In The News Today...

Quote: AZDuffman

No.



De Facto Yes



Yes.



No.


What does this have to do with the fact that corporations are people because they are made of people? Every one of your questions is "YES" to the people making the corporation up.

Lets throw this to you another way.

Do you lose your right to free speech just because you speak with one friend?

Two friends?

Three? Four?

At one point are you no longer people and you think you should lose your rights?

So, if people have inalienable rights, protected by the Constitution, and corporations are people, why don't they have ALL of the rights and priveledges spelled out in the Constitution?

Why do you defend their right to speech, but deny them the vote and equal representation?

Yes, corporations are made of people, and those people have rights. Not the corporation.

I am not against corporations donating money to politicians, I am against the ridiculous justification that they be allowed to so so because the are PEOPLE.

Free speech is the right of one who owns a printing press.

I'm in favor of accountability since there are just too many of these 'cash roots' organizations that create an aura of diverse public support but are really the creations of corporate lobbyists. Many patient support organizations are supported by the pharmaceutical companies but do not reveal that.

Quote: Dalex64

I am not against corporations donating money to politicians, I am against the ridiculous justification that they be allowed to so so because the are PEOPLE.

But why? Why is this so upsetting?

Quote: AZDuffman

But why? Why is this so upsetting?

Because a corporation is not a person, and should not be deriving it's "rights" based on that.

Unlike people, corporate regulations should be granted, removed, and regulated completely by the government.

Quote: Dalex64

Because a corporation is not a person, and should not be deriving it's "rights" based on that.

So, a corporation does not have right to due process? No unreasonable search? No right to own property?

If a person owns a corporation, do their rights end at the corporate charter? Are you saying "The New York Times" should be allowed to have its content censored by government?

Quote: AZDuffman

So, a corporation does not have right to due process? No unreasonable search? No right to own property?

If a person owns a corporation, do their rights end at the corporate charter? Are you saying "The New York Times" should be allowed to have its content censored by government?

I'm saying those rights aren't guaranteed to a corporation by the constitution, god, or by personhood which they sh ould not have.

We already agree that corporations don't have the right to vote in elections, nor count towards apportionment of representation. People do. By declaring corporations people, they should be entitled to all of the rights of people. I don't think they should, and therefore corporations should not be declared people or be given rights based on "personhood"

If a person owns a corporation, HIS rights do not end at the corporate charter, but the CORPORATION doesn't have rights of its own.

I'll also say that The Freedom of the Press has nothing to do with the right (or lack thereof) of a corporation to make political donations, which I believe was the basis of the situation which resulted in corporations being called "people"

So no, I do not believe that corporations have, or should have, the RIGHT to make political donations. If there is a law allowing it, fine. If there is a law against it, that's also fine. What happened here is some people disagreed with the law and succeeded in a constitutional/personhood end run around the law to make those laws against it illegal.

Quote: Dalex64

If a person owns a corporation, HIS rights do not end at the corporate charter, but the CORPORATION doesn't have rights of its own.

So no, I do not believe that corporations have, or should have, the RIGHT to make political donations. If there is a law allowing it, fine. If there is a law against it, that's also fine. What happened here is some people disagreed with the law and succeeded in a constitutional/personhood end run around the law to make those laws against it illegal.

This is where I lose the connection in the anti-corporate/person argument. If his rights do not end, then why should they not extend to his rights as he is part of the larger group of people?

how are HIS rights infringed or HIS ability to make political donations if his corporation is restricted from doing so?

If his rights extend to his corporation, should it be a crime to murder a corporation? Should the corporation be allowed to adopt a child?

Quote: Dalex64

how are HIS rights infringed or HIS ability to make political donations if his corporation is restricted from doing so?

If his rights extend to his corporation, should it be a crime to murder a corporation? Should the corporation be allowed to adopt a child?

His rights are infringed because he cannot assemble with others to do so.

It is a crime to murder a corporation in various ways. You cannot for example slander one to the point it causes damage to bankrupt it.

Why not let one adopt a child?

THE MEMO has been released.

And it's the wet fart we all knew it would be.

And oops: they accidentally acknowledge the Steele Dossier was NOT what triggered the FBI's investigation. There goes a whole lot of GOP talking points!