311 replies to this topic

[Sol Rosenberg]

Corporate Suffrage. An idea whose time has come!

[Tom Ray]

Nice headline:

"Should Corporations Have More Leeway to Kill Than People Do?"

NEXT week, the Supreme Court will hear a case with many potential ramifications for American and international law, and for corporate responsibility for human rights around the globe. The justices will be asked to decide whether the corporations to which they have been extending the rights of individuals should also be held accountable for crimes against human rights, just as individuals are.

Have to read the whole thing to get the gist.

http://www.nytimes.c...r=2&ref=opinion

Tricky case. What are they going to do?

I think I already got the gist from your excerpt, but reading the article does provide further confirmation:

That ruling, in a case known as Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, came less than a year after the much more famous — and criticized — Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, which removed restrictions on political spending by contributions and wildly expanded the concept of corporate personhood.

...

A decision affirming that Shell should go unpunished in the Niger Delta case would leave us with a Supreme Court that seems of two minds: in the words of Justice John Paul Stevens’s dissent from Citizens United, it threatens “to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation” by treating corporations as people to let them make unlimited political contributions

Yep, continuing the propaganda narrative that Citizens United somehow "wildly expanded" the concept of corporate personhood, which is just not true, and that corporations are now able to make unlimited political contributions, when in fact the court upheld contribution limits and disclosure rules in Citizens United.

I would like for someone to explain to me how that decision "wildly expanded" the concept of corporate personhood. Before the decision, corporations were considered persons with first amendment rights that had been explicitly recognized since 1963, and after the decision corporations were considered persons with first amendment rights that had been explicitly recognized since 1963. What was the big change in the concept here? And why the continuing need to lie about contribution limits that remain in place? Are the people too stupid to understand long words like "electioneering communications?" Or too stupid to grasp that they just mean "political speech?" Based on this thread, I'd say the answer to the last two is yes.

[Tom Ray]

Corporate Suffrage. An idea whose time has come!

There are a lot of people who are allowed free speech, but not allowed to vote. Felons and foreigners, to name two classes. Corporations are another class of (legal) persons that can not vote. The reason is that voting is a very special and privileged way of expressing yourself politically compared to speaking. You can only do it under certain conditions, otherwise you can not. Speaking is not like that and should not be like that.

Do you really think that speaking should be like voting, that only qualified people should be allowed to do it, and only at certain times and places?

[Dog]

I would like for someone to explain to me how that decision "wildly expanded" the concept of corporate personhood. Before the decision, corporations were considered persons with first amendment rights that had been explicitly recognized since 1963, and after the decision corporations were considered persons with first amendment rights that had been explicitly recognized since 1963. What was the big change in the concept here? And why the continuing need to lie about contribution limits that remain in place? Are the people too stupid to understand long words like "electioneering communications?" Or too stupid to grasp that they just mean "political speech?" Based on this thread, I'd say the answer to the last two is yes.

It's all about firing up the lemmings.

[Sol Rosenberg]

Corporate Suffrage. An idea whose time has come!

There are a lot of people who are allowed free speech, but not allowed to vote. Felons and foreigners, to name two classes. Corporations are another class of (legal) persons that can not vote. The reason is that voting is a very special and privileged way of expressing yourself politically compared to speaking. You can only do it under certain conditions, otherwise you can not. Speaking is not like that and should not be like that.

Do you really think that speaking should be like voting, that only qualified people should be allowed to do it, and only at certain times and places?

I'm not sure why you responded to my post, as you seem to be responding to someone else about denying speech. You have a penchant for responding to things I did not say, while quoting my posts. That is a tad dishonest, at this sensitive time when we are trying to clamp down on people lying, Tom.

I said that I advocated corporate suffrage. The time has come, and corporate persons have been discriminated against and denied their voting rights for far too long. The precedent clearly establishes that corporations enjoy Constitutional rights. Would you seek to deny corporate persons' right to vote? They are not felons. They are persons.

[Dog]

I said that I advocated corporate suffrage. The time has come, and corporate persons have been discriminated against and denied their voting rights for far too long. The precedent clearly establishes that corporations enjoy Constitutional rights. Would you seek to deny corporate persons' right to vote? They are not felons. They are persons.

Are you advocating a new amendment similar to the 19th granting corporations the right to vote?

[Sol Rosenberg]

I said that I advocated corporate suffrage. The time has come, and corporate persons have been discriminated against and denied their voting rights for far too long. The precedent clearly establishes that corporations enjoy Constitutional rights. Would you seek to deny corporate persons' right to vote? They are not felons. They are persons.

Are you advocating a new amendment similar to the 19th granting corporations the right to vote?

Corporations are people, my friend. The 19th doesn't grant rights, it prevents the denial of them. Is there an amendment granting white males the right to vote ? Of course not. Corporations already have the right to vote.

[Dog]

I said that I advocated corporate suffrage. The time has come, and corporate persons have been discriminated against and denied their voting rights for far too long. The precedent clearly establishes that corporations enjoy Constitutional rights. Would you seek to deny corporate persons' right to vote? They are not felons. They are persons.

Are you advocating a new amendment similar to the 19th granting corporations the right to vote?

Corporations are people, my friend. The 19th doesn't grant rights, it prevents the denial of them. Is there an amendment granting white males the right to vote ? Of course not. Corporations already have the right to vote.

Women are people too and the 19th confirms that they cannot be prevented from voting based on gender. Would you favor a similar ammendment confirming that corporations cannot be prevented from voting based on corporatehood?

[Sol Rosenberg]

I said that I advocated corporate suffrage. The time has come, and corporate persons have been discriminated against and denied their voting rights for far too long. The precedent clearly establishes that corporations enjoy Constitutional rights. Would you seek to deny corporate persons' right to vote? They are not felons. They are persons.

Are you advocating a new amendment similar to the 19th granting corporations the right to vote?

Corporations are people, my friend. The 19th doesn't grant rights, it prevents the denial of them. Is there an amendment granting white males the right to vote ? Of course not. Corporations already have the right to vote.

Women are people too and the 19th confirms that they cannot be prevented from voting based on gender. Would you favor a similar ammendment confirming that corporations cannot be prevented from voting based on corporatehood?

Only if the democRATS continue to deny corporations right that they already have. I think corporations are female, anyway.

[Dog]

I said that I advocated corporate suffrage. The time has come, and corporate persons have been discriminated against and denied their voting rights for far too long. The precedent clearly establishes that corporations enjoy Constitutional rights. Would you seek to deny corporate persons' right to vote? They are not felons. They are persons.

Are you advocating a new amendment similar to the 19th granting corporations the right to vote?

Corporations are people, my friend. The 19th doesn't grant rights, it prevents the denial of them. Is there an amendment granting white males the right to vote ? Of course not. Corporations already have the right to vote.

Women are people too and the 19th confirms that they cannot be prevented from voting based on gender. Would you favor a similar ammendment confirming that corporations cannot be prevented from voting based on corporatehood?

Only if the democRATS continue to deny corporations right that they already have. I think corporations are female, anyway.

Interesting…Do you think partnerships and clubs, the boy/girl scouts and OWS and unions and any collection of people however organized should in addition to speech rights, be allowed to vote?

[Sol Rosenberg]

Corporations are people, my friend. It's not whether I think they should be able to vote (value judgement), it is whether they actually have that right (legally).

My opinion is that it might be a bad idea, but we shouldn't violate rights they already have.

[Dog]

Corporations are people, my friend. It's not whether I think they should be able to vote (value judgement), it is whether they actually have that right (legally).

My opinion is that it might be a bad idea, but we shouldn't violate rights they already have.

But just being a person does not confer a right to vote. By what authority do you believe corporations were given voting rights?

[Sol Rosenberg]

Corporations are people, my friend. It's not whether I think they should be able to vote (value judgement), it is whether they actually have that right (legally).

My opinion is that it might be a bad idea, but we shouldn't violate rights they already have.

But just being a person does not confer a right to vote. By what authority do you believe corporations were given voting rights?

I started a thread on it, to stop the hijack of Toms. The precedent is quite clear, as I point out in that discussion. Only liars and lemmings can dispute it, just like corporate first amendment rights.

[Tom Ray]

But just being a person does not confer a right to vote. By what authority do you believe corporations were given voting rights?

I started a thread on it, to stop the hijack of Toms. The precedent is quite clear, as I point out in that discussion. Only liars and lemmings can dispute it, just like corporate first amendment rights.

His "reasoning" once again leaves me with only one option:

Sol, pics of that law diploma or it didn't happen!

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;...

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.

No, NASCAR is not a citizen. The precedent is indeed clear, and your attempt to equate voting with corporate personhood is as idiotic as ever.

[tikipete]

Why?

[Mark K]

Nice headline:

"Should Corporations Have More Leeway to Kill Than People Do?"

NEXT week, the Supreme Court will hear a case with many potential ramifications for American and international law, and for corporate responsibility for human rights around the globe. The justices will be asked to decide whether the corporations to which they have been extending the rights of individuals should also be held accountable for crimes against human rights, just as individuals are.

Have to read the whole thing to get the gist.

http://www.nytimes.c...r=2&ref=opinion

Tricky case. What are they going to do?

I think I already got the gist from your excerpt, but reading the article does provide further confirmation:

That ruling, in a case known as Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, came less than a year after the much more famous — and criticized — Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, which removed restrictions on political spending by contributions and wildly expanded the concept of corporate personhood.

...

A decision affirming that Shell should go unpunished in the Niger Delta case would leave us with a Supreme Court that seems of two minds: in the words of Justice John Paul Stevens’s dissent from Citizens United, it threatens “to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation” by treating corporations as people to let them make unlimited political contributions

Yep, continuing the propaganda narrative that Citizens United somehow "wildly expanded" the concept of corporate personhood, which is just not true, and that corporations are now able to make unlimited political contributions, when in fact the court upheld contribution limits and disclosure rules in Citizens United.

I would like for someone to explain to me how that decision "wildly expanded" the concept of corporate personhood. Before the decision, corporations were considered persons with first amendment rights that had been explicitly recognized since 1963, and after the decision corporations were considered persons with first amendment rights that had been explicitly recognized since 1963. What was the big change in the concept here? And why the continuing need to lie about contribution limits that remain in place? Are the people too stupid to understand long words like "electioneering communications?" Or too stupid to grasp that they just mean "political speech?" Based on this thread, I'd say the answer to the last two is yes.

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?

[Sol Rosenberg]

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.

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?

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

[MoeAlfa]

After ill-advised sex with a corporation, are you expected to stay for breakfast? Call it next week?

[Tom Ray]

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.

[Tom Ray]

Q: How do you determine what is or is not a media corporation?

A: Look for the little flag on the boat!

OK, I think Clean was being a dick and should have properly registered for the event from which that little joke originates, but the question is an important one and the Supreme Court addressed it in the Citizens United decision:

Austin ’s antidistortion rationale would produce the dangerous, and unacceptable, consequence that Congress could ban political speech of media corporations. See McConnell , 540 U. S., at 283 (opinion of Thomas, J. ) (“The chilling endpoint of the Court’s reasoning is not difficult to foresee: outright regulation of the press”). Cf. Tornillo , 418 U. S., at 250 (alleging the existence of “vast accumulations of unreviewable power in the modern media empires”). Media corporations are now exempt from §441b’s ban on corporate expenditures. See 2 U. S. C. §§431(9)((i). Yet media corporations accumulate wealth with the help of the corporate form, the largest media corporations have “immense aggregations of wealth,” and the views expressed by media corporations often “have little or no correlation to the public’s support” for those views. Austin , 494 U. S., at 660. Thus, under the Government’s reasoning, wealthy media corporations could have their voices diminished to put them on par with other media entities. There is no precedent for permitting this under the First Amendment . The media exemption discloses further difficulties with the law now under consideration. There is no precedent supporting laws that attempt to distinguish between corporations which are deemed to be exempt as media corporations and those which are not. “We have consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers.” Id. , at 691 ( Scalia, J. , dissenting) (citing Bellotti, 435 U. S. , at 782); see Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. , 472 U. S. 749, 784 (1985) (Brennan, J., joined by Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens , JJ., dissenting); id. , at 773 (White, J., concurring in judgment). With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media, moreover, the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.

The law’s exception for media corporations is, on its own terms, all but an admission of the invalidity of the antidistortion rationale. And the exemption results in a further, separate reason for finding this law invalid: Again by its own terms, the law exempts some corporations but covers others, even though both have the need or the motive to communicate their views. The exemption applies to media corporations owned or controlled by corporations that have diverse and substantial investments and participate in endeavors other than news. So even assuming the most doubtful proposition that a news organization has a right to speak when others do not, the exemption would allow a conglomerate that owns both a media business and an unrelated business to influence or control the media in order to advance its overall business interest. At the same time, some other corporation, with an identical business interest but no media outlet in its ownership structure, would be forbidden to speak or inform the public about the same issue. This differential treatment cannot be squared with the First Amendment.

The law prohibiting corporations from spending money to talk about an election in the days leading up to the vote obviously could not be applied to media corporations, or they could not report on the election. That means that if we are going to have such a law, the government must determine who is a "legitimate" media corporation with a right to speak and who is not. Am I alone in seeing the danger here? I would think at least Mr. Clean could see it.

[mr_fabulous]

After ill-advised sex with a corporation, are you expected to stay for breakfast? Call it next week?

If she accepts the package, you should either get a non-disclosure or non-compete agreement before hand, or risk all material adverse effect charges.

Rimshot

[Sol Rosenberg]

After ill-advised sex with a corporation, are you expected to stay for breakfast? Call it next week?

If she accepts the package, you should either get a non-disclosure or non-compete agreement before hand, or risk all material adverse effect charges.

Rimshot

A politician would be best able to answer a line of questioning about sex with corporations.

[Tom Ray]

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.

So how about it, Sol? Is your corporate suffrage campaign going to include allowing foreigners to vote in our elections, or is it going to be inconsistent with the precedent you cited? Has to be one of the two, doesn't it? Or can you name another option?

[Tom Ray]

Nice headline:

"Should Corporations Have More Leeway to Kill Than People Do?"

NEXT week, the Supreme Court will hear a case with many potential ramifications for American and international law, and for corporate responsibility for human rights around the globe. The justices will be asked to decide whether the corporations to which they have been extending the rights of individuals should also be held accountable for crimes against human rights, just as individuals are.

Have to read the whole thing to get the gist.

http://www.nytimes.c...r=2&ref=opinion

Tricky case. What are they going to do?

I think I already got the gist from your excerpt, but reading the article does provide further confirmation:

That ruling, in a case known as Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, came less than a year after the much more famous — and criticized — Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, which removed restrictions on political spending by contributions and wildly expanded the concept of corporate personhood.

...

A decision affirming that Shell should go unpunished in the Niger Delta case would leave us with a Supreme Court that seems of two minds: in the words of Justice John Paul Stevens's dissent from Citizens United, it threatens "to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation" by treating corporations as people to let them make unlimited political contributions

Yep, continuing the propaganda narrative that Citizens United somehow "wildly expanded" the concept of corporate personhood, which is just not true, and that corporations are now able to make unlimited political contributions, when in fact the court upheld contribution limits and disclosure rules in Citizens United.

I would like for someone to explain to me how that decision "wildly expanded" the concept of corporate personhood. Before the decision, corporations were considered persons with first amendment rights that had been explicitly recognized since 1963, and after the decision corporations were considered persons with first amendment rights that had been explicitly recognized since 1963. What was the big change in the concept here? And why the continuing need to lie about contribution limits that remain in place? Are the people too stupid to understand long words like "electioneering communications?" Or too stupid to grasp that they just mean "political speech?" Based on this thread, I'd say the answer to the last two is yes.

Justice Stevens, dissenting in Citizens United:

We have long since held that corporations are covered by the First Amendment

...

The majority grasps a quotational straw from Bellotti , that speech does not fall entirely outside the protection of the First Amendment merely because it comes from a corporation. Ante , at 30–31. Of course not, but no one suggests the contrary and neither Austin nor McConnell held otherwise. They held that even though the expenditures at issue were subject to First Amendment scrutiny, the restrictions on those expenditures were justified by a compelling state interest.

Corporate speech, including spending, has long been subject to first amendment protection. The issue, as Stevens notes, is when compelling state interests may justify restricting corporate first amendment rights.

[Tom Ray]

...
I have a better solution... How about simply limiting the amount of money to a relatively modest amount that can be contributed to a campaign by any single individual, corporation (since corporations are people, my friend), union, or any other single group or entity...

We already have contribution limits, and they were upheld 9-0 in Citizens United.

[Tom Ray]

Since "Corporations are People, My Friend", they should have unlimited free speech with money. This ia a decision of the Conservative Supreme Court.

No, the Supreme Court (all 9 of them) said in Citizens United that they continue to recognized the first amendment rights of corporations, but differ on the kinds of restrictions Congress can put on their first amendment rights. None of them favored no limits.

Justice Stevens, dissenting in Citizens United:

We have long since held that corporations are covered by the First Amendment

...

The majority grasps a quotational straw from Bellotti , that speech does not fall entirely outside the protection of the First Amendment merely because it comes from a corporation. Ante , at 30–31. Of course not, but no one suggests the contrary and neither Austin nor McConnell held otherwise. They held that even though the expenditures at issue were subject to First Amendment scrutiny, the restrictions on those expenditures were justified by a compelling state interest.

Corporate speech, including spending, has long been subject to first amendment protection. The issue, as Stevens notes, is when compelling state interests may justify restricting corporate first amendment rights.

[Tom Ray]

The Supreme Court was created as a check and balance on both the Congress and Executive Branch. They did their just duty when deciding the Bush II election, and getting the country past the insecurity and potential chaos of the moment. When they proclaimed corporations as people for purposes of political campaign contributions, as unconscionable as that decision might appear, I believe their message of extreme dissatisfaction with the effect on the nation of the policies of an Obama Presidency which had made it to White House on historic levels of sheer populist support, was read loud and clear.

So the SC reacted to the election of a POTUS by the common man by elevating corporations to constitutional guarantees for individuals?

Wow.

Even more amazing, they did it quite some time ago, apparently in anticipation of the election of Obama, who was a child at the time.

Justice Stevens, dissenting in Citizens United:

We have long since held that corporations are covered by the First Amendment

...

The majority grasps a quotational straw from Bellotti , that speech does not fall entirely outside the protection of the First Amendment merely because it comes from a corporation. Ante , at 30–31. Of course not, but no one suggests the contrary and neither Austin nor McConnell held otherwise. They held that even though the expenditures at issue were subject to First Amendment scrutiny, the restrictions on those expenditures were justified by a compelling state interest.

Corporate speech, including spending, has long been subject to first amendment protection. The issue, as Stevens notes, is when compelling state interests may justify restricting corporate first amendment rights.

[Fat Point Jack]

So we'vw gotten our first conviction in the Massey Energy coal mine explosion.

http://wtvr.com/2012...mine-explosion/

Should the corporation also be tried and if so should there be a penalty other than monetary.

Maybe these:

Close them up for the time of their sentence. All facilities closed for 3-5 years.

Each shareholder at the time of the occurance shall serve time in a local correctional facility for there proportionate share of the sentence.

I am assuming that the appropriate managers will be tried seperately.

[Saorsa]

So we'vw gotten our first conviction in the Massey Energy coal mine explosion.

http://wtvr.com/2012...mine-explosion/

Should the corporation also be tried and if so should there be a penalty other than monetary.

Maybe these:

Close them up for the time of their sentence. All facilities closed for 3-5 years.

Each shareholder at the time of the occurance shall serve time in a local correctional facility for there proportionate share of the sentence.

I am assuming that the appropriate managers will be tried seperately.

Considering the stake the UMW has in mining stock, that should be amusing.

[Sol Rosenberg]

So we'vw gotten our first conviction in the Massey Energy coal mine explosion.

http://wtvr.com/2012...mine-explosion/

Should the corporation also be tried and if so should there be a penalty other than monetary.

Maybe these:

Close them up for the time of their sentence. All facilities closed for 3-5 years.

Each shareholder at the time of the occurance shall serve time in a local correctional facility for there proportionate share of the sentence.

I am assuming that the appropriate managers will be tried seperately.

That is crazy. Corporations are not people when it is time to pay the piper. Corporations are artificial entities set up to protect people from liability. Suggesting that corporations bear criminal responsibility for criminal acts is ludicrous.

[Tom Ray]

So we'vw gotten our first conviction in the Massey Energy coal mine explosion.

http://wtvr.com/2012...mine-explosion/

Should the corporation also be tried and if so should there be a penalty other than monetary.

Maybe these:

Close them up for the time of their sentence. All facilities closed for 3-5 years.

Each shareholder at the time of the occurance shall serve time in a local correctional facility for there proportionate share of the sentence.

I am assuming that the appropriate managers will be tried seperately.

That is crazy. Corporations are not people when it is time to pay the piper. Corporations are artificial entities set up to protect people from liability. Suggesting that corporations bear criminal responsibility for criminal acts is ludicrous.

It's funny to me that you guys are Rhenquist fans on this issue. If you don't know why I say that, have a look.

[Sol Rosenberg]

So we'vw gotten our first conviction in the Massey Energy coal mine explosion.

http://wtvr.com/2012...mine-explosion/

Should the corporation also be tried and if so should there be a penalty other than monetary.

Maybe these:

Close them up for the time of their sentence. All facilities closed for 3-5 years.

Each shareholder at the time of the occurance shall serve time in a local correctional facility for there proportionate share of the sentence.

I am assuming that the appropriate managers will be tried seperately.

That is crazy. Corporations are not people when it is time to pay the piper. Corporations are artificial entities set up to protect people from liability. Suggesting that corporations bear criminal responsibility for criminal acts is ludicrous.

It's funny to me that you guys are Rhenquist fans on this issue. If you don't know why I say that, have a look.

That is a very slippery straw man, but I am not "you guys" and please do not try to set up a straw man and ascribe its position to me.

[JBSF]

That is crazy. Corporations are not people when it is time to pay the piper. Corporations are artificial entities set up to protect people from liability. Suggesting that corporations bear criminal responsibility for criminal acts is ludicrous.

But, but, but..... I thought corporations were people too, entitled to 1st Am rights like human people. How can they get all the rights of people without then having the responsibilities of people???

[Tom Ray]

Sorry, Sol, but it seems to me that you would agree with what Rhenquist said in that dissent about corporations and their rights. If I got that wrong, I'd be happy to hear why.

[Sol Rosenberg]

That is crazy. Corporations are not people when it is time to pay the piper. Corporations are artificial entities set up to protect people from liability. Suggesting that corporations bear criminal responsibility for criminal acts is ludicrous.

But, but, but..... I thought corporations were people too, entitled to 1st Am rights like human people. How can they get all the rights of people without then having the responsibilities of people???

Nonsense. NASCAR has the right to vote, but if NASCAR tracks were to have a criminally negligent safety feature (which they do not!) which leads to death(s) and injury(ies)(which has NOT happened), NASCAR should not have to face criminal charges for its negligence, because it is a corporation.

Think of it as Coke Zero (wait, strike that, they are not as big a sponsor as Pepsi). Think of it as Pepsi Max: all of the pleasure, none of the guilt!

Corporate Suffrage Now!

[Saorsa]

That is crazy. Corporations are not people when it is time to pay the piper. Corporations are artificial entities set up to protect people from liability. Suggesting that corporations bear criminal responsibility for criminal acts is ludicrous.

But, but, but..... I thought corporations were people too, entitled to 1st Am rights like human people. How can they get all the rights of people without then having the responsibilities of people???

Nonsense. NASCAR has the right to vote, but if NASCAR tracks were to have a criminally negligent safety feature (which they do not!) which leads to death(s) and injury(ies)(which has NOT happened), NASCAR should not have to face criminal charges for its negligence, because it is a corporation.

Think of it as Coke Zero (wait, strike that, they are not as big a sponsor as Pepsi). Think of it as Pepsi Max: all of the pleasure, none of the guilt!

Corporate Suffrage Now!

I didn't think you could actually state your position coherently.

[Sol Rosenberg]

That is crazy. Corporations are not people when it is time to pay the piper. Corporations are artificial entities set up to protect people from liability. Suggesting that corporations bear criminal responsibility for criminal acts is ludicrous.

But, but, but..... I thought corporations were people too, entitled to 1st Am rights like human people. How can they get all the rights of people without then having the responsibilities of people???

Nonsense. NASCAR has the right to vote, but if NASCAR tracks were to have a criminally negligent safety feature (which they do not!) which leads to death(s) and injury(ies)(which has NOT happened), NASCAR should not have to face criminal charges for its negligence, because it is a corporation.

Think of it as Coke Zero (wait, strike that, they are not as big a sponsor as Pepsi). Think of it as Pepsi Max: all of the pleasure, none of the guilt!

Corporate Suffrage Now!

I didn't think you could actually state your position coherently.

Perhaps you could take a remedial English course.

[Tom Ray]

Rhenquist fans, your red meat is served.

Early in our history, Mr. Chief Justice Marshall described the status of a corporation in the eyes of federal law:

"A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created." Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 636 (1819).


...

Since it cannot be disputed that the mere creation of a corporation does not invest it with all the liberties enjoyed by natural persons, United States v. White, (1944) (corporations do not enjoy the privilege against self-incrimination), our inquiry must seek to determine which constitutional protections are "incidental to its very existence." Dartmouth College, supra, at 636. There can be little doubt that when a State creates a corporation with the power to acquire and utilize property, it necessarily and implicitly guarantees that the corporation will not be deprived of that property absent due process of law. Likewise, when a State charters a corporation for the purpose of publishing a newspaper, it necessarily assumes that the corporation is entitled to the liberty of the press essential to the conduct of its business. 3 Grosjean so held, and our subsequent cases have so assumed. E. g., Time, Inc. v. Firestone, (1976); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, (1964). 4

Until recently, it was not thought that any persons, natural or artificial, had any protected right to engage in commercial speech. See Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, (1976). Although the Court has never explicitly recognized a corporation's right of commercial speech, such a right might be considered necessarily incidental to the business of a commercial corporation.

It cannot be so readily concluded that the right of political expression is equally necessary to carry out the functions of a corporation organized for commercial purposes. 5 A State grants to a business corporation the blessings of potentially perpetual life and limited liability to enhance its efficiency as an economic entity. It might reasonably be concluded that those properties, so beneficial in the economic sphere, pose special dangers in the political sphere.

Furthermore, it might be argued that liberties of political expression are not at all necessary to effectuate the purposes for which States permit commercial corporations to exist.

...
[ Footnote 5 ] However, where a State permits the organization of a corporation for explicitly political purposes, this Court has held that its rights of political expression, which are necessarily incidental to its purposes, are entitled to constitutional protection. NAACP v. Button, (1963).

The fact that the author of that opinion, my Brother BRENNAN, has joined my Brother WHITE's dissent in this case strengthens my conclusion that nothing in Button requires that similar protection be extended to ordinary business corporations. It should not escape notice that the rule established in Button was only an alternative holding, since the Court also ruled that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People had standing to assert the personal rights of its members. Ibid., citing NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, (1958). The holding, which has never been repeated, was directly contrary to an earlier decision of this Court holding that another political corporation, the American Civil Liberties Union, did not enjoy freedom of speech and assembly. Hague v. CIO, (1939) (opinion of Roberts, J.); id., at 527 (opinion of Stone, J.).

[Tom Ray]

Getting back to NAACP vs Button for a moment, that case was about Virginia barratry statutes and how they unduly restricted the ability of the corporation to engage in political expression.

From the decision:

the dispute centers about the constitutionality under the Fourteenth Amendment of Chapter 33, as construed and applied by the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals to include NAACP's activities within the statute's ban against "the improper solicitation of any legal or professional business."

Gosh, to the ordinary speaker of English, it looks like Button was about the improper solicitation of any legal or professional business.

To me, it looked like Virginia was prohibiting certain solicitation activities as improper, but the Supreme Court decided that those activities were first amendment-protected political expression, not improper at all. I explained more fully in a previous reply to Jeff:

Tom, I'm sorry - you're going to have to give me the Reader's Disgest version in plain language of how NAACP vs Button is relevant. I gave it a cursory read and honestly didn't see where it had much to do with a corporations 1st Am rights. I read it as their right to bring malicious lawsuits outside of the normal legal business practices and attorney-client relationships. I just don't have the interest or background to play the legal guessing games that you love so much.

You're sort of on target as far as the subject of that particular case, but it's not the bringing of the lawsuits but the client shopping that was the subject. The NAACP went looking for people whose civil rights were being violated and when they found an attractive subject, they helped that person bring a lawsuit.

It's really not such a bad thing. Do you think Dick Heller dropped from the clear blue sky as the perfect plaintiff, and the only one who could actually make it all the way to the Supreme Court? It works, and that's why they wanted to stop the NAACP back then.

The actual holding of the court covers more than just the particular issue of client shopping (or what I have previously called "civil rights law ambulance chasing" until wabbit scolded me for it). They said this:

Held: The activities of petitioner, its affiliates and legal staff shown on this record are modes of expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments which Virginia may not prohibit, under its power to regulate the legal profession, as improper solicitation of legal business violative of Chapter 33 and the Canons of Professional Ethics. Pp. 371 U. S. 417-445.

(a) Although petitioner is a corporation, it may assert its right and that of its members and lawyers to associate for the purpose of assisting persons who seek legal redress for infringement of their constitutionally guaranteed rights. P. 371 U. S. 428.

( Abstract discussion is not the only species of communication which the Constitution protects; the First Amendment also protects vigorous advocacy, certainly of lawful ends, against governmental intrusion. P. 371 U. S. 429.

© In the context of petitioner's objectives, litigation is not a means of resolving private differences; it is a form of political expression, and a means for achieving the lawful objectives of equality of treatment by all governments, federal, state and local, for the members of the Negro community. Pp. 371 U. S. 429-430.

(d) In order to find constitutional protection for the kind of cooperative, organizational activity disclosed by this record, it is not necessary to subsume such activity under a narrow, literal conception of freedom of speech, petition or assembly, for there is no longer any doubt that the First and Fourteenth Amendments protect certain forms of orderly group activity. Pp. 371 U. S. 430-431.

Let me translate the bolded bits to more understandable English.

The activities of petitioner are modes of expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Although petitioner is a corporation, it may assert its right... In the context of petitioner's objectives, litigation...is a form of political expression...

The activities of the NAACP are first amendment protected free speech. Even though they are a corporation, they may assert and protect such rights. Given what they do, filing lawsuits is a form of first amendment protected free speech.

[Sol Rosenberg]

Distort the plain English however you wish.

The syllabus is not the decision, spark plug.

[Tom Ray]

Clear up what it really means then. I took my shot at it and am happy to answer questions about what I said.

By the way, the part right after it says "Held:..." is the decision of the court.

[Sol Rosenberg]

Clear up what it really means then. I took my shot at it and am happy to answer questions about what I said.

By the way, the part right after it says "Held:..." is the decision of the court.

Sorry spark plug, that is the syllabus still, distilling the decision of the court for you. Perhaps if you read the actual decision instead of someone's summary, you wouldn't get caught spinning whoppers about the decision.

[Tom Ray]

Clear up what it really means then. I took my shot at it and am happy to answer questions about what I said.

By the way, the part right after it says "Held:..." is the decision of the court.

Sorry spark plug, that is the syllabus still, distilling the decision of the court for you. Perhaps if you read the actual decision instead of someone's summary, you wouldn't get caught spinning whoppers about the decision.

Those were the holdings of the court. Are you suggesting the syllabus got them wrong? Here is the same point taken directly from the decision:

Justice Brennan said this in his opinion:

We reverse the judgment of the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. We hold that the activities of the NAACP, its affiliates and legal staff shown on this record are modes of expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments which Virginia may not prohibit, under its power to regulate the legal profession, as improper solicitation of legal business violative of Chapter 33 and the Canons of Professional Ethics.

That looks to me like it is saying that the NAACP's legal activities, including the "improper" client solicitation, were modes of expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

I conclude that corporations have had first amendment rights that were specifically recognized by the Supreme Court since 1963. Is that incorrect? If so, please correct me.

[Sol Rosenberg]

Clear up what it really means then. I took my shot at it and am happy to answer questions about what I said.

By the way, the part right after it says "Held:..." is the decision of the court.

Sorry spark plug, that is the syllabus still, distilling the decision of the court for you. Perhaps if you read the actual decision instead of someone's summary, you wouldn't get caught spinning whoppers about the decision.

Those were the holdings of the court. Are you suggesting the syllabus got them wrong? Here is the same point taken directly from the decision:

Justice Brennan said this in his opinion:

We reverse the judgment of the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. We hold that the activities of the NAACP, its affiliates and legal staff shown on this record are modes of expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments which Virginia may not prohibit, under its power to regulate the legal profession, as improper solicitation of legal business violative of Chapter 33 and the Canons of Professional Ethics.

That looks to me like it is saying that the NAACP's legal activities, including the "improper" client solicitation, were modes of expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

I conclude that corporations have had first amendment rights that were specifically recognized by the Supreme Court since 1963. Is that incorrect? If so, please correct me.

I am suggesting that if you wish to make representations about decisions of the Court, you should read the actual decision, not the syllabus, to keep yourself from misstating what the Court says about things like whether the NAACP would have had standing to assert the rights of its members.

Sorry for catching you misstating the decision (again). I know how worked-up it gets you.

[kmccabe]

See Hunt v. Washington Apple.

Gets right to the core. Without apeels.

edit: correction: with apeel.

THIS is why I continue to read and participate in PA.

[kmccabe]

I think corporations are female, anyway.

and that is because....

[Sol Rosenberg]

I think corporations are female, anyway.

and that is because....

Because I like corporations...and women...and the 19th Amendment.

[kmccabe]

oh,,,, there's more there than that.

[Sol Rosenberg]

oh,,,, there's more there than that.

Not really. I'm just a good old red blooded American Corporate Heterosexual.

[Tom Ray]

Clear up what it really means then. I took my shot at it and am happy to answer questions about what I said.

By the way, the part right after it says "Held:..." is the decision of the court.

Sorry spark plug, that is the syllabus still, distilling the decision of the court for you. Perhaps if you read the actual decision instead of someone's summary, you wouldn't get caught spinning whoppers about the decision.

Those were the holdings of the court. Are you suggesting the syllabus got them wrong? Here is the same point taken directly from the decision:

Justice Brennan said this in his opinion:

We reverse the judgment of the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. We hold that the activities of the NAACP, its affiliates and legal staff shown on this record are modes of expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments which Virginia may not prohibit, under its power to regulate the legal profession, as improper solicitation of legal business violative of Chapter 33 and the Canons of Professional Ethics.

That looks to me like it is saying that the NAACP's legal activities, including the "improper" client solicitation, were modes of expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

I conclude that corporations have had first amendment rights that were specifically recognized by the Supreme Court since 1963. Is that incorrect? If so, please correct me.

I am suggesting that if you wish to make representations about decisions of the Court, you should read the actual decision, not the syllabus

But they seem very similar. The syllabus said this:

The activities of petitioner, its affiliates and legal staff shown on this record are modes of expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments which Virginia may not prohibit, under its power to regulate the legal profession, as improper solicitation of legal business violative of Chapter 33 and the Canons of Professional Ethics.

While the opinion said this:

We hold that the activities of the NAACP, its affiliates and legal staff shown on this record are modes of expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments which Virginia may not prohibit, under its power to regulate the legal profession, as improper solicitation of legal business violative of Chapter 33 and the Canons of Professional Ethics.

They look very similar as far as the holding of the court goes. What made you think the syllabus would not have an accurate version of the holding of the court? Pretty much word for word, isn't it?

[Sol Rosenberg]

But they seem very similar. The syllabus said this:

The activities of petitioner, its affiliates and legal staff shown on this record are modes of expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments which Virginia may not prohibit, under its power to regulate the legal profession, as improper solicitation of legal business violative of Chapter 33 and the Canons of Professional Ethics.

While the opinion said this:

We hold that the activities of the NAACP, its affiliates and legal staff shown on this record are modes of expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments which Virginia may not prohibit, under its power to regulate the legal profession, as improper solicitation of legal business violative of Chapter 33 and the Canons of Professional Ethics.

They look very similar as far as the holding of the court goes. What made you think the syllabus would not have an accurate version of the holding of the court? Pretty much word for word, isn't it?

You're getting there, but still haven't explained the following misstatement:

Tom Ray, on 11 February 2012 - 06:22 AM, said:

Now that I know a bit more about it, that is exactly what I am saying. There is no way the NAACP could have gotten associational standing in that case.

[kmccabe]

oh,,,, there's more there than that.

Not really. I'm just a good old red blooded American Corporate Heterosexual.

was hoping there was a joke. OK my bad.

[Tom Ray]

But they seem very similar. The syllabus said this:

The activities of petitioner, its affiliates and legal staff shown on this record are modes of expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments which Virginia may not prohibit, under its power to regulate the legal profession, as improper solicitation of legal business violative of Chapter 33 and the Canons of Professional Ethics.

While the opinion said this:

We hold that the activities of the NAACP, its affiliates and legal staff shown on this record are modes of expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments which Virginia may not prohibit, under its power to regulate the legal profession, as improper solicitation of legal business violative of Chapter 33 and the Canons of Professional Ethics.

They look very similar as far as the holding of the court goes. What made you think the syllabus would not have an accurate version of the holding of the court? Pretty much word for word, isn't it?

You're getting there

What made you think the syllabus would not have an accurate version of the holding of the court? Pretty much word for word, isn't it?

[Sol Rosenberg]

But they seem very similar. The syllabus said this:

The activities of petitioner, its affiliates and legal staff shown on this record are modes of expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments which Virginia may not prohibit, under its power to regulate the legal profession, as improper solicitation of legal business violative of Chapter 33 and the Canons of Professional Ethics.

While the opinion said this:

We hold that the activities of the NAACP, its affiliates and legal staff shown on this record are modes of expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments which Virginia may not prohibit, under its power to regulate the legal profession, as improper solicitation of legal business violative of Chapter 33 and the Canons of Professional Ethics.

They look very similar as far as the holding of the court goes. What made you think the syllabus would not have an accurate version of the holding of the court? Pretty much word for word, isn't it?

You're getting there

What made you think the syllabus would not have an accurate version of the holding of the court? Pretty much word for word, isn't it?

Not always. Sometimes, someone sneaks a "political" in there someplace, or suggest something about the association not having standing to assert the rights of its members. You know...kinda like you did.

[Tom Ray]

So you agree that this summary of the case based on the holdings in the syllabus is accurate, and just have a problem with an ancillary issue about what the court could have done 50 years ago, but did not? OK.

To me, it looked like Virginia was prohibiting certain solicitation activities as improper, but the Supreme Court decided that those activities were first amendment-protected political expression, not improper at all. I explained more fully in a previous reply to Jeff:

Tom, I'm sorry - you're going to have to give me the Reader's Disgest version in plain language of how NAACP vs Button is relevant. I gave it a cursory read and honestly didn't see where it had much to do with a corporations 1st Am rights. I read it as their right to bring malicious lawsuits outside of the normal legal business practices and attorney-client relationships. I just don't have the interest or background to play the legal guessing games that you love so much.

You're sort of on target as far as the subject of that particular case, but it's not the bringing of the lawsuits but the client shopping that was the subject. The NAACP went looking for people whose civil rights were being violated and when they found an attractive subject, they helped that person bring a lawsuit.

It's really not such a bad thing. Do you think Dick Heller dropped from the clear blue sky as the perfect plaintiff, and the only one who could actually make it all the way to the Supreme Court? It works, and that's why they wanted to stop the NAACP back then.

The actual holding of the court covers more than just the particular issue of client shopping (or what I have previously called "civil rights law ambulance chasing" until wabbit scolded me for it). They said this:

Held: The activities of petitioner, its affiliates and legal staff shown on this record are modes of expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments which Virginia may not prohibit, under its power to regulate the legal profession, as improper solicitation of legal business violative of Chapter 33 and the Canons of Professional Ethics. Pp. 371 U. S. 417-445.

(a) Although petitioner is a corporation, it may assert its right and that of its members and lawyers to associate for the purpose of assisting persons who seek legal redress for infringement of their constitutionally guaranteed rights. P. 371 U. S. 428.

( Abstract discussion is not the only species of communication which the Constitution protects; the First Amendment also protects vigorous advocacy, certainly of lawful ends, against governmental intrusion. P. 371 U. S. 429.

© In the context of petitioner's objectives, litigation is not a means of resolving private differences; it is a form of political expression, and a means for achieving the lawful objectives of equality of treatment by all governments, federal, state and local, for the members of the Negro community. Pp. 371 U. S. 429-430.

(d) In order to find constitutional protection for the kind of cooperative, organizational activity disclosed by this record, it is not necessary to subsume such activity under a narrow, literal conception of freedom of speech, petition or assembly, for there is no longer any doubt that the First and Fourteenth Amendments protect certain forms of orderly group activity. Pp. 371 U. S. 430-431.

Let me translate the bolded bits to more understandable English.

The activities of petitioner are modes of expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Although petitioner is a corporation, it may assert its right... In the context of petitioner's objectives, litigation...is a form of political expression...

The activities of the NAACP are first amendment protected free speech. Even though they are a corporation, they may assert and protect such rights. Given what they do, filing lawsuits is a form of first amendment protected free speech.

[Sol Rosenberg]

So you agree that this summary of the case based on the holdings in the syllabus is accurate, and just have a problem with an ancillary issue about what the court could have done 50 years ago, but did not? OK.

No, as I've said time and time again, I have an issue with you distorting the language of the decision. Sorry if that leaves you testy. Don't spread that Malarkey, and I won't have to point it out (again).

[Tom Ray]

OK, so this is the trimmed-down and Sol-approved summary of NAACP vs Button:

Tom, I'm sorry - you're going to have to give me the Reader's Disgest version in plain language of how NAACP vs Button is relevant. I gave it a cursory read and honestly didn't see where it had much to do with a corporations 1st Am rights. I read it as their right to bring malicious lawsuits outside of the normal legal business practices and attorney-client relationships. I just don't have the interest or background to play the legal guessing games that you love so much.

You're sort of on target as far as the subject of that particular case, but it's not the bringing of the lawsuits but the client shopping that was the subject. The NAACP went looking for people whose civil rights were being violated and when they found an attractive subject, they helped that person bring a lawsuit.

It's really not such a bad thing. Do you think Dick Heller dropped from the clear blue sky as the perfect plaintiff, and the only one who could actually make it all the way to the Supreme Court? It works, and that's why they wanted to stop the NAACP back then.

The actual holding of the court covers more than just the particular issue of client shopping (or what I have previously called "civil rights law ambulance chasing" until wabbit scolded me for it). They said this:

Held: The activities of petitioner, its affiliates and legal staff shown on this record are modes of expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments which Virginia may not prohibit, under its power to regulate the legal profession, as improper solicitation of legal business violative of Chapter 33 and the Canons of Professional Ethics. Pp. 371 U. S. 417-445.

(a) Although petitioner is a corporation, it may assert its right and that of its members and lawyers to associate for the purpose of assisting persons who seek legal redress for infringement of their constitutionally guaranteed rights. P. 371 U. S. 428.

( Abstract discussion is not the only species of communication which the Constitution protects; the First Amendment also protects vigorous advocacy, certainly of lawful ends, against governmental intrusion. P. 371 U. S. 429.

© In the context of petitioner's objectives, litigation is not a means of resolving private differences; it is a form of political expression, and a means for achieving the lawful objectives of equality of treatment by all governments, federal, state and local, for the members of the Negro community. Pp. 371 U. S. 429-430.

(d) In order to find constitutional protection for the kind of cooperative, organizational activity disclosed by this record, it is not necessary to subsume such activity under a narrow, literal conception of freedom of speech, petition or assembly, for there is no longer any doubt that the First and Fourteenth Amendments protect certain forms of orderly group activity. Pp. 371 U. S. 430-431.

Let me translate the bolded bits to more understandable English.

The activities of petitioner are modes of expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Although petitioner is a corporation, it may assert its right... In the context of petitioner's objectives, litigation...is a form of political expression...

The activities of the NAACP are first amendment protected free speech. Even though they are a corporation, they may assert and protect such rights. Given what they do, filing lawsuits is a form of first amendment protected free speech.

I won't use any other from here on out, OK?

[Sol Rosenberg]

Nope, still haven't addressed the misstatement on the association standing issue.

[Tom Ray]

Nice headline:

"Should Corporations Have More Leeway to Kill Than People Do?"

NEXT week, the Supreme Court will hear a case with many potential ramifications for American and international law, and for corporate responsibility for human rights around the globe. The justices will be asked to decide whether the corporations to which they have been extending the rights of individuals should also be held accountable for crimes against human rights, just as individuals are.

Have to read the whole thing to get the gist.

http://www.nytimes.c...r=2&ref=opinion

Tricky case. What are they going to do?

I think I already got the gist from your excerpt, but reading the article does provide further confirmation:

That ruling, in a case known as Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, came less than a year after the much more famous — and criticized — Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, which removed restrictions on political spending by contributions and wildly expanded the concept of corporate personhood.

...

A decision affirming that Shell should go unpunished in the Niger Delta case would leave us with a Supreme Court that seems of two minds: in the words of Justice John Paul Stevens's dissent from Citizens United, it threatens "to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation" by treating corporations as people to let them make unlimited political contributions

Yep, continuing the propaganda narrative that Citizens United somehow "wildly expanded" the concept of corporate personhood, which is just not true, and that corporations are now able to make unlimited political contributions, when in fact the court upheld contribution limits and disclosure rules in Citizens United.

I would like for someone to explain to me how that decision "wildly expanded" the concept of corporate personhood. Before the decision, corporations were considered persons with first amendment rights that had been explicitly recognized since 1963, and after the decision corporations were considered persons with first amendment rights that had been explicitly recognized since 1963. What was the big change in the concept here? And why the continuing need to lie about contribution limits that remain in place? Are the people too stupid to understand long words like "electioneering communications?" Or too stupid to grasp that they just mean "political speech?" Based on this thread, I'd say the answer to the last two is yes.

Justice Stevens, dissenting in Citizens United:

We have long since held that corporations are covered by the First Amendment

...

The majority grasps a quotational straw from Bellotti , that speech does not fall entirely outside the protection of the First Amendment merely because it comes from a corporation. Ante , at 30–31. Of course not, but no one suggests the contrary and neither Austin nor McConnell held otherwise. They held that even though the expenditures at issue were subject to First Amendment scrutiny, the restrictions on those expenditures were justified by a compelling state interest.

Corporate speech, including spending, has long been subject to first amendment protection. The issue, as Stevens notes, is when compelling state interests may justify restricting corporate first amendment rights.

I still want an explanation of how Citizens United wildly expanded the concept of corporate personhood. That seems to me to misstate what happened. I guess that's OK sometimes.

As I said, before the decision, corporations were considered persons with first amendment rights that had been explicitly recognized since 1963, and after the decision corporations were considered persons with first amendment rights that had been explicitly recognized since 1963. The rights of corporations as legal "persons" are much older and cover a variety of issues unrelated to the first amendment decision in Citizens United.

[Tom Ray]

Nope, still haven't addressed the misstatement on the association standing issue.

Oh yeah, by the way, 50 years ago, the court could have broken with precedent and refused to recognize the corporate first amendment rights of the NAACP and decided the case another way, but they did not. Sol is very insistent that we all recognize what could have happened back then, but did not. He gets very upset when we don't talk about it, and instead talk about what did happen:

The Supreme Court recognized the corporate first amendment rights of the NAACP in 1963.

[Tom Ray]

OK, so this is the trimmed-down and Sol-approved summary of NAACP vs Button:

Tom, I'm sorry - you're going to have to give me the Reader's Disgest version in plain language of how NAACP vs Button is relevant. I gave it a cursory read and honestly didn't see where it had much to do with a corporations 1st Am rights. I read it as their right to bring malicious lawsuits outside of the normal legal business practices and attorney-client relationships. I just don't have the interest or background to play the legal guessing games that you love so much.

You're sort of on target as far as the subject of that particular case, but it's not the bringing of the lawsuits but the client shopping that was the subject. The NAACP went looking for people whose civil rights were being violated and when they found an attractive subject, they helped that person bring a lawsuit.

It's really not such a bad thing. Do you think Dick Heller dropped from the clear blue sky as the perfect plaintiff, and the only one who could actually make it all the way to the Supreme Court? It works, and that's why they wanted to stop the NAACP back then.

The actual holding of the court covers more than just the particular issue of client shopping (or what I have previously called "civil rights law ambulance chasing" until wabbit scolded me for it). They said this:

Held: The activities of petitioner, its affiliates and legal staff shown on this record are modes of expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments which Virginia may not prohibit, under its power to regulate the legal profession, as improper solicitation of legal business violative of Chapter 33 and the Canons of Professional Ethics. Pp. 371 U. S. 417-445.

(a) Although petitioner is a corporation, it may assert its right and that of its members and lawyers to associate for the purpose of assisting persons who seek legal redress for infringement of their constitutionally guaranteed rights. P. 371 U. S. 428.

( Abstract discussion is not the only species of communication which the Constitution protects; the First Amendment also protects vigorous advocacy, certainly of lawful ends, against governmental intrusion. P. 371 U. S. 429.

© In the context of petitioner's objectives, litigation is not a means of resolving private differences; it is a form of political expression, and a means for achieving the lawful objectives of equality of treatment by all governments, federal, state and local, for the members of the Negro community. Pp. 371 U. S. 429-430.

(d) In order to find constitutional protection for the kind of cooperative, organizational activity disclosed by this record, it is not necessary to subsume such activity under a narrow, literal conception of freedom of speech, petition or assembly, for there is no longer any doubt that the First and Fourteenth Amendments protect certain forms of orderly group activity. Pp. 371 U. S. 430-431.

Let me translate the bolded bits to more understandable English.

The activities of petitioner are modes of expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Although petitioner is a corporation, it may assert its right... In the context of petitioner's objectives, litigation...is a form of political expression...

The activities of the NAACP are first amendment protected free speech. Even though they are a corporation, they may assert and protect such rights. Given what they do, filing lawsuits is a form of first amendment protected free speech.

I won't use any other from here on out, OK?

Addendum: the Supreme Court could have gone a different way back then, but did not.

All better now?

[Sol Rosenberg]

Nope. Still haven't addressed your misstatement. Need help finding it? I can point it out for you again.

[Tom Ray]

I think I already got the gist from your excerpt, but reading the article does provide further confirmation:

That ruling, in a case known as Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, came less than a year after the much more famous — and criticized — Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, which removed restrictions on political spending by contributions and wildly expanded the concept of corporate personhood.

...

A decision affirming that Shell should go unpunished in the Niger Delta case would leave us with a Supreme Court that seems of two minds: in the words of Justice John Paul Stevens's dissent from Citizens United, it threatens "to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation" by treating corporations as people to let them make unlimited political contributions

Yep, continuing the propaganda narrative that Citizens United somehow "wildly expanded" the concept of corporate personhood, which is just not true, and that corporations are now able to make unlimited political contributions, when in fact the court upheld contribution limits and disclosure rules in Citizens United.

I would like for someone to explain to me how that decision "wildly expanded" the concept of corporate personhood. Before the decision, corporations were considered persons with first amendment rights that had been explicitly recognized since 1963, and after the decision corporations were considered persons with first amendment rights that had been explicitly recognized since 1963. What was the big change in the concept here? And why the continuing need to lie about contribution limits that remain in place? Are the people too stupid to understand long words like "electioneering communications?" Or too stupid to grasp that they just mean "political speech?" Based on this thread, I'd say the answer to the last two is yes.

Justice Stevens, dissenting in Citizens United:

We have long since held that corporations are covered by the First Amendment

...

The majority grasps a quotational straw from Bellotti , that speech does not fall entirely outside the protection of the First Amendment merely because it comes from a corporation. Ante , at 30–31. Of course not, but no one suggests the contrary and neither Austin nor McConnell held otherwise. They held that even though the expenditures at issue were subject to First Amendment scrutiny, the restrictions on those expenditures were justified by a compelling state interest.

Corporate speech, including spending, has long been subject to first amendment protection. The issue, as Stevens notes, is when compelling state interests may justify restricting corporate first amendment rights.

I still want an explanation of how Citizens United wildly expanded the concept of corporate personhood. That seems to me to misstate what happened. I guess that's OK sometimes.

As I said, before the decision, corporations were considered persons with first amendment rights that had been explicitly recognized since 1963, and after the decision corporations were considered persons with first amendment rights that had been explicitly recognized since 1963. The rights of corporations as legal "persons" are much older and cover a variety of issues unrelated to the first amendment decision in Citizens United.

Obviously, either the New York Times misstated the facts about Citizens United in their paper or I did in this post, since both versions cannot be correct.

We know that Sol has a problem if I misstate something, and he has not pointed out a misstatement by me in that post, so it must be that the New York Times misstated the situation.

That's not significant compared to some guy on a sailing forum. They're just an old, dying newspaper.

[Tom Ray]

Hey Sol,

When you're done with your letter scolding the New York Times for misstating what happened in Citizens United, would you mind posting it to this thread?

Um, assuming you care when they do it as much as you care when I do it, that is...

[Sol Rosenberg]

You must have me confused with someone else again. Could you and Saorsa please name your straw man something other than "Sol"?

[Tom Ray]

Citizens United did not expand the concept of corporate personhood at all. The concept includes corporate property rights, the right to sue, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to just compensation in eminent domain actions, corporate first amendment rights, and other things.

Citizens United changed the applicability of one part of that concept, and the change was a matter of degree, not kind, as Justice Stevens pointed out.

We have long since held that corporations are covered by the First Amendment

...

The majority grasps a quotational straw from Bellotti , that speech does not fall entirely outside the protection of the First Amendment merely because it comes from a corporation. Ante , at 30–31. Of course not, but no one suggests the contrary and neither Austin nor McConnell held otherwise. They held that even though the expenditures at issue were subject to First Amendment scrutiny, the restrictions on those expenditures were justified by a compelling state interest.

Changing when compelling state interests may justify restricting corporate first amendment rights does nothing to expand or contract the concept of corporate personhood under which those rights exist. The concept was there long before the decision in Citizens United came down and has not changed. The New York Times' statement on that subject is inaccurate and I believe is deliberately misleading.

[Tom Ray]

...
http://www.nytimes.c...r=2&ref=opinion

Tricky case. What are they going to do?

I think I already got the gist from your excerpt, but reading the article does provide further confirmation:

...
...

A decision affirming that Shell should go unpunished in the Niger Delta case would leave us with a Supreme Court that seems of two minds: in the words of Justice John Paul Stevens's dissent from Citizens United, it threatens "to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation" by treating corporations as people to let them make unlimited political contributions

...
why the continuing need to lie about contribution limits that remain in place?

The opening of the Citizens United article on opensecrets.org:

Corporations, trade associations, unions and nonprofit groups still aren't allowed to make direct contributions to federal politicians

People are not allowed to make unlimited political contributions and the Supreme Court certainly did not treat them as people in order to let them do things that people can not do. In fact, the Court upheld contribution restrictions unanimously.

I think that news organizations like the New York Times spreading that kind of Malarkey are responsible for the fact that otherwise reasonably well-informed posters like Jon Eisberg and D'Ranger show up here not knowing that there are no unlimited corporate campaign contributions under our laws, just people and groups of people who are free to speak. They are also responsible for what seems to me to be a huge majority of people who are unaware that corporations have had first amendment rights for decades.

I'll do what I can to keep ignorance at bay on this forum, but out in our country at large, the battle is already lost. People listen to the New York Times and assume they are hearing responsible reporting, not deceptive misstatements, but unfortunately that is not always true.

[Tom Ray]

Corporate Rights Advocates, won't you please Sign the Petition to Congress?

Which says:

Americans United for Corporate Suffrage urge congress to amend the constitution to allow for and to protect the inherent right to vote for all legal persons, including Corporations.

But this should not be mistaken for calling for a constitutional amendment.

[Tom Ray]

When this country was cooking, and I mean cooking, everyone, including the corporate (remember that they're people too), paid a heck of a lot more than they do today.

By any chance, are you one of the 80+% of PBS poll participants who wants to amend the constitution to end corporate personhood?

There must be some of them around somewhere, but none seem to want to talk to me about it.

[Tom Ray]

Everything that Rove knows how to do Romney can undo in a sentence.

• Corporations are people, my friend.

This one is really easy to defend. You just explain that Romney was not around in the late 19th century when that happened and he's off the hook.

The NAACP's corporate personhood was specifically recognized as including rights of free expression protected by the first amendment back in 1963, also well before Romney's involvement in politics.

Why do you think this statement of longstanding American law that is unanimously embraced by the Supreme Court is a big problem?

[Olsonist]

What the Supremes think doesn't matter.
What I think really doesn't matter.
This is an election and it's a passion play.

So I don't think Romney will be repeating that line in a debate or in a commercial. And I don't think Evangelical pastors are going to be repeating it from the pulpit. The Tea Party won't be wearing t-shirts say Obama doesn't support corporate personhood.

Corporate personhood and Citizens United are not rallying points for anyone right of center. It's a FiCon thing and FiCons don't wear t-shirts.

[Sol Rosenberg]

Should corporations be able to shoot "assholes" in self defense?

[Sol Rosenberg]

North Korean missiles are a joke, but that doesn't mean that Obama isn't weak on North Korea.

[Sol Rosenberg]

Leave the Colonel ALONE! (and don't ask about his discharge).

[Tom Ray]

What the Supremes think doesn't matter.
What I think really doesn't matter.
This is an election and it's a passion play.

So I don't think Romney will be repeating that line in a debate or in a commercial.

I think you are correct that the issue of corporate personhood has become an emotional one, not one on which actual thinking about issues matters.

Otherwise, it would not be politically dangerous for a candidate for President to state the longstanding law of the land.

The fact that it is dangerous for a candidate to speak the truth on this issue strikes me as its own danger sign.

[Olsonist]

That is going too far.

The corporation is a flexible thing, and that's good thing, but it isn't in the Constitution. The corporate entity has evolved over time, mostly in the courts.

http://en.wikipedia....rate_personhood

With each evolution they've gained more power and the latest evolution, Citizens United, is just breathtaking. You didn't vote for this. Your representative didn't vote for it. It is a legal construction formed out of thin air by Conservative activist judges.

So this is where we disagree. Romney says "Corporations are people, my friend." Yes, he kind of right. Still it's been a slippery slope. As Corporations have gained more rights, as a Citizen you have lost them.

Citizens United takes that way too far. Corporations aren't just people anymore; they're better than people. Your vote is meaningless compared to their money and lobbying power.

So when you say, "The fact that it is dangerous for a candidate to speak the truth on this issue is its own danger sign" you're exactly wrong. First, there is no Truth here; this is a legal policy, five guys overruling an elected bipartisan Congress and an elected President. And second, and more importantly, that this is seen as dangerous for a voter to confront a politician on this issue shows how small we have become.

[Tom Ray]

That is going too far.

The corporation is a flexible thing, and that's good thing, but it isn't in the Constitution. The corporate entity has evolved over time, mostly in the courts.

http://en.wikipedia....rate_personhood

With each evolution they've gained more power and the latest evolution, Citizens United, is just breathtaking. You didn't vote for this. Your representative didn't vote for it. It is a legal construction formed out of thin air by Conservative activist judges.

So this is where we disagree. Romney says "Corporations are people, my friend." Yes, he kind of right. It's been a slippery slope. As Corporations have gained more rights, as a Citizen you have lost them. Citizens United takes that way too far.

Corporations aren't just people anymore; they're better than people. Your vote is meaningless compared to their money and lobbying power.

So when you say, "The fact that it is dangerous for a candidate to speak the truth on this issue is its own danger sign" you're exactly wrong. First, there is no Truth here. This is a legal policy, five guys overruling an elected bipartisan Congress and an elected President. And second, and more importantly, that this is seen as dangerous for a voter to confront a politician on this issue shows how small we have become.

Wow, an actual response.

Despite all the hoopla, I think Citizens United was not all that important and certainly not breathtaking. The New York Times said it dramatically expanded the concept of corporate personhood, but the truth is that is incrementally expanded part of one aspect of corporate personhood, not affecting the overall concept at all.

The idea that corporate personhood as applied to the first amendment is a legal construction formed out of thin air by conservative activist judges is belied by the NAACP vs Button case from 1963. It was not the conservatives who said that the NAACP's corporate first amendment rights were violated. They did not form that opinion "out of thin air" either. It is based on a lot of other historic building blocks put in place by courts over the years.

The idea that corporations are more powerful than mere voters predates Citizens United by just a few years. OK, maybe a hundred. OK, so it's more than a hundred.

There is plenty of truth in the fact that Marbury vs Madison has been the law of the land for a very long time, even if some people don't like it. Sometimes. 5 guys have overruled plenty of laws and will continue to do so, and there is nothing wrong with it. Being passed by Congress and signed by the President does not automagically make a law constitutional, you know.

The law needed to be overturned, and I have brought up one reason why before: media corporations. What is a media corporation, exactly? Because media corporations are allowed free rein to talk about candidates in that crucial period leading up to an election, while regular corporations would be censored under the law. I think the majority is right that it is becoming less and less clear exactly who/what is a "media" corporation all the time, and singling out some for this kind of special exemption under the law can not be done in a rational and fair way.

The minority's answer to this was completely lame.

Our colleagues have raised some interesting and difficult questions about Congress’ authority to regulate electioneering by the press, and about how to define what constitutes the press. But that is not the case before us. Section 203 does not apply to media corporations, and even if it did, Citizens United is not a media corporation. There would be absolutely no reason to consider the issue of media corporations if the majority did not, first, transform Citizens United’s as-applied challenge into a facial challenge and, second, invent the theory that legislatures must eschew all “identity”-based distinctions and treat a local nonprofit news outlet exactly the same as General Motors.

Waah waah waaah. They broadened the issue to be considered, just like liberals did in the NAACP vs Button case so many years ago, only it's not fair this time around. It is, however, a good diversion and a way to not address the "interesting and difficult" questions raised by exempting "media" corporations from the law.

Since the minority won't answer, will you? How shall we define a "media" corporation? Because if we do not answer that question, it is going to be awfully hard to write a law against electioneering communications that applies to all the others but not the media.

Is Mr. Clean really the media?

[Olsonist]

Despite all the hoopla, I think Citizens United was not all that important and certainly not breathtaking. The New York Times said it dramatically expanded the concept of corporate personhood, but the truth is that is incrementally expanded part of one aspect of corporate personhood, not affecting the overall concept at all.

Really? You think overruling Congress is not all that important. That might be convincing if Corporate Personhood was based in the Constitution. Instead it is based in case law. So we have the Court overruling Congress because Congress overruled the Court. Instead the Court should have deferred to Congress.

This entity, the Corporation, needs to be debated and thought out in the political arena since there are policy lines that need to be drawn; that's the purpose of politics. Courts are where you go for justice not policy. Obviously Courts have a policy component but they should defer to Congress in policy unless it's a Constitutional issue.

Even with slavery the Court deferred to Congress. Dred Scott. We had to fight a war and pass a Constitutional amendment to overturn that precedent.

The idea that corporate personhood as applied to the first amendment is a legal construction formed out of thin air by conservative activist judges is belied by the NAACP vs Button case from 1963. It was not the conservatives who said that the NAACP's corporate first amendment rights were violated. They did not form that opinion "out of thin air" either. It is based on a lot of other historic building blocks put in place by courts over the years.

Button is just more case law. Your argument is inductive but go back to your basis step. Dartmouth College v. Woodward. Case law. It gives Corporations the right of contract.

Is Mr. Clean really the media?

I have no idea what a media corporation is. I do know that the Court is the wrong place to go for that definition.

[Tom Ray]

Despite all the hoopla, I think Citizens United was not all that important and certainly not breathtaking. The New York Times said it dramatically expanded the concept of corporate personhood, but the truth is that is incrementally expanded part of one aspect of corporate personhood, not affecting the overall concept at all.

Really? You think overruling Congress is not all that important. That might be convincing if Corporate Personhood was based in the Constitution. Instead it is based in case law. So we have the Court overruling Congress because Congress overruled the Court. Instead the Court should have deferred to Congress.

This entity, the Corporation, needs to be debated and thought out in the political arena since there are policy lines that need to be drawn; that's the purpose of politics. Courts are where you go for justice not policy. Obviously Courts have a policy component but they should defer to Congress in policy unless it's a Constitutional issue.

Even with slavery the Court deferred to Congress. Dred Scott. We had to fight a war and pass a Constitutional amendment to overturn that precedent.

The idea that corporate personhood as applied to the first amendment is a legal construction formed out of thin air by conservative activist judges is belied by the NAACP vs Button case from 1963. It was not the conservatives who said that the NAACP's corporate first amendment rights were violated. They did not form that opinion "out of thin air" either. It is based on a lot of other historic building blocks put in place by courts over the years.

Button is just more case law. Your argument is inductive but go back to your basis step. Dartmouth College v. Woodward. Case law. It gives Corporations the right of contract.

Is Mr. Clean really the media?

I have no idea what a media corporation is. I do know that the Court is the wrong place to go for that definition.

I think that the incremental step taken in Citizens United is not all that important. The very idea of judicial review, which you appear to endorse, is based on case law. If there is a constitutional issue, courts should not defer to Congress, and that is what happened. That can't happen without case law, specifically Marbury vs Madison.

I don't see anything wrong with giving corporations the right of contract, nor fourth amendment rights, fifth amendment rights, or even first amendment rights. It is long-established law that has worked in this country. Citizens United did nothing to change it.

Someone has to define a media corporation if the law is going to censor all non-media corporations during the period before an election. That was the issue in Citizens United. I don't trust Congress OR the Courts to define who should and should not be censored. Either one is the wrong place to go. The answer is no one.

[Olsonist]

Despite all the hoopla, I think Citizens United was not all that important and certainly not breathtaking. The New York Times said it dramatically expanded the concept of corporate personhood, but the truth is that is incrementally expanded part of one aspect of corporate personhood, not affecting the overall concept at all.

Really? You think overruling Congress is not all that important. That might be convincing if Corporate Personhood was based in the Constitution. Instead it is based in case law. So we have the Court overruling Congress because Congress overruled the Court. Instead the Court should have deferred to Congress.

This entity, the Corporation, needs to be debated and thought out in the political arena since there are policy lines that need to be drawn; that's the purpose of politics. Courts are where you go for justice not policy. Obviously Courts have a policy component but they should defer to Congress in policy unless it's a Constitutional issue.

Even with slavery the Court deferred to Congress. Dred Scott. We had to fight a war and pass a Constitutional amendment to overturn that precedent.

The idea that corporate personhood as applied to the first amendment is a legal construction formed out of thin air by conservative activist judges is belied by the NAACP vs Button case from 1963. It was not the conservatives who said that the NAACP's corporate first amendment rights were violated. They did not form that opinion "out of thin air" either. It is based on a lot of other historic building blocks put in place by courts over the years.

Button is just more case law. Your argument is inductive but go back to your basis step. Dartmouth College v. Woodward. Case law. It gives Corporations the right of contract.

Is Mr. Clean really the media?

I have no idea what a media corporation is. I do know that the Court is the wrong place to go for that definition.

I think that the incremental step taken in Citizens United is not all that important. The very idea of judicial review, which you appear to endorse, is based on case law. If there is a constitutional issue, courts should not defer to Congress, and that is what happened. That can't happen without case law, specifically Marbury vs Madison.

I don't see anything wrong with giving corporations the right of contract, nor fourth amendment rights, fifth amendment rights, or even first amendment rights. It is long-established law that has worked in this country. Citizens United did nothing to change it.

Someone has to define a media corporation if the law is going to censor all non-media corporations during the period before an election. That was the issue in Citizens United. I don't trust Congress OR the Courts to define who should and should not be censored. Either one is the wrong place to go. The answer is no one.

There are competing and contrasting forces, judicial review and judicial deference. Judicial review is spelled out very clearly in Marbury. Judicial deference isn't.

Should Corporations have the right of contract. Yeah, Congress should give them that. It's really not that hard to do. Fourth Amendment rights, probably not. First Amendment rights, not a chance.


What about Second Amendment rights? Should Corporations have Second Amendment rights? In certain ways, they already have Citizenship rights. What about Voting Rights? They pay taxes although some idiots on PA think they shouldn't. Shouldn't they be able to vote?

These lines. Where do you draw them? I don't mind the Courts drawing them but if Congress wants to redraw, I don't want to hear anything about Judicial Review. The only reason Citizens United had a Constitutional First Amendment issue was that the Supreme Court said it did. Out of thin air.

And for that Obama bitch slapped them at the SOTU.

[Tom Ray]

Should Corporations have the right of contract. Yeah, Congress should give them that. It's really not that hard to do. Fourth Amendment rights, probably not. First Amendment rights, not a chance.


What about Second Amendment rights? ...

These lines. Where do you draw them? I don't mind the Courts drawing them but if Congress wants to redraw, I don't want to hear anything about Judicial Review. The only reason Citizens United had a Constitutional First Amendment issue was that the Supreme Court said it did. Out of thin air.

I obviously draw them in different places than you do. I think that if the government wants to go snooping inside NAACP headquarters, they should have probable cause and a warrant. I think that if the government wants to seize corporate property, it should be for public use and there should be just compensation.

There are obviously going to be differences in the rights we observe in corporations vs natural persons, and the second amendment is one example. No one has seriously suggested that corporate personhood include second amendment rights. The courts have recognized that it includes the others I mentioned, though not always to the same extent or in the same ways as those same rights are protected for natural persons.

The reason CU had a constitutional argument was almost exactly the same reason as in NAACP vs Button: the Court decided that the issue they were addressing necessarily included a first amendment discussion, so they ordered the case reargued. Citizens United showed a propaganda film too close to an election day. That was the issue. That's not a first amendment related issue in any way? Saying it is is conjuring stuff out of thin air?

I don't think so. It's clearly political expression. Just like when the NAACP was soliciting legal clients back in the 60's.

[Olsonist]

Should Corporations have the right of contract. Yeah, Congress should give them that. It's really not that hard to do. Fourth Amendment rights, probably not. First Amendment rights, not a chance.


What about Second Amendment rights? ...

These lines. Where do you draw them? I don't mind the Courts drawing them but if Congress wants to redraw, I don't want to hear anything about Judicial Review. The only reason Citizens United had a Constitutional First Amendment issue was that the Supreme Court said it did. Out of thin air.

I obviously draw them in different places than you do. I think that if the government wants to go snooping inside NAACP headquarters, they should have probable cause and a warrant. I think that if the government wants to seize corporate property, it should be for public use and there should be just compensation.

I agree and Congress should make that clear. The result is the same but it's better to have the political branch decide a policy and this is a policy.

There are obviously going to be differences in the rights we observe in corporations vs natural persons, and the second amendment is one example. No one has seriously suggested that corporate personhood include second amendment rights. The courts have recognized that it includes the others I mentioned, though not always to the same extent or in the same ways as those same rights are protected for natural persons.

True but that doesn't argue for letting the Courts decide.
It just argues that Corporations and people are different.

The reason CU had a constitutional argument was almost exactly the same reason as in NAACP vs Button: the Court decided that the issue they were addressing necessarily included a first amendment discussion, so they ordered the case reargued. Citizens United showed a propaganda film too close to an election day. That was the issue. That's not a first amendment related issue in any way? Saying it is is conjuring stuff out of thin air?
I don't think so. It's clearly political expression. Just like when the NAACP was soliciting legal clients back in the 60's.

Let's carefully distinguish between the substance of Button and the process. I don't mind the Court coming in and ruling Button. But I do mind the Court coming in and overruling Congress in Citizens United. This is a policy and Congress is where policy gets set. Yeah, it's inconsistent with precedent but the Court needs to get over itself. Instead it manufactured the Constitutional issue to get what it wanted. That's policy not justice.

Suppose I really need a Time Machine. They have Time Machines in the Future, right. So in the Future I'll send a Time Machine back to myself. Now I have a Time Machine. I think I'll call my Time Machine Citizens United.

[Tom Ray]

I agree and Congress should make that clear. The result is the same but it's better to have the political branch decide a policy and this is a policy.
...

Let's carefully distinguish between the substance of Button and the process. I don't mind the Court coming in and ruling Button. But I do mind the Court coming in and overruling Congress in Citizens United. This is a policy and Congress is where policy gets set.

If a policy violates our rights, the courts correct the situation. They do it by declaring acts of Congress and of lower governments unconstitutional. You should set your time machine to arrive some time before Marbury vs Madison and make it clear that if it is a policy, courts should butt the fuck out, no matter what the policy.

[Tom Ray]

That's more of an empirical fact—Corporations do in fact control Congress.
ObamaCare doesn't give Corporations a Constitutional right to control Congress.
That right was granted in Citizens United.

Citizens United granted no new rights. Corporate political expression has been recognized as a first amendment right all of my life.

Citizens United said that if a non-media corporation spends money to spread information about a candidate, that falls under the longstanding first amendment rights of corporations. An incremental change, as I said.

Media corporations, whatever those are, were allowed to spread information about candidates without restriction in the time leading up to an election, but non-profit political activist corporations like the NAACP and Citizens United were not. I think that is wrong because I do not want anyone to have a special government permit to talk about politics before an election. I think the first amendment is that permit for all of us, even if we are acting as a group and not as individuals.

So let me get this straight... you oppose overturning that law, but are unwilling to attempt the essential task of saying what distinguishes a non-censored media corporation from the rest, which can be censored?

[Tom Ray]

Corporations are people to.

People to what?

[Tom Ray]

So let me get this straight... you oppose overturning that law, but are unwilling to attempt the essential task of saying what distinguishes a non-censored media corporation from the rest, which can be censored?

Asked and unanswered.

[Tom Ray]

...
Oh, the righties love the constitution - except for (off the top of my head, I'm sure there is more)..

...
2. Freedom of Speech - (lamestream media should not get away with their liberal ways).

Media corporations had to have a special exemption from the campaign finance rules for obvious reasons: you can't ban them from mentioning the candidates before the election.

But it does raise the question that the minority in Citizens United did not want to touch: who should be granted the "media corporation" title and thus exempted from Congressional censorship?

Want to take a shot at that one?

[Tom Ray]

I've linked to this one before, but this is a very good explanation of how all this nit-picking negativity works, and offers the Most Bang for the Super PAC Buck...

And, as we see here on a daily basis, the reality show audience that the electorate has become eats this shit up...

http://nymag.com/new...aigning-2012-1/

The reduction of the influence of money in the electoral/campaign process is the ONLY answer, certainly the most obvious first step - but that ain't happening in America anytime soon...

There's plenty of ammo on both sides, but the biggest driver of this race is money. There is more money pouring into this election than ever, and it will necessarily mean more negative advertising by volume. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court decision that opened the door to corporate and union money, and eventually unlimited donations, has fathered the new breed of superpowered political-­action committees, super-PACs, on both the left and the right. (Though the Republicans have been more successful at fund-raising thus far than Democrats, partially because Obama so vehemently opposed the Citizens United decision and his strategists are afraid the appearance of cronyism will damage the Obama brand.) Operated by veteran party apparatchiks, super-PACs are effectively mini-campaigns, employing more pollsters, more researchers, and more ad-makers for the purpose of going negative against the opposition—every fucking day. The rise of the super-PACs has completely reinvented the dynamics of negative campaigning, removing the consequences of factual inaccuracy by allowing the candidate a veneer of deniability, while multiplying a campaign's effective manpower.

Again with the "unlimited donations" thing? Campaign donation limits were upheld in Citizens United.

What changed is that corporations other than media corporations can now talk about candidates before an election. Media corporations always could. They don't appreciate the competition.

Too bad. I don't have much appreciation for the idea that you need government approval as legit media to speak about candidates before an election, nor for the idea that giving government that power will somehow empower anyone other than incumbent politicians and government-recognized media corporations.

[Tom Ray]

Why should the labor market be exempt from the laws of supply and demand?

Because God is Of the People, not of the corporations or "free market"?

Maybe this explains some of it??

The railroad corporations building lines through her peoples' country back in 1886 must have really pissed them off and she's still pissed that the Supreme Court unanimously decided to treat them as people.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE said:

"The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does. "

[Tom Ray]

I keep getting distracted from the fact that this is actually a thread about aspects of corporate personhood beyond the first amendment applications.

Here's an example of an unperson which should not have any right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as I'm sure Pow Wow Chow Mama would agree.

[Mark K]

Vice President Haliburton. Vice President Bain...Are you listening Mitt?

[Sol Rosenberg]

Vice President Haliburton. Vice President Bain...Are you listening Mitt?

You forgot NASCAR.

The liberals will hate it. Outstanding idea.

[craigiri]

Tom, it's obvious you are a corporation.
That is why you can post thousands of times about your approval of yourself being a person.

[Tom Ray]

But am I a superspecial MEDIA corporation? The kind that used to be the only ones allowed to talk about candidates before an election? Because if we go back to that censorship regime, I don't want to have to shut up when elections approach.

[Saorsa]

Vice President Haliburton. Vice President Bain...Are you listening Mitt?

Don't forget vice president AFSCME and vice president SEIU

[Tom Ray]

We're all "media" people in the sense that our posts “[c]an be received by 50,000 or more persons,” §100.29((3)(ii)(A). And yes, Virginia, Unions are people too, but you'll not see any complaints about that from those complaining about corporate personhood.

[Tom Ray]

"Our democracy has been bought and sold by people like the Kochs," Burner said, citing the Citizens United ruling that allows tax exempt nonprofits like Americans for Prosperity, founded by David Koch, to donate anonymously in unlimited amounts to candidates and causes.

False.

Donation limits to candidates were upheld unanimously in that case and disclosure rules were upheld by 8 to 1, with Thomas dissenting on that point, possibly mindful of NAACP vs Alabama.

Those same rules apply to tax exempt nonprofit corporations like the NAACP, you know.

[Bus Driver]

[Tom Ray]

Why the need to lie about this issue, I wonder?

All nine Justices agree that the first amendment applies to corporate "persons" and said so in the Citizens United opinions. If Obama appoints another, I expect that person will agree. The court was unanimous on the idea of corporate personhood in 1886 and they are today.

Before argument, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE said:

"The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does. "

People who need to lie in order to make some kind of political point make me suspicious.

[Bus Driver]

Why the need to lie about this issue, I wonder?

All nine Justices agree that the first amendment applies to corporate "persons" and said so in the Citizens United opinions. If Obama appoints another, I expect that person will agree. The court was unanimous on the idea of corporate personhood in 1886 and they are today.

Before argument, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE said:

"The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does. "

People who need to lie in order to make some kind of political point make me suspicious.

What was the decision of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission? Was it 9-0 or 5-4?