boycott either Martha Stewart or Don King. Nor does anybody employ either one of them... they run their own businesses, and have "employment" because they built their own companies. If a convicted felon wishes to open his or her own business, more power to them. But I don't have to give that person a job when I have a perfectly good non-criminal of equal skill to give it to. I do not believe that this is something that should be legislated away. I believe that the employer should be allowed to choose who works for him without the government interfering in that choice. Otherwise that employer really isn't in control of his own business, is he. Sorry, but I do not find this to be a compelling cause. Elliot |
||||
|
||||
|
The Supreme Court ruled on this issue yesterday. The majority opinion was that corporate speech is a 1st amendment guarantee. Justice Stevens in his dissent took the opinion of the OP that corporations should have reduced 1st amendment rights. The majority said that if that were the case then the government would also have the right to abridge freedom of the press since most news organizations are organized as corportations. This is particluarily true of the dinosaurs (in all their forms of communication,magazine ,newspaper,broadcast etc) As an example;the GE conglomerate is the owner of NBC and it's cable affiliates . The fact that Congress grants them exemptions from restrictions in no way protects their rights because Congress could just as easily take their 1st amendent rights away as the system stood. It is not sufficient to say that the 1st amendment protects the rights of freedom of the press either because there is nothing that says who is qualified for the protection . Is the press an industry ? Am I not the press if I write op-ed at AMHD or some other social network ? In the days of the founders the press was anyone who could write a pamphlet or leaflet ,and stand on the corner distributing it. Any person or group of people who collectively group their resources for advocacy and persuasion not only enjoys freedom of speech;but also the freedom of the press. The court yesterday confirmed that right. The ill-advised McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance laws can now be deposited in the trash heap of history. |
||||
|
||||
|
Nader's group is calling for changing the first amendment in light of this decision:
"Public Citizen will aggressively work in support of a constitutional amendment specifying that for-profit corporations are not entitled to First Amendment protections, except for freedom of the press. We do not lightly call for a constitutional amendment. But today’s decision so imperils our democratic well-being, and so severely distorts the rightful purpose of the First Amendment, that a constitutional corrective is demanded.
"We are formulating language for possible amendments, asking members of the public to sign a petition to affirm their support for the idea of constitutional change, and planning to convene leading thinkers in the areas of constitutional law and corporate accountability to begin a series of in-depth conversations about winning a constitutional amendment." Not sure why he's upset though, of the top 50 industries giving to congressman last year Schumer is listed 11 times. Dingy Harry takes the top 2 spots and there are only 6 Republicans on the list. |
||||
|
||||
|
Whenever Chucky reacts so virulently against something I know it is the right call. The President is calling on Congress to pass more unconstitutional laws as a response. This is from SCOTUS blog : President Obama ordered his aides on Thursday “to get to work immediately with Congress” to develop “a forceful response” to the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case. In a statement, the President denounced the decision, saying it “has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics.” It was obvious, therefore, that he was interested in working with Congress to overturn the decision, or at least to narrow it significantly.
Unless he has in mind an amendment to the Constitution, however, it is most unclear at this point whether the lawmakers could do anything — or much of anything — to cut down on “special interest money” in American politics. This was a constitutional decision, laying down (essentially for the first time), a sweeping free-speech right in politics for “special interest” bodies of all types with the concept of “speech” clearly embracing spending money to influence election outcomes. If individuals have considerable freedom to express themselves politically, corporations, labor unions, and other “special interest” entities now do, too. |
||||
|
||||
|
"One perhaps frivolous suggestion already making the rounds of political conversation is to require legislators to wear NASCAR-style uniforms, emblazoned with the logos of their corporate “sponsors.”
I can see it now, Dems taking to the streets this year decrying corporate influence in politics while thanking all of their corporate sponsors. "I'd like to thank Bank of America, Pfizer, United Healthcare, AIG, JP Morgan Chase, GE and the National Association of Realtors for sponsoring this SEIU Chevrolet campaign." |
||||
|
||||
|
Personally I think it is about time that individuals (corporations) are able to do the same thing that big unions have done for the Dems for years. Except the Unions have taken the money paid to them in the form of protection, er dues and given it to the political party that they wanted. Without the input from members. The likes of Chuckie Schumer are going nuts. Over what the Supreme court said a couple of days ago. But then again he may be a non entity by years end. So who cares what he says. |
||||
|
||||
|
I had forgotten that the schmuckster was also up for reelection this year. Everyone here is focused on the Gillibrand seat. Hmmmm... not sure that there are that many Republicans in NY to field major candidate slots for 2 Senate seats and a Governorship now that Rudi ruled himself out of contention. |
||||
|
||||
|
The President took the controversy to levels rarely seen in this country during his SOTU address . I can only think of a handful of examples where the Executive has openly clashed with SCOTUS over a ruling . Andrew Jackson clashed with Chief Justice John Marshal over the Worcester v. Georgia decision where he famously stated "the decision of the supreme court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate." (he never actually challenged Marshal to enforce the ruling himself .That is an oft stated misquote that I have used in the past because it has become part of the legend .Since Georgia ultimately complied with the ruling there was no Constitutional crisis about the Executive of the United States needing to enforce it.).
Another famous instant was during the Roosevelt Adm. His initial decisions to deal with the depression was ruled unconstitutional. The President openly took on the court ;and threatened to pack the court with justices that would do his bidding . He ultimately backed off .But it can be argued that the implied intimidation shaped future court decisions. And that brings us to Obama's pointed and incorrect public critique of SCOTUS' Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission ruling . To my recollection there has never been a case where the President disrespectfully called out the court during a SOTU address ,where the justices ,(not required to attend ), were subject to the jeering of Congressional back bencher hyenas (especially by the schmuckster Sen. Chuck Schumer).For the most part the Justices sat there stoically ;the one exception was Justice Alito silently mouthing the words "not true" . This has been treated as if it was Alito that did an outragous breach of protocol. What makes it worse is that the substance of the President's critique is fundamentally false and irrelevant to the decision. It was 100% demagogery. Substantly he accused the court of "reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections". While it is true that the court correctly reversed a trend to limit the 1st amendment rights of corporations ;it is patently untrue that, (as is stated in the Justice Steven's dissent) ,that "the ruling afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans." That in fact was never an issue in the ruling . The ruling dealt specifically with 2 U.S.C. Section 441a Which stated that all corporate political spending was illegal . That was the section that was struck down. Section 2 U.S.C. 441e states that foreign corporations are prohibited,from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication." The President being a former law professor must understand this distinction . |
||||
|
||||
|
Dan Henniger of WSJ dug deeper into the ruling and found the debate over the nature of corporations in the body of the ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Specifically Scalia wrote a concurance to address Stevens minority opinions that trash corporations.
Their dispute, and especially Justice Stevens's view of corporations, reveals a lot about why Mr. Obama and liberalism's left wing went nuts. It isn't just corporate political advertising that's anathema. Corporations themselves are anathema.
Thomas Jefferson," he notes, "famously fretted that corporations would subvert the Republic." A citation quoted by the justice notes that "the word 'soulless' constantly recurs in debates over corporations"; and "corporations, it was feared, could concentrate the worst urges of whole groups of men."
But here's the public-philosophy belief that flows from this view: "The Framers thus took it as a given," in Justice Stevens's opinion, "that corporations could be comprehensively regulated (my emphasis) in the service of the public welfare." In short, private corporations have not much, if anything, to do with the public good. In his crack-back concurrence, Justice Scalia ridicules "the corporation-hating quotations the dissent has dredged up." He notes that most corporations back then had "state-granted monopoly privileges" (sort of like Fannie and Freddie today—columnist's footnote) and that modern corporations without these state privileges "would probably have been favored by most of our enterprising Founders—excluding, perhaps, Thomas Jefferson and others favoring perpetuation of an agrarian society." He ends with a conservative belief: "To exclude or impede corporate speech is to muzzle the principal agents of the modern free economy." But the meat of the Scalia concurrence can be found in the paragraph before the one Henniger quotes . The Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speakers, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals. The Obots came in wanting to do all types of speech restrictions ;especially in their targeting of Fox and right wing talk radio. This decision puts a big monkey wrench in their plans. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
|
||||
|
||||
|
Your buddy, that bulldog Henry Waxman, and the guy that sold his soul for Obamacare, Bart Stupak, have summoned execs from companies that have given bad publicity for Obamacare. Obviously this congress doesn't believe corporations have a right to free speech, instead it's time to investigate and intimidate all who threaten their agenda.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Can bailout nation for ATT be far behind ? https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...-460456-3.html But not for tanning salons . |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Old Henry and I agree. Corporations do NOT have free speech rights. Those are reserved for citizens. The Bill of Rights refers to PEOPLE, and PERSONS having such rights. It says NOTHING about corporations... ' It's like I've been saying to smoothy on another thread. The Constitution means what it says, and it says what it means. I'm a person. You're a person. We're BOTH people. WE have rights. Sears and Roebuck don't. Get back to me when Sears and Roebuck can vote, and then I'll admit they have free speech rights. excon |
||||
|
||||
|
So let me get this straight . GE under the guise of a free press can use it's various media entities to have unfettered speech regarding electioneering ;but corportations that do not have the cover of a media entity are not granted equal protection. I do not consider either you or I dummies needing government censoring protection from corporate speech . To me it is the height of irony and hypocrisy that liberal groups like Democracy 21,Common Cause and ACLU dedicated to free speech exercise their free speech to advocate the restrictions of other groups rights to the same. The founders new the people could be trusted to hear arguments about public issues and make up their own minds. Evidently the liberal is less trusting of the people. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
I don't believe corporations should own media. They USED to be companies unto themselves. I liked it that way. The 800 lb gorilla lurking in the room, is the power of corporations these days. That was the debate about health care. It's the debate about financial reform. It's the debate about whether they have rights under the Constitution. It's the debate, frankly, about EVERYTHING... The power of corporate America is stunning. That fact stands in the way of my libertarian leanings... I'm a believer in free enterprise... But, when free enterprise makes its profits by LOBBYING congress, instead of the old fashioned way, it OFFENDS the free market part of me. They're no better than any of the swill feeding at the public trough. Libertarians don't support the TAKEOVER (to borrow a phrase) of the free markets. That's what has happened, and I don't support it. If the trend continues, the corporations will BUY up ALL the media, and they'll be the only voice left. That's cool with you, huh? Well, not me, bub. excon |
||||
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
Congressman Gary Ackerman
[ 8 Answers ]
Hello: Video - CNBC.com excon
Congressman admits that Dems ran trojan horse campaign in 2006
[ 2 Answers ]
Congressman Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) admits, on camera, that the Democrats "stretched the facts" about their capability of ending the war in Iraq and that anybody that "was a good student of Government" would have known it wasn't true but the "temptation to want to win back the Congress" made them...
View more questions Search
|
