• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Sol Rosenberg

Corporate Suffrage

242 posts in this topic

Rather than hijack Tom's corporate fourth amendment thread with discussions of other rights taken away from corporations, this is a thread about corporate persons and their right to vote.

 

The Court has spoken clearly about the nature of the right to vote.

"Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society. Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized."

REYNOLDS v. SIMS, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).

 

The Court discussed the fundamental nature of the right in Bush v. Gore, 00-949, as follows:

 

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).
Emphasis added.

 

The Bush v. Gore Court went on to discuss how the Fourteenth Amendment prevents the denial of that fundamental right:

 

The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. See, e.g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 665 (1966) (“[O]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”). It must be remembered that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964).
Emphasis added.

 

Well, the Florida Legislature has spoken very clearly about requirements to register to vote in Florida. Section 97.041(1), Florida Statutes, provides when a person may register to vote.

 

(a) A person may become a registered voter only if that person:

1. Is at least 18 years of age;

2. Is a citizen of the United States;

3. Is a legal resident of the State of Florida;

4. Is a legal resident of the county in which that person seeks to be registered; and

5. Registers pursuant to the Florida Election Code.

(B) A person who is otherwise qualified may preregister on or after that person’s 16th birthday and may vote in any election occurring on or after that person’s 18th birthday.

 

Subsection 2 sets forth when a person cannot register:

(2) The following persons, who might be otherwise qualified, are not entitled to register or vote:

(a) A person who has been adjudicated mentally incapacitated with respect to voting in this or any other state and who has not had his or her right to vote restored pursuant to law.

(B) A person who has been convicted of any felony by any court of record and who has not had his or her right to vote restored pursuant to law.

 

So if the corporation is 18 years old, is a US citizen residing in a county in the State of Florida as a legal resident, who registers pursuant to the Florida Election Code, it would be denial of a fundamental right for the state to refuse to allow that corporation to register to vote.

 

Lets take a look at the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing (NASCAR)

 

Is NASCAR 18 years of age or more? Yes, NASCAR came into existence on February 21, 1948.

Is NASCAR a citizen of the United States? Excuse me? We're talking NASCAR. NASCAR IS the United States.

Is NASCAR a resident of the State of Florida? You betcha, with principle address at ONE DAYTONA BOULEVARD

DAYTONA BEACH FL 32114 US.

Is NASCAR a resident of the County in which it seeks to be registered? As long as NASCAR seeks to be registered in Volusia County, FL, the answer is "yes".

Would NASCAR register pursuant to the Florida Election Code? You better believe it, Bubba. The standard voter registration form is a breeze, and NASCAR has the best and brightest among us working for them.

 

 

So how can we deny NASCAR its fundamental right to vote? Isn't denial of NASCAR's right to vote really a blow struck against Patriotism, if not against the United States of America itself?

 

Why shouldn't NASCAR be allowed to vote, and upon what legal basis can NASCAR be denied the right to vote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's two votes for NASCAR to my one. If they get to vote in public elections, I should get to vote in NASCAR stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's all well and good insofar as we want to look at how things should be, but in legal terms, NASCAR has the right to vote and not letting it register to do so is a denial of a fundamental right. Bush v. Gore. The Court was very clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should probably call 1-800-ask-gary for answers to your legal questions.

 

This might be interesting if any corporation had ever actually attempted to vote.

 

My premise, which I have presented in the last two thread where you raised the issue, is that the corporations 'rights' are actually the rights of the individual shareholders.

 

If you cannot search my home or business premises without a warrant, you cannot search the premises of a business where I own a very small part. Those rights are not transferred from the original owner nor, are new rights conferred upon a corporation. They are simply the individual rights.

 

The other rights of the bill of rights, and the right to vote as granted by the states, are still individual rights. To the extent we form affiliations, we carry our rights with us and the affiliation is protected by those rights. They do not, however, become the affiliations rights, they remain individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASCAR is a citizen? I'll have to see a long form birth certificate.

They most certainly are. They are a citizen of the State of Florida, just as Walt Disney Co. is listed in FL as a Foreign Corporation. Corporate Citizenship has been addressed by the Court. The Court determines the location of a corporation's citizenship on the basis of where its nerve center is. I don't think anyone will argue that NASCAR's nerve center is anywhere but in Daytona Beach, FL.

 

Don't believe all the angry ad hominems that the Bush v. Gore haters throw around, Dog. Leave that stuff to the liars and lemmings.

 

Check with the FL Division of Corporations for a copy of NASCAR's Articles of Incorporation. It is not available online. Here is its latest Annual Report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should probably call 1-800-ask-gary for answers to your legal questions.

 

This might be interesting if any corporation had ever actually attempted to vote.

 

My premise, which I have presented in the last two thread where you raised the issue, is that the corporations 'rights' are actually the rights of the individual shareholders.

 

If you cannot search my home or business premises without a warrant, you cannot search the premises of a business where I own a very small part. Those rights are not transferred from the original owner nor, are new rights conferred upon a corporation. They are simply the individual rights.

 

The other rights of the bill of rights, and the right to vote as granted by the states, are still individual rights. To the extent we form affiliations, we carry our rights with us and the affiliation is protected by those rights. They do not, however, become the affiliations rights, they remain individual.

Please cite your authority, as I have cited mine. I am not making a value-based argument about the way it should be, I am making the legal argument that NASCAR has the right to vote, based on case law and statute. I don't necessarily disagree with your value based argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's all well and good insofar as we want to look at how things should be, but in legal terms, NASCAR has the right to vote and not letting it register to do so is a denial of a fundamental right. Bush v. Gore. The Court was very clear.

 

Courts are never clear. What is law today may not be law tomorrow.

 

Wot's a "nascar"? The piece of paper that is the State charter? The janitor? President? Do they all get individual votes as "nascar" then additional votes as John Doe? If NASCAR is registered as a Republican are all members of nascar republicans...

 

I see nothing clear about any of it, but I'm not a lawyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's all well and good insofar as we want to look at how things should be, but in legal terms, NASCAR has the right to vote and not letting it register to do so is a denial of a fundamental right. Bush v. Gore. The Court was very clear.

 

Courts are never clear. What is law today may not be law tomorrow.

 

Wot's a "nascar"? The piece of paper that is the State charter? The janitor? President? Do they all get individual votes as "nascar" then additional votes as John Doe? If NASCAR is registered as a Republican are all members of nascar republicans...

 

I see nothing clear about any of it, but I'm not a lawyer.

NASCAR is a corporate person, citizen of the United States of America since the 1940s, resident of Volusia County, FL, that meets all requirements of the FL statutes wrt voting rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASCAR is a citizen? I'll have to see a long form birth certificate.

They most certainly are. They are a citizen of the State of Florida, just as Walt Disney Co. is listed in FL as a Foreign Corporation. Corporate Citizenship has been addressed by the Court. The Court determines the location of a corporation's citizenship on the basis of where its nerve center is. I don't think anyone will argue that NASCAR's nerve center is anywhere but in Daytona Beach, FL.

 

Don't believe all the angry ad hominems that the Bush v. Gore haters throw around, Dog. Leave that stuff to the liars and lemmings.

 

Check with the FL Division of Corporations for a copy of NASCAR's Articles of Incorporation. It is not available online. Here is its latest Annual Report.

Well then why doesn’t NASCAR just drive itself over to the nearest DOT office (NASCAR must have a car and drivers license) and register to vote, maybe get itself a photo ID while it’s at it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASCAR is a citizen? I'll have to see a long form birth certificate.

They most certainly are. They are a citizen of the State of Florida, just as Walt Disney Co. is listed in FL as a Foreign Corporation. Corporate Citizenship has been addressed by the Court. The Court determines the location of a corporation's citizenship on the basis of where its nerve center is. I don't think anyone will argue that NASCAR's nerve center is anywhere but in Daytona Beach, FL.

 

Don't believe all the angry ad hominems that the Bush v. Gore haters throw around, Dog. Leave that stuff to the liars and lemmings.

 

Check with the FL Division of Corporations for a copy of NASCAR's Articles of Incorporation. It is not available online. Here is its latest Annual Report.

Well then why doesn’t NASCAR just drive itself over to the nearest DOT office (NASCAR must have a car and drivers license) and register to vote, maybe get itself a photo ID while it’s at it?

So we agree that the citizenship argument has been settled by the Supreme Court? NASCAR's nerve center is in Daytona Beach, and it is therefore a citizen of the US, with its primary address in Daytona, right?

 

 

I have yet to see an argument demonstrating that NASCAR cannot apply for a voter registration card, but what I am seeking is the answer to why they cannot do so. Upon what legal basis can NASCAR be denied the fundamental right to vote? Bush v. Gore seems pretty clear on the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No way Santorum will accept this until all NASCAR teams are made up of a man and a woman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASCAR is a citizen? I'll have to see a long form birth certificate.

They most certainly are. They are a citizen of the State of Florida, just as Walt Disney Co. is listed in FL as a Foreign Corporation. Corporate Citizenship has been addressed by the Court. The Court determines the location of a corporation's citizenship on the basis of where its nerve center is. I don't think anyone will argue that NASCAR's nerve center is anywhere but in Daytona Beach, FL.

 

Don't believe all the angry ad hominems that the Bush v. Gore haters throw around, Dog. Leave that stuff to the liars and lemmings.

 

Check with the FL Division of Corporations for a copy of NASCAR's Articles of Incorporation. It is not available online. Here is its latest Annual Report.

Well then why doesn’t NASCAR just drive itself over to the nearest DOT office (NASCAR must have a car and drivers license) and register to vote, maybe get itself a photo ID while it’s at it?

So we agree that the citizenship argument has been settled by the Supreme Court? NASCAR's nerve center is in Daytona Beach, and it is therefore a citizen of the US, with its primary address in Daytona, right?

 

 

I have yet to see an argument demonstrating that NASCAR cannot apply for a voter registration card, but what I am seeking is the answer to why they cannot do so. Upon what legal basis can NASCAR be denied the fundamental right to vote? Bush v. Gore seems pretty clear on the point.

No...I'm not buying it...I'll believe it when I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No...I'm not buying it...I'll believe it when I see it.

The decisions are right in this thread, and couldn't be more clear. Citizenship. Voting Rights. Requirements and limitations.

 

You will notice that the list of requirements in the Florida Statutes does not include human form, and that the list of limitations does not include non-human form.

 

You do not advocate reversal of Bush v. Gore, do you?

 

I'll tell you a thingertwo...this would not have been an issue if anyone had thought of it back in the day. What Supervisor of Elections would have the nerve to say no to Big Bill France?

BillFranceSr..JPG

 

Who is going to tell these folks that they want to overturn Bush v. Gore?

 

Nascar%20fan.jpg

 

 

Corporations are people, my friend.

240219-mitt-romney-tries-to-relate-to-nascar-fans-my-friends-own-teams.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, how 'bout "one man one vote"? When does tha become an issue? Do we need voting districts for non-human persons? Oh, being human isn't part of it. :(

 

Well, science is now saying dolphins and whales are non-human persons, so shouldn't they get a vote too?

 

Can dolphins be illegal immigrants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASCAR is a citizen? I'll have to see a long form birth certificate.

They most certainly are. They are a citizen of the State of Florida, just as Walt Disney Co. is listed in FL as a Foreign Corporation. Corporate Citizenship has been addressed by the Court. The Court determines the location of a corporation's citizenship on the basis of where its nerve center is. I don't think anyone will argue that NASCAR's nerve center is anywhere but in Daytona Beach, FL.

 

Don't believe all the angry ad hominems that the Bush v. Gore haters throw around, Dog. Leave that stuff to the liars and lemmings.

 

Check with the FL Division of Corporations for a copy of NASCAR's Articles of Incorporation. It is not available online. Here is its latest Annual Report.

Well then why doesn’t NASCAR just drive itself over to the nearest DOT office (NASCAR must have a car and drivers license) and register to vote, maybe get itself a photo ID while it’s at it?

So we agree that the citizenship argument has been settled by the Supreme Court? NASCAR's nerve center is in Daytona Beach, and it is therefore a citizen of the US, with its primary address in Daytona, right?

 

 

I have yet to see an argument demonstrating that NASCAR cannot apply for a voter registration card, but what I am seeking is the answer to why they cannot do so. Upon what legal basis can NASCAR be denied the fundamental right to vote? Bush v. Gore seems pretty clear on the point.

No one is arguing that NASCAR cannot apply for a voter registration card. WTF are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(a) A person may become a registered voter only if that person:

1. Is at least 18 years of age;

2. Is a citizen of the United States;

3. Is a legal resident of the State of Florida;

4. Is a legal resident of the county in which that person seeks to be registered; and

5. Registers pursuant to the Florida Election Code.

(B) A person who is otherwise qualified may preregister on or after that person’s 16th birthday and may vote in any election occurring on or after that person’s 18th birthday.

 

See number 5 there?

 

 

From: http://election.dos.state.fl.us/voter-registration/voter-reg.shtml

 

Who Can Register to Vote

In order to register to vote in Florida, you must:

 

1.Be a Citizen of the United States of America (a lawful permanent resident is not a U.S. citizen);

2.Be a Florida resident;

3.Be 18 years old (you may pre-register to vote if you are 16 years old, but you cannot vote until you are 18 years old).

4.Not now be adjudicated mentally incapacitated with respect to voting in Florida or any other state without having the right to vote restored;

5.Not have been convicted of a felony without your civil rights having been restored; and

6.Provide your current and valid Florida driver’s license number or Florida identification card number. If you do not have a Florida driver’s license number or a Florida identification card number then you must provide the last four digits of your Social Security Number. If you do not have any of these items, you must write “none” in the box or field.

 

Looks like NASCAR needs a drivers license or a FL ID Card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See the last sentence of your own cite. What does it say? NASCAR has a government issued identification number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See the last sentence of your own cite. What does it say? NASCAR has a government issued identification number.

It says IDENTIFICATION card number not just identification number. That would be the soundex number associated with a valid picture ID.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not what the last sentence of your cite says.

 

Besides, a corporate ID from the IRS comes in printed form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sol...You wouldn't happen to have an 18 year old Florida corp to test out this puppy do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sol...You wouldn't happen to have an 18 year old Florida corp to test out this puppy do you?

Funny you should mention that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The form, from the Volusia County Supervisor of Elections webpage:

VR%20App%20Example.jpg

 

Notice the box that reads "I have NONE of these numbers." That is the one that NASCAR would check. Then it would provide a copy of its federal ID along with the Application.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, how 'bout "one man one vote"? When does tha become an issue? Do we need voting districts for non-human persons? Oh, being human isn't part of it. :(

 

Well, science is now saying dolphins and whales are non-human persons, so shouldn't they get a vote too?

 

Can dolphins be illegal immigrants?

One person, one vote, is what We in the Corporate Suffrage Movement seek. Each and every corporate person should be able to avail itself of its right to decide which candidate best deserves its vote, and direct its designated human to cast that vote according to the wishes of the Board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is John Sample Jr's brother? Just askin...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck, let's not stop with corporations. Did you hear? This Cat is running for the VA senate seat. I predict he will run away from the PAC but will be unable to chase the large greedy rats out of the Senate. (He can't be any worse on getting things done than Mitch McConnel and Harry Reid, though...)

 

http:// 43B1799CBF90B9EDE42854AB10E63F.jpg

 

 

 

See his commercial here. I'm uncertain of Hank's stand on Virginia's vaginal probing initiative.

 

http://blstb.msn.com...854AB10E63F.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, did you hear? This Fat Cat is running for the VA senate seat. I predict he will run away from the PAC but will be unable to chase the large greedy rats out of the Senate. (He can't be any worse on getting things done than Mitch McConnel and Harry Reid, though...)

 

http:// 43B1799CBF90B9EDE42854AB10E63F.jpg

 

 

 

See his commercial here. I'm uncertain of Hank's stand on vaginal probing.

 

http://blstb.msn.com...854AB10E63F.jpg

Only if he hunts democRATS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, how 'bout "one man one vote"? When does tha become an issue? Do we need voting districts for non-human persons? Oh, being human isn't part of it. :(

 

Well, science is now saying dolphins and whales are non-human persons, so shouldn't they get a vote too?

 

Can dolphins be illegal immigrants?

One person, one vote, is what We in the Corporate Suffrage Movement seek. Each and every corporate person should be able to avail itself of its right to decide which candidate best deserves its vote, and direct its designated human to cast that vote according to the wishes of the Board.

 

So Sol, how long do you think it will be until someone brings this test to the courts? From an unbiased read of the statute, your position makes absolute sense. Under review, I suspect that a distinction between a corporate entity and a person will be established.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, how 'bout "one man one vote"? When does tha become an issue? Do we need voting districts for non-human persons? Oh, being human isn't part of it. :(

 

Well, science is now saying dolphins and whales are non-human persons, so shouldn't they get a vote too?

 

Can dolphins be illegal immigrants?

One person, one vote, is what We in the Corporate Suffrage Movement seek. Each and every corporate person should be able to avail itself of its right to decide which candidate best deserves its vote, and direct its designated human to cast that vote according to the wishes of the Board.

 

So Sol, how long do you think it will be until someone brings this test to the courts? From an unbiased read of the statute, your position makes absolute sense. Under review, I suspect that a distinction between a corporate entity and a person will be established.

Well, the Supervisor of Elections office here in Broward County is about three blocks from the Courthouse, up and over the Andrews Avenue Bridge over the New River. So about five minutes walking time, or lets say ten, and a half hour to stand in line at the security checkpoint. That assumes that the lawsuit is drafted and ready to file before the Voter Registration Application is denied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, how 'bout "one man one vote"? When does tha become an issue? Do we need voting districts for non-human persons? Oh, being human isn't part of it. :(

 

Well, science is now saying dolphins and whales are non-human persons, so shouldn't they get a vote too?

 

Can dolphins be illegal immigrants?

One person, one vote, is what We in the Corporate Suffrage Movement seek. Each and every corporate person should be able to avail itself of its right to decide which candidate best deserves its vote, and direct its designated human to cast that vote according to the wishes of the Board.

 

So Sol, how long do you think it will be until someone brings this test to the courts? From an unbiased read of the statute, your position makes absolute sense. Under review, I suspect that a distinction between a corporate entity and a person will be established.

Well, the Supervisor of Elections office here in Broward County is about three blocks from the Courthouse, up and over the Andrews Avenue Bridge over the New River. So about five minutes walking time, or lets say ten, and a half hour to stand in line at the security checkpoint. That assumes that the lawsuit is drafted and ready to file before the Voter Registration Application is denied.

 

MSP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MSP?

What/who is that? Minneapolis St. Paul? Maine Sailing Partners? More Scotch, Please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MSP?

What/who is that? Minneapolis St. Paul? Maine Sailing Partners? More Scotch, Please?

 

MSP

 

The litigant scourge of AC Anarchy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MSP?

What/who is that? Minneapolis St. Paul? Maine Sailing Partners? More Scotch, Please?

 

MSP

 

The litigant scourge of AC Anarchy...

I encourage him (and anyone else) to file for corporate voter registration. Anything less is taxation without representation.

 

 

The Corporate Suffrage Movement is an idea whose time has come. How Now, Cash Cow? Right Now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

does this mean that if i, a foreigner, start a company in america which then meets the criteria, i can then use that company to run for president?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it means that if the company meets the requirements for registering to vote, it can register to vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats a shame!

That's not to say that it could not happen, it is just not the next logical step in getting the rights of corporate persons recognized. Today the vote, tomorrow the White House, the day after that, the World! First things first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

having a president who represents corporate constituents would save a lot of hassles!

We have nothing but Presidents who represent corporate constituents, but it would save on the hassle of having to pretend otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Letting NASCAR vote would be a huge mistake.

 

They'd turn left :o

No way. NASCAR is as American as Apple Pie (despite what the NASCAR hating liberals who want to overturn Bush v. Gore might say), that would never happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laudable, but do they know what they are in for? As somebody pointed out, they are just like the NAACP. Is GE ready to face the fire hoses and police dogs? Do they know what tear gas feels like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laudable, but do they know what they are in for? As somebody pointed out, they are just like the NAACP. Is GE ready to face the fire hoses and police dogs? Do they know what tear gas feels like?

I'm pretty sure Dow and Monsanto do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Letting NASCAR vote would be a huge mistake.

 

They'd turn left :o

Well played sir...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laudable, but do they know what they are in for? As somebody pointed out, they are just like the NAACP. Is GE ready to face the fire hoses and police dogs? Do they know what tear gas feels like?

Did the NAACP face the fire hoses and police dogs or did the individual members?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have ya filed the suit yet Sol?

Haven't even written it yet. Waiting to see some other developments regarding voting rights in FL first. There should be corporate suffrage gold coming out of any opinion in that case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have ya filed the suit yet Sol?

Haven't even written it yet. Waiting to see some other developments regarding voting rights in FL first. There should be corporate suffrage gold coming out of any opinion in that case.

What voting rights were constrained?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have ya filed the suit yet Sol?

Haven't even written it yet. Waiting to see some other developments regarding voting rights in FL first. There should be corporate suffrage gold coming out of any opinion in that case.

What voting rights were constrained?

"There Should Be corporate suffrage gold coming out of any opinion in that case." That "should be" is an indication that there is no opinion yet, so we will have to see what the court has to say in that case. I anticipate a resounding affirmation of Bush v. Gore's discussion of our precious voting rights, sufficient to sway even the most liberal Bush v. Gore NASCAR hater in the commune. Perhaps it will go the other way, as it effects human citizens, but the general principle should be affirmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have ya filed the suit yet Sol?

Haven't even written it yet. Waiting to see some other developments regarding voting rights in FL first. There should be corporate suffrage gold coming out of any opinion in that case.

What voting rights were constrained?

"There Should Be corporate suffrage gold coming out of any opinion in that case." That "should be" is an indication that there is no opinion yet, so we will have to see what the court has to say in that case. I anticipate a resounding affirmation of Bush v. Gore's discussion of our precious voting rights, sufficient to sway even the most liberal Bush v. Gore NASCAR hater in the commune. Perhaps it will go the other way, as it effects human citizens, but the general principle should be affirmed.

Which voting rights were constrained?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have ya filed the suit yet Sol?

Haven't even written it yet. Waiting to see some other developments regarding voting rights in FL first. There should be corporate suffrage gold coming out of any opinion in that case.

What voting rights were constrained?

"There Should Be corporate suffrage gold coming out of any opinion in that case." That "should be" is an indication that there is no opinion yet, so we will have to see what the court has to say in that case. I anticipate a resounding affirmation of Bush v. Gore's discussion of our precious voting rights, sufficient to sway even the most liberal Bush v. Gore NASCAR hater in the commune. Perhaps it will go the other way, as it effects human citizens, but the general principle should be affirmed.

Which voting rights were constrained?

Corporate suffrage rights have not been constrained yet because there has been no application for voter registration filed by a corporate voter and denied yet. The moment such an application is denied, the right of a US citizen to vote will have been constrained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The moment such an application is denied, the right of a US citizen to vote will have been constrained.

 

Are resident aliens US citizens under the law and court precedent you are citing, or are you misstating precedent again?

 

This is about trying corporations for murder. As they have the same rights as citizens do, should they not be subject to the same rules?

 

Where did you get the idea that corporations have the same rights as citizens?

 

Natural persons would be a better term, as Sol points out with his latest distraction, but no one who has read any of the cases would claim that corporations have the same rights as natural persons.

 

Corporations are citizens too, my friend. Some folks just like to ignore Supreme Court precedent that they don't like. Not naming any names....

 

That case was about federal jurisdiction in a diversity of citizenship case, meaning it interprets the relevant law. The relevant law deems corporations citizens for purposes of the law and also says this:

 

For the purposes of this section, section 1335, andsection 1441, an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled.

 

So if being a citizen under that law means automatic suffrage, the clear implication is that aliens are allowed to vote. Obviously, Sol is misstating precedent, something for which he has little tolerance. Sometimes. :rolleyes:

 

Does residency equal US citizenship and suffrage for aliens? If not, why would the same law and precedent support the idea that residency equals citizenship for corporations? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The moment such an application is denied, the right of a US citizen to vote will have been constrained.

 

Are resident aliens US citizens under the law and court precedent you are citing, or are you misstating precedent again?

 

 

Where did you get the idea that corporations have the same rights as citizens?

 

Natural persons would be a better term, as Sol points out with his latest distraction, but no one who has read any of the cases would claim that corporations have the same rights as natural persons.

 

Corporations are citizens too, my friend. Some folks just like to ignore Supreme Court precedent that they don't like. Not naming any names....

 

That case was about federal jurisdiction in a diversity of citizenship case, meaning it interprets the relevant law. The relevant law deems corporations citizens for purposes of the law and also says this:

 

For the purposes of this section, section 1335, andsection 1441, an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled.

 

So if being a citizen under that law means automatic suffrage, the clear implication is that aliens are allowed to vote. Obviously, Sol is misstating precedent, something for which he has little tolerance. Sometimes. :rolleyes:

 

Does residency equal US citizenship and suffrage for aliens? If not, why would the same law and precedent support the idea that residency equals citizenship for corporations? :rolleyes:

 

Forget to switch logins?

 

 

PLease show the precedent that I have mis-stated. I think you are confused again, but it happens; at least you found your way to the right topic this time.

 

The problem with you Bush v. Gore and NASCAR haters is that you immediately want to call people liars or otherwise question their integrity when you disagree with them. Your "alien" question was broached by Ease the Sheet!; you should thank him for the thought. The statute is quite clear about the requirements for registering to vote, if you have trouble with English, have someone read it to you; that is not my problem.

 

The Corporate Suffrage Movement will not be constrained by the lack of reading ability of its liberal opponents, or their penchant for hatred of Supreme Court opinions or patriotic American Citizens like NASCAR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That case was about federal jurisdiction in a diversity of citizenship case, meaning it interprets the relevant law. The relevant law deems corporations citizens for purposes of the law and also says this:

 

For the purposes of this section, section 1335, andsection 1441, an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled.

 

So if being a citizen under that law means automatic suffrage, the clear implication is that aliens are allowed to vote. Obviously, Sol is misstating precedent, something for which he has little tolerance. Sometimes. :rolleyes:

...

 

Does residency equal US citizenship and suffrage for aliens? If not, why would the same law and precedent support the idea that residency equals citizenship for corporations? :rolleyes:

 

Forget to switch logins?

 

 

PLease show the precedent that I have mis-stated.

 

It was included in the quote above, but I can show where else you did it:

They most certainly are. They are a citizen of the State of Florida, just as Walt Disney Co. is listed in FL as a Foreign Corporation. Corporate Citizenship has been addressed by the Court.

 

You applied this precedent on citizenship to the Florida election requirements for citizenship in the topic post of this thread. If that application of the precedent you cited to the issue of suffrage is correct, then it must also be true that resident alien "citizens" should be allowed suffrage by the same law and precedent. That is why I asked these two questions, which I predict you will again dodge answering:

 

Does residency equal US citizenship and suffrage for aliens? If not, why would the same law and precedent support the idea that residency equals citizenship for corporations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you want to overturn Bush v Gore, Tom? Do you hate NASCAR?

 

How does the Court relate the term "Nerve Center" to citizenship?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What voting rights were constrained?

"There Should Be corporate suffrage gold coming out of any opinion in that case." That "should be" is an indication that there is no opinion yet, so we will have to see what the court has to say in that case. I anticipate a resounding affirmation of Bush v. Gore's discussion of our precious voting rights, sufficient to sway even the most liberal Bush v. Gore NASCAR hater in the commune. Perhaps it will go the other way, as it effects human citizens, but the general principle should be affirmed.

Which voting rights were constrained?

Corporate suffrage rights have not been constrained yet because there has been no application for voter registration filed by a corporate voter and denied yet. The moment such an application is denied, the right of a US citizen to vote will have been constrained.

Is it your contention that all persons are citizens?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What voting rights were constrained?

"There Should Be corporate suffrage gold coming out of any opinion in that case." That "should be" is an indication that there is no opinion yet, so we will have to see what the court has to say in that case. I anticipate a resounding affirmation of Bush v. Gore's discussion of our precious voting rights, sufficient to sway even the most liberal Bush v. Gore NASCAR hater in the commune. Perhaps it will go the other way, as it effects human citizens, but the general principle should be affirmed.

Which voting rights were constrained?

Corporate suffrage rights have not been constrained yet because there has been no application for voter registration filed by a corporate voter and denied yet. The moment such an application is denied, the right of a US citizen to vote will have been constrained.

Is it your contention that all persons are citizens?

You must be thinking of someone else. I have not said that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Which voting rights were constrained?

Corporate suffrage rights have not been constrained yet because there has been no application for voter registration filed by a corporate voter and denied yet. The moment such an application is denied, the right of a US citizen to vote will have been constrained.

Is it your contention that all persons are citizens?

You must be thinking of someone else. I have not said that.

It was a question, not a quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Which voting rights were constrained?

Corporate suffrage rights have not been constrained yet because there has been no application for voter registration filed by a corporate voter and denied yet. The moment such an application is denied, the right of a US citizen to vote will have been constrained.

Is it your contention that all persons are citizens?

You must be thinking of someone else. I have not said that.

It was a question, not a quote.

Can you figure out what my answer was, or do I need to rephrase "I have not said that."? I could try to translate it into Dr. Seuss for you, if that would help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you want to overturn Bush v Gore, Tom? Do you hate NASCAR?

 

How does the Court relate the term "Nerve Center" to citizenship?

 

Does residency equal US citizenship and suffrage for aliens? If not, why would the same law and precedent support the idea that residency equals citizenship for corporations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it your contention that all persons are citizens?

You must be thinking of someone else. I have not said that.

It was a question, not a quote.

Can you figure out what my answer was, or do I need to rephrase "I have not said that."? I could try to translate it into Dr. Seuss for you, if that would help.

If I had asked 'Why do you contend ...' instead of "Is it your contention ..." then the question would rely on something you said. "I have not said that" simply avoids the question which could have as easily been done by not responding.

 

For example, "What time is it?" requires a specific answer while "Do you know what time it is?" can be answered yes or no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you want to overturn Bush v Gore, Tom? Do you hate NASCAR?

 

How does the Court relate the term "Nerve Center" to citizenship?

 

Does residency equal US citizenship and suffrage for aliens? If not, why would the same law and precedent support the idea that residency equals citizenship for corporations?

Changing words from the case.... Do you hate NASCAR, Tom? Are you overcome with the desire to overturn Bush v Gore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASCAR is a citizen? I'll have to see a long form birth certificate.

They most certainly are. They are a citizen of the State of Florida, just as Walt Disney Co. is listed in FL as a Foreign Corporation. Corporate Citizenship has been addressed by the Court.

 

 

Your link refers to a legal definition of "citizen" that appears to be limited to who can sue or be sued, and which courts have jurisdiction over certain legal actions. I did not read the entire content of the links, but perhaps you can provide a reference that directly adresses suffrage or any other rights.

 

I tend to agree with Remodel on this one, Sol. Your link addresses citizenship for purposes of certain legal actions, but suffrage does not seem to be among them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASCAR is a citizen? I'll have to see a long form birth certificate.

They most certainly are. They are a citizen of the State of Florida, just as Walt Disney Co. is listed in FL as a Foreign Corporation. Corporate Citizenship has been addressed by the Court.

 

 

Your link refers to a legal definition of "citizen" that appears to be limited to who can sue or be sued, and which courts have jurisdiction over certain legal actions. I did not read the entire content of the links, but perhaps you can provide a reference that directly adresses suffrage or any other rights.

 

I tend to agree with Remodel on this one, Sol. Your link addresses citizenship for purposes of certain legal actions, but suffrage does not seem to be among them.

Taking someone's comments from a straw man thread about human aliens, using a case on how to determine citizenship of a corporation, and suggesting that it is about this thread about corporate suffrage seems a bit, well, dishonest. One would think that if you made an argument that could stand on its own merits, you wouldn't have to resort to such blunt ploys.

 

Do you hate NASCAR, Tom? Do you want to overturn Bush v. Gore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the purposes of this section, section 1335, andsection 1441, an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled.

...

 

<a name="c"> © For the purposes of this section and section 1441 of this title— (1) a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business

 

What could possibly make me suggest that the law you are talking about discusses both corporations and aliens in the same terms, Sol?

 

The text of the law, perhaps? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the purposes of this section, section 1335, andsection 1441, an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled.

...

 

<a name="c"> © For the purposes of this section and section 1441 of this title— (1) a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business

 

What could possibly make me suggest that the law you are talking about discusses both corporations and aliens in the same terms, Sol?

 

The text of the law, perhaps? :lol:

The cited case is pretty clearly about the Court's determination of the location of corporate citizenship, and how we determine that location. Nowhere does the Court suggest the silly notion that corporations like NASCAR are not citizens. Suggesting that it applies to human citizens is a rather crude distraction, I should say. Why do you hate NASCAR so? Bush v. Gore is good law and should not be overturned.

 

PS. Commerce Clause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the purposes of this section, section 1335, andsection 1441, an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled.

...

 

<a name="c"> © For the purposes of this section and section 1441 of this title— (1) a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business

 

What could possibly make me suggest that the law you are talking about discusses both corporations and aliens in the same terms, Sol?

 

The text of the law, perhaps? :lol:

The cited case is pretty clearly about the Court's determination of the location of corporate citizenship, and how we determine that location. Nowhere does the Court suggest the silly notion that corporations like NASCAR are not citizens. Suggesting that it applies to human citizens is a rather crude distraction, I should say.

 

Why would the text of the law engage in such a crude distraction? And don't blame me for the fact that it does, I'm just a messenger. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the purposes of this section, section 1335, andsection 1441, an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled.

...

 

<a name="c"> © For the purposes of this section and section 1441 of this title— (1) a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business

 

What could possibly make me suggest that the law you are talking about discusses both corporations and aliens in the same terms, Sol?

 

The text of the law, perhaps? :lol:

The cited case is pretty clearly about the Court's determination of the location of corporate citizenship, and how we determine that location. Nowhere does the Court suggest the silly notion that corporations like NASCAR are not citizens. Suggesting that it applies to human citizens is a rather crude distraction, I should say.

 

Why would the text of the law engage in such a crude distraction? And don't blame me for the fact that it does, I'm just a messenger. :P

Do not distort the message by suggesting the case is about human citizens. Hertz Corporation is not a human citizen, it is a proud American corporate citizen, just like NASCAR. The Hertz Court provided the test for determining the location of Hertz' citizenship, as it does for great proud American corporate citizens all over this great proud country. That test puts NASCAR's citizenship right smack in Volusia County.

 

Is it NASCAR that you hate? Or Volusia County? Daytona is a fine place, Tom, especially in February when Good Americans visit. Great. Proud. American. People. Corporations are people. Those folks would not take kindly to Bush v. Gore being overturned.

 

oj-simpson-hertz.jpg

 

pepsi-nascar-sport-wallpapers-1024x768.jpg

 

american-flag_2598_1.jpg

 

UNST0008.GIF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For the purposes of this section, section 1335, andsection 1441, an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled.

...

 

<a name="c"> © For the purposes of this section and section 1441 of this title— (1) a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business

 

What could possibly make me suggest that the law you are talking about discusses both corporations and aliens in the same terms, Sol?

 

The text of the law, perhaps? :lol:

 

Do not distort the message by suggesting the case is about human citizens.

 

Why would the text of the law want to distort your message? It deems corporations and aliens to be citizens for the same purposes in the same terms and in the same section of the law. Obviously, the issue covers both and both foreigners and corporations are citizens for suffrage purposes under the case and law you have cited.

 

Or maybe I just mis-stated the law and both are not. You would call me out on it if I mis-stated the law, right? So you believe that corporations and foreigners are citizens for purposes of determining suffrage rights under that law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why would the text of the law want to distort your message? It deems corporations and aliens to be citizens for the same purposes in the same terms and in the same section of the law. Obviously, the issue covers both and both foreigners and corporations are citizens for suffrage purposes under the case and law you have cited.

 

Or maybe I just mis-stated the law and both are not. You would call me out on it if I mis-stated the law, right? So you believe that corporations and foreigners are citizens for purposes of determining suffrage rights under that law?

If you want to ignore the Hertz case and its test for determining where corporate citizens reside, go right ahead, but the rights of NASCAR and other patriotic American citizens will not remain trampled for long!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why would the text of the law want to distort your message? It deems corporations and aliens to be citizens for the same purposes in the same terms and in the same section of the law. Obviously, the issue covers both and both foreigners and corporations are citizens for suffrage purposes under the case and law you have cited.

 

Or maybe I just mis-stated the law and both are not. You would call me out on it if I mis-stated the law, right? So you believe that corporations and foreigners are citizens for purposes of determining suffrage rights under that law?

If you want to ignore the Hertz case and its test for determining where corporate citizens reside, go right ahead, but the rights of NASCAR and other patriotic American citizens will not remain trampled for long!

In other words, and as usual...

 

strawman-motivational.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why would the text of the law want to distort your message? It deems corporations and aliens to be citizens for the same purposes in the same terms and in the same section of the law. Obviously, the issue covers both and both foreigners and corporations are citizens for suffrage purposes under the case and law you have cited.

 

Or maybe I just mis-stated the law and both are not. You would call me out on it if I mis-stated the law, right? So you believe that corporations and foreigners are citizens for purposes of determining suffrage rights under that law?

If you want to ignore the Hertz case and its test for determining where corporate citizens reside, go right ahead, but the rights of NASCAR and other patriotic American citizens will not remain trampled for long!

Have you actually filed yet? Or, is playing lawyer on the internet enough for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why would the text of the law want to distort your message? It deems corporations and aliens to be citizens for the same purposes in the same terms and in the same section of the law. Obviously, the issue covers both and both foreigners and corporations are citizens for suffrage purposes under the case and law you have cited.

 

Or maybe I just mis-stated the law and both are not. You would call me out on it if I mis-stated the law, right? So you believe that corporations and foreigners are citizens for purposes of determining suffrage rights under that law?

If you want to ignore the Hertz case and its test for determining where corporate citizens reside, go right ahead, but the rights of NASCAR and other patriotic American citizens will not remain trampled for long!

Have you actually filed yet? Or, is playing lawyer on the internet enough for you?

Your obsession with me is creepy.

 

Cree

 

py.

 

I anticipate at least a couple more weeks, if not a month, of seeing if Tom can come up with anything other than a straw man, to support his desire to subvert corporate America's voting rights and overturn Bush v. Gore. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would the text of the law want to distort your message? It deems corporations and aliens to be citizens for the same purposes in the same terms and in the same section of the law. Obviously, the issue covers both and both foreigners and corporations are citizens for suffrage purposes under the case and law you have cited.

 

Or maybe I just mis-stated the law and both are not. You would call me out on it if I mis-stated the law, right? So you believe that corporations and foreigners are citizens for purposes of determining suffrage rights under that law?

If you want to ignore the Hertz case and its test for determining where corporate citizens reside, go right ahead, but the rights of NASCAR and other patriotic American citizens will not remain trampled for long!

 

How is looking at the text of the law in question in that case ignoring it? And why are you ignoring the part of that law relating to aliens? Do you agree that they have the same citizenship under that law as Hertz?

 

For the purposes of this section, section 1335, andsection 1441, an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled.

...

 

<a name="c"> © For the purposes of this section and section 1441 of this title— (1) a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would the text of the law want to distort your message? It deems corporations and aliens to be citizens for the same purposes in the same terms and in the same section of the law. Obviously, the issue covers both and both foreigners and corporations are citizens for suffrage purposes under the case and law you have cited.

 

Or maybe I just mis-stated the law and both are not. You would call me out on it if I mis-stated the law, right? So you believe that corporations and foreigners are citizens for purposes of determining suffrage rights under that law?

If you want to ignore the Hertz case and its test for determining where corporate citizens reside, go right ahead, but the rights of NASCAR and other patriotic American citizens will not remain trampled for long!

 

How is looking at the text of the law in question in that case ignoring it? And why are you ignoring the part of that law relating to aliens? Do you agree that they have the same citizenship under that law as Hertz?

 

For the purposes of this section, section 1335, andsection 1441, an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled.

...

 

<a name="c"> © For the purposes of this section and section 1441 of this title— (1) a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business

Is 'deemed a citizen' the same as 'deemed as passed'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

How is looking at the text of the law in question in that case ignoring it? And why are you ignoring the part of that law relating to aliens? Do you agree that they have the same citizenship under that law as Hertz?

Because in your haste to overturn Bush v. Gore and deny corporations their rightful opportunity to vote, you ignore the Court's discussion of how to determine the location of a corporation's citizenship, in a case precisely about determining the location of a corporation's citizenship.

 

Very slippery, Tom. Why do you hate NASCAR?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the purposes of this section, section 1335, andsection 1441, an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASCAR is not an alien, Tom. NASCAR is American. Shame on you for that terrible messenger attack. You probably want to overturn Bush v. Gore, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASCAR is not an alien, Tom. NASCAR is American. Shame on you for that terrible messenger attack. You probably want to overturn Bush v. Gore, too.

Have you gotten that corporation registered to vote yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASCAR is not an alien, Tom. NASCAR is American. Shame on you for that terrible messenger attack. You probably want to overturn Bush v. Gore, too.

Have you gotten that corporation registered to vote yet?

Your fascination with what I do in my free time is creepy.

 

Cree

 

py.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASCAR is not an alien, Tom. NASCAR is American. Shame on you for that terrible messenger attack. You probably want to overturn Bush v. Gore, too.

Have you gotten that corporation registered to vote yet?

Your fascination with what I do in my free time is creepy.

 

Cree

 

py.

Nah, you were shooting your mouth off about it last week. Just following up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASCAR is not an alien, Tom. NASCAR is American. Shame on you for that terrible messenger attack. You probably want to overturn Bush v. Gore, too.

Have you gotten that corporation registered to vote yet?

Your fascination with what I do in my free time is creepy.

 

Cree

 

py.

Nah, you were shooting your mouth off about it last week. Just following up.

Creee

 

Py.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASCAR is not an alien, Tom. NASCAR is American. Shame on you for that terrible messenger attack. You probably want to overturn Bush v. Gore, too.

Have you gotten that corporation registered to vote yet?

Your fascination with what I do in my free time is creepy.

 

Cree

 

py.

Nah, you were shooting your mouth off about it last week. Just following up.

Creee

 

Py.

So, they just laughed at you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason anyone would care about political speech from any source is a fear the voter is dumb enough to fall for it.

 

Why so little faith in the American Electorate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is afraid of corporate citizens all of a sudden. Why must all of you liberals push against Bush v. Gore?

 

The only reason anyone would care about political speech from any source is a fear the voter is dumb enough to fall for it.

 

Why so little faith in the American Electorate?

You must have posted this in the wrong thread, Dum Dum, given that you are ignoring me and such....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, they just laughed at you?

Check posts 48 and 49, spark plug.

I did. Are you waiting for the nice school teacher to deliver the third party registration forms for you?

 

Has a corporation actually asked you to register them to vote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just got to say that if things don't happen according to MY timeline..if things don't happen according to a schedule that I've made up, then I'm sure that they're laughing at you. I need instant gratification or else you're a failure.

 

/sarcasm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just got to say that if things don't happen according to MY timeline..if things don't happen according to a schedule that I've made up, then I'm sure that they're laughing at you. I need instant gratification or else you're a failure.

 

/sarcasm

Leave Baghdad Bob alone! Some of these liberals just cannot get their head around corporate rights. They just want the state and the union to control everything. And they HATE NASCAR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should probably call 1-800-ask-gary for answers to your legal questions.

 

This might be interesting if any corporation had ever actually attempted to vote.

 

My premise, which I have presented in the last two thread where you raised the issue, is that the corporations 'rights' are actually the rights of the individual shareholders.

 

If you cannot search my home or business premises without a warrant, you cannot search the premises of a business where I own a very small part. Those rights are not transferred from the original owner nor, are new rights conferred upon a corporation. They are simply the individual rights.

 

The other rights of the bill of rights, and the right to vote as granted by the states, are still individual rights. To the extent we form affiliations, we carry our rights with us and the affiliation is protected by those rights. They do not, however, become the affiliations rights, they remain individual.

Please cite your authority, as I have cited mine. I am not making a value-based argument about the way it should be, I am making the legal argument that NASCAR has the right to vote, based on case law and statute. I don't necessarily disagree with your value based argument.

 

No time to read the whole thread, if this is addressed later, sorry. The issue may come down to that a corporation is not a US citizen, although it is a US person. I think the Slaughterhouse cases outlined the difference between state citizenship and US citizenship, which opened up the need to define corporations as "people" by reducing the influence of the "Rights and priviledges" clause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No time to read the whole thread, if this is addressed later, sorry. The issue may come down to that a corporation is not a US citizen, although it is a US person. I think the Slaughterhouse cases outlined the difference between state citizenship and US citizenship, which opened up the need to define corporations as "people" by reducing the influence of the "Rights and priviledges" clause.

That is certainly the cruxt of the biscuit, and the Slaughterhouse Cases are pretty relevant to the discussion. I'm surprised they haven't been brought up before, given the breadth and depth of con law knowledge we usually see around here. You certainly are more attuned to the field than some we see around here.

 

The Slaughterhouse Cases really dealt with rights the state could or could not abridge, with rights of US citizens being beyond the reach of the states, but rights of the state's citizens not protected by ... perhaps the most important part of the Slaughterhouse Cases discussion for our purposes... the Fourteenth Amendment. The key to the whole thing, I think, is the term "born", and whether one uses the most narrow of all definitions for the term, or agrees that "born" means "brought into existence." A new nation was born on July 4, 1776. NASCAR was brought into existence on February 21, 1948.

 

Sixty Four long years later, it is time for that All American Corperson to finally be given its rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not legally relevant, I know....but I'd have a great deal more sympathy for their plight if some of them were not now engaged in a coordinated, despicable, and un-American effort to deprive Rush of his freedom of speech. Most unseemly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not legally relevant, I know....but I'd have a great deal more sympathy for their plight if some of them were not now engaged in a coordinated, despicable, and un-American effort to deprive Rush of his freedom of speech. Most unseemly.

You cannot force a Corperson to share its freedom of $peech with Rush if it does not want to. It can remain silent. There was a case on that just last week, finding that forcing tobacco corpersons to put hideous warnings on their product was violative of their First Amendment rights. I'm not sure if the Court addressed whether it also violated their Fifth Amendment rights....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Slaughterhouse Cases really dealt with rights the state could or could not abridge, with rights of US citizens being beyond the reach of the states, but rights of the state's citizens not protected by ... perhaps the most important part of the Slaughterhouse Cases discussion for our purposes... the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

That little legal fiction ended with the arrival of the incorporation doctrine, long before the 1960s when the court found that corporations have first amendment rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Slaughterhouse Cases really dealt with rights the state could or could not abridge, with rights of US citizens being beyond the reach of the states, but rights of the state's citizens not protected by ... perhaps the most important part of the Slaughterhouse Cases discussion for our purposes... the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

That little legal fiction ended with the arrival of the incorporation doctrine, long before the 1960s when the court found that corporations have first amendment rights.

The Fourteenth Amendment is not a legal fiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No time to read the whole thread, if this is addressed later, sorry. The issue may come down to that a corporation is not a US citizen, although it is a US person. I think the Slaughterhouse cases outlined the difference between state citizenship and US citizenship, which opened up the need to define corporations as "people" by reducing the influence of the "Rights and priviledges" clause.

That is certainly the cruxt of the biscuit, and the Slaughterhouse Cases are pretty relevant to the discussion. I'm surprised they haven't been brought up before, given the breadth and depth of con law knowledge we usually see around here. You certainly are more attuned to the field than some we see around here.

 

The Slaughterhouse Cases really dealt with rights the state could or could not abridge, with rights of US citizens being beyond the reach of the states, but rights of the state's citizens not protected by ... perhaps the most important part of the Slaughterhouse Cases discussion for our purposes... the Fourteenth Amendment. The key to the whole thing, I think, is the term "born", and whether one uses the most narrow of all definitions for the term, or agrees that "born" means "brought into existence." A new nation was born on July 4, 1776. NASCAR was brought into existence on February 21, 1948.

 

Sixty Four long years later, it is time for that All American Corperson to finally be given its rights.

 

But if we're going to extend the 14th and 15th Amendment rights to these legal persons, why not the 13th? "Neither slavery nor invountary servitude,..., shall exist within the United States,...". What is a stock trade but an exchange of a certificate of chattle slavery? Free the corporations !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No time to read the whole thread, if this is addressed later, sorry. The issue may come down to that a corporation is not a US citizen, although it is a US person. I think the Slaughterhouse cases outlined the difference between state citizenship and US citizenship, which opened up the need to define corporations as "people" by reducing the influence of the "Rights and priviledges" clause.

That is certainly the cruxt of the biscuit, and the Slaughterhouse Cases are pretty relevant to the discussion. I'm surprised they haven't been brought up before, given the breadth and depth of con law knowledge we usually see around here. You certainly are more attuned to the field than some we see around here.

 

The Slaughterhouse Cases really dealt with rights the state could or could not abridge, with rights of US citizens being beyond the reach of the states, but rights of the state's citizens not protected by ... perhaps the most important part of the Slaughterhouse Cases discussion for our purposes... the Fourteenth Amendment. The key to the whole thing, I think, is the term "born", and whether one uses the most narrow of all definitions for the term, or agrees that "born" means "brought into existence." A new nation was born on July 4, 1776. NASCAR was brought into existence on February 21, 1948.

 

Sixty Four long years later, it is time for that All American Corperson to finally be given its rights.

 

But if we're going to extend the 14th and 15th Amendment rights to these legal persons, why not the 13th? "Neither slavery nor invountary servitude,..., shall exist within the United States,...". What is a stock trade but an exchange of a certificate of chattle slavery? Free the corporations !

I'm with you there! Ask not, what the corporation can do for you. Ask what you can do for the corporation!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No time to read the whole thread, if this is addressed later, sorry. The issue may come down to that a corporation is not a US citizen, although it is a US person. I think the Slaughterhouse cases outlined the difference between state citizenship and US citizenship, which opened up the need to define corporations as "people" by reducing the influence of the "Rights and priviledges" clause.

That is certainly the cruxt of the biscuit, and the Slaughterhouse Cases are pretty relevant to the discussion. I'm surprised they haven't been brought up before, given the breadth and depth of con law knowledge we usually see around here. You certainly are more attuned to the field than some we see around here.

 

The Slaughterhouse Cases really dealt with rights the state could or could not abridge, with rights of US citizens being beyond the reach of the states, but rights of the state's citizens not protected by ... perhaps the most important part of the Slaughterhouse Cases discussion for our purposes... the Fourteenth Amendment. The key to the whole thing, I think, is the term "born", and whether one uses the most narrow of all definitions for the term, or agrees that "born" means "brought into existence." A new nation was born on July 4, 1776. NASCAR was brought into existence on February 21, 1948.

 

Sixty Four long years later, it is time for that All American Corperson to finally be given its rights.

 

But if we're going to extend the 14th and 15th Amendment rights to these legal persons, why not the 13th?

 

We already did extend the 14th amendment to corporations, back in 1866. Where ya been?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0