202 replies to this topic

[Tom Ray]

But if we're going to extend the 14th and 15th Amendment rights to these legal persons...

Try to keep up.

On the general idea of whether or not corporations are "persons" they actually said a long time ago that the question was too stupid to come before them and would not be considered:

One of the points made and discussed at length in the brief of counsel for defendants in error was that "corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." 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. "

[Sol Rosenberg]

But if we're going to extend the 14th and 15th Amendment rights to these legal persons...

Try to keep up.

On the general idea of whether or not corporations are "persons" they actually said a long time ago that the question was too stupid to come before them and would not be considered:

One of the points made and discussed at length in the brief of counsel for defendants in error was that "corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." 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. "

Spot on, Tom, but the CorPersonhood haters will never buy in. Good to have you and Saorsa back. The place is never the same when you guys take off.

Justice Breyer's "nerve center" test in Hertz helps us to determine exactly where these CorPersons' citizenship really is. It is amazing how difficult some folks can make this stuff, when it's all right there in the decisions. Some folks are just hell bent on depriving our corporate friends their rights as citizens.

[Saorsa]

But if we're going to extend the 14th and 15th Amendment rights to these legal persons...

Try to keep up.

On the general idea of whether or not corporations are "persons" they actually said a long time ago that the question was too stupid to come before them and would not be considered:

One of the points made and discussed at length in the brief of counsel for defendants in error was that "corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." 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. "

Spot on, Tom, but the CorPersonhood haters will never buy in. Good to have you and Saorsa back. The place is never the same when you guys take off.

Justice Breyer's "nerve center" test in Hertz helps us to determine exactly where these CorPersons' citizenship really is. It is amazing how difficult some folks can make this stuff, when it's all right there in the decisions. Some folks are just hell bent on depriving our corporate friends their rights as citizens.

Are all rights equal?

[Sol Rosenberg]

Are all rights equal?

No. CorPerson rights should trump human person rights. CorPersons make this country great; they are The Producers. Human persons are the whiny fucks who complain about the rich having things.

[Sol Rosenberg]

Are all rights equal?

No. CorPerson rights should trump human person rights. CorPersons make this country great; they are The Producers. Human persons are the whiny fucks who complain about the rich having things.

See, Mr. Minister? Ask a question that addresses something I have actually been saying, and I am happy to provide an answer.

[Mark K]

Just to clarify...we are talking about FULL suffrage, I do hope.

[Sol Rosenberg]

Not only that. Jury Duty.

[Sol Rosenberg]

Clockwork

[Tom Ray]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I'm not interested in the part of the law related to corporations. I'm willing to accept your expert opinion that because corporations are citizens for certain purposes under the law in question in the Hertz case, that means they have suffrage. It's a silly opinion, but I'll accept it for purposes of argument.

Now, given that we agree corporations can vote because Hertz says we know where they live and they have citizenship in that location, let's talk about what the Hertz case means for the rest of the law it is about. The part about the aliens. The law says an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled.

Do you believe the Hertz case means resident aliens have full suffrage, just as you believe it means corporations do?

[Sol Rosenberg]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I'm not interested in the part of the law related to corporations. I'm willing to accept your expert opinion that because corporations are citizens for certain purposes under the law in question in the Hertz case, that means they have suffrage. It's a silly opinion, but I'll accept it for purposes of argument.

Now, given that we agree corporations can vote because Hertz says we know where they live and they have citizenship in that location, let's talk about what the Hertz case means for the rest of the law it is about. The part about the aliens. The law says an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled.

Do you believe the Hertz case means resident aliens have full suffrage, just as you believe it means corporations do?

You are distorting the test set forth in Hertz, Tom. Very slippery. Justice Breyer set forth a very nice test for determining the location of citizenship.

Your question about resident aliens seems to be addressed to someone else. I did not say that. You and Saorsa have a similar problem with that confusion.

[Tom Ray]

an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled.


Is some sort of test needed to determine the location of citizenship for aliens? Don't alien residents have an address?

[Sol Rosenberg]

an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled.


Is some sort of test needed to determine the location of citizenship for aliens? Don't alien residents have an address?

Your distraction might have some relevance, were it not for the language discussed in post 93, which you don't seem to want to address. Do you avoid that because you hate NASCAR, or just corporations in general?

[Tom Ray]

an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled.


Is some sort of test needed to determine the location of citizenship for aliens? Don't alien residents have an address?

Your distraction might have some relevance, were it not for the language discussed in post 93, which you don't seem to want to address. Do you avoid that because you hate NASCAR, or just corporations in general?

The post in question:

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

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

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

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

I'll address any part of that that is relevant to suffrage for resident aliens.

Can you tell me which part that is, so I can get started, because none of it seems relevant to resident aliens to me. Unless you think they are US Citizens by virtue of living here.

Do you? It would line up with your thoughts on corporate suffrage, such as they are.

[Sol Rosenberg]

The part that mentions "The key" to this whole thing might be important. Be sure to distort what I have to say about that in your quest to deprive Corpersons of their rights.

[Tom Ray]

How does where an alien was born have anything to do with his citizenship under the law and decision you are saying gives corporations suffrage? The law says he is a citizen because of where he lives, not where he was born. How is birthplace relevant to getting suffrage in this way? I don't see anything about it in the law.

[Sol Rosenberg]

Aliens? I didn't mention aliens. You must be responding to someone else again. You and Saorsa do that a lot. Hatred of corporations does that, I guess.

[Sol Rosenberg]

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

Corporate rights advocating men! Corporate rights advocating women! The Corporation is calling you. The sacred and ancient symbol of your freedom, since the beginning of time. The democRAT is using The Socialisticalist as muscle against you. And you are left there helpless. Well, what are you going to do about it, Producer? Just sit there? Of course not! You are going to join with us. The members of "Americans United for Corporate Suffrage". An organization of decent, law abiding corporate freedom loving working folk. Just like you!

[Saorsa]

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

Corporate rights advocating men! Corporate rights advocating women! The Corporation is calling you. The sacred and ancient symbol of your freedom, since the beginning of time. The democRAT is using The Socialisticalist as muscle against you. And you are left there helpless. Well, what are you going to do about it, Producer? Just sit there? Of course not! You are going to join with us. The members of "Americans United for Corporate Suffrage". An organization of decent, law abiding corporate freedom loving working folk. Just like you!

Sounds supersocicaliflockhartexpiocialistical to me.

[Sol Rosenberg]

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

Corporate rights advocating men! Corporate rights advocating women! The Corporation is calling you. The sacred and ancient symbol of your freedom, since the beginning of time. The democRAT is using The Socialisticalist as muscle against you. And you are left there helpless. Well, what are you going to do about it, Producer? Just sit there? Of course not! You are going to join with us. The members of "Americans United for Corporate Suffrage". An organization of decent, law abiding corporate freedom loving working folk. Just like you!

Sounds supersocicaliflockhartexpiocialistical to me.

Why do you hate NASCAR? Do you hate America too?

[Sol Rosenberg]

The Assault on Corporate Rights Continues.

Lets put an end to this discrimination. Corporate suffrage now.

[Sol Rosenberg]

NASCAR fans, and believers in our rights, our time is surely just around the corner.

An Activist Judge thinks that voting is a pretty good thing, and that impediments to voter registration and participation in the democratic process are not.

Tell those liberals that we want corporate suffrage NOW!

[Sol Rosenberg]

The Supreme Court Understands the Issues Our time is now!

[ease the sheet!]

i think its time to become an american corperson with voting rights

how long does my wife have to wait before she too can become an american corperson with voting rights?

[Tom Ray]

i think its time to become an american corperson with voting rights

how long does my wife have to wait before she too can become an american corperson with voting rights?

It will be a very long time before the courts say something that ridiculous. If they did, it may take quite a bit longer for ordinary citizens to recognize those rights.

It has been 49 years since the Supreme Court explicitly said corporations have first amendment rights and I think I have repeated it pretty endlessly, yet people here on this forum are still surprised by that fact. It seems a great deal more repetition of the facts will be necessary.

[Sol Rosenberg]

i think its time to become an american corperson with voting rights

how long does my wife have to wait before she too can become an american corperson with voting rights?

She can start her corporation in the US and wait the 18 years for it to become an adult corporation. Then she can find out that the liberals will fight against her corporation's most basic rights, including but not limited to voting. They hate corporations, NASCAR and America.

[Saorsa]

Corporate personhood is the new Skittles; Or, socialisticalism.

[Dog]

This is so tedious… a corporation is simply a collection of people organized for a common purpose. There is no debate over the first amendment rights of other collections of people organized for a common purpose like; partnerships, associations, unions, or political parties.
The court got it right.

[Sol Rosenberg]

This is so tedious… a corporation is simply a collection of people organized for a common purpose. There is no debate over the first amendment rights of other collections of people organized for a common purpose like; partnerships, associations, unions, or political parties.
The court got it right.

The court hasn't decided corporate suffrage, but they seem to be on the right path. It drives the liberals nuts trying to explain why collections of people organized for a common purpose should be denied their rights. NASCAR haters.

[Tom Ray]

This is so tedious… a corporation is simply a collection of people organized for a common purpose. There is no debate over the first amendment rights of other collections of people organized for a common purpose like; partnerships, associations, unions, or political parties.
The court got it right.

The court hasn't decided corporate suffrage, but they seem to be on the right path. It drives the liberals nuts trying to explain why collections of people organized for a common purpose should be denied their rights. NASCAR haters.

I think the phrase you are looking for is "orderly group activity."

As in:

In the context of NAACP objectives, litigation is not a technique of resolving private differences; it is a means for achieving the lawful objectives of equality of treatment by all government, federal, state and local, for the members of the Negro community in this country. It is thus a form of political expression. Groups which find themselves unable to achieve their objectives through the ballot frequently turn to the courts. [Footnote 12] Just as it was true of the

Page 371 U. S. 430

opponents of New Deal legislation during the 1930's, [Footnote 13] for example, no less is it true of the Negro minority today. And under the conditions of modern government, litigation may well be the sole practicable avenue open to a minority to petition for redress of grievances.

We need not, in order to find constitutional protection for the kind of cooperative, organizational activity disclosed by this record, whereby Negroes seek through lawful means to achieve legitimate political ends, 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.

[Dog]

This is so tedious… a corporation is simply a collection of people organized for a common purpose. There is no debate over the first amendment rights of other collections of people organized for a common purpose like; partnerships, associations, unions, or political parties.
The court got it right.

The court hasn't decided corporate suffrage, but they seem to be on the right path. It drives the liberals nuts trying to explain why collections of people organized for a common purpose should be denied their rights. NASCAR haters.

Just take up the cause of union suffrage and the liberals will fall in line.

[Sol Rosenberg]

The liberals obviously fear corporate suffrage. They hate NASCAR.

[Tom Ray]

The liberals obviously fear corporate suffrage. They hate NASCAR.

What makes you think that? All nine Supreme Court Justices believe in other aspects of corporate personhood. For example, in Citizens United, all nine agreed that corporations have long-established first amendment rights, they just disagreed as to what that meant in practice.

I'd think the liberals' agreement with corporate first amendment rights would indicate at least some friendliness to your corporate suffrage campaign.

[Sol Rosenberg]

The liberals obviously fear corporate suffrage. They hate NASCAR.

What makes you think that? All nine Supreme Court Justices believe in other aspects of corporate personhood. For example, in Citizens United, all nine agreed that corporations have long-established first amendment rights, they just disagreed as to what that meant in practice.

I'd think the liberals' agreement with corporate first amendment rights would indicate at least some friendliness to your corporate suffrage campaign.

The liberals on the Court might go along with it, but the liberals around here keep trying to change the subject. They fear Corporate Suffrage. I think it is due to their hatred of NASCAR.

[A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake]

The liberals obviously fear corporate suffrage. They hate NASCAR.

What makes you think that? All nine Supreme Court Justices believe in other aspects of corporate personhood. For example, in Citizens United, all nine agreed that corporations have long-established first amendment rights, they just disagreed as to what that meant in practice.

I'd think the liberals' agreement with corporate first amendment rights would indicate at least some friendliness to your corporate suffrage campaign.

The liberals on the Court might go along with it, but the liberals around here keep trying to change the subject. They fear Corporate Suffrage. I think it is due to their hatred of NASCAR.

It is in my case - real race cars turn left AND right.

[Sol Rosenberg]

It is in my case - real race cars turn left AND right.

Now that's a Formula 1 can get behind.

[saxdog]

It is in my case - real race cars turn left AND right.

Now that's a Formula 1 can get behind.

I miss Rick Santorum more now than ever. He could clarify this issue within its biblical context.

[Tom Ray]

The liberals obviously fear corporate suffrage. They hate NASCAR.

What makes you think that? All nine Supreme Court Justices believe in other aspects of corporate personhood. For example, in Citizens United, all nine agreed that corporations have long-established first amendment rights, they just disagreed as to what that meant in practice.

I'd think the liberals' agreement with corporate first amendment rights would indicate at least some friendliness to your corporate suffrage campaign.

The liberals on the Court might go along with it, but the liberals around here keep trying to change the subject. They fear Corporate Suffrage. I think it is due to their hatred of NASCAR.

I think this entire thread is a giant strawman argument that goes like this:

If corporations are people, they must be allowed to vote. Since they obviously should not be allowed to vote, they can't be people.

It takes a complex legal point that merits our serious consideration and reduces it to a talking point and a joke. It is part of a larger pattern to frame the Citizens United decision as one in which the conservatives suddenly conjured up this crazy idea of corporate personhood over the objections of the reasonable left, who can see that no corporation ever took a shit.

Worst of all, this strawman is being constructed by someone who knows better.

Was that adult enough for you, Jeff?

[JBSF]

The liberals obviously fear corporate suffrage. They hate NASCAR.

What makes you think that? All nine Supreme Court Justices believe in other aspects of corporate personhood. For example, in Citizens United, all nine agreed that corporations have long-established first amendment rights, they just disagreed as to what that meant in practice.

I'd think the liberals' agreement with corporate first amendment rights would indicate at least some friendliness to your corporate suffrage campaign.

The liberals on the Court might go along with it, but the liberals around here keep trying to change the subject. They fear Corporate Suffrage. I think it is due to their hatred of NASCAR.

I think this entire thread is a giant strawman argument that goes like this:

If corporations are people, they must be allowed to vote. Since they obviously should not be allowed to vote, they can't be people.

It takes a complex legal point that merits our serious consideration and reduces it to a talking point and a joke. It is part of a larger pattern to frame the Citizens United decision as one in which the conservatives suddenly conjured up this crazy idea of corporate personhood over the objections of the reasonable left, who can see that no corporation ever took a shit.

Worst of all, this strawman is being constructed by someone who knows better.

Was that adult enough for you, Jeff?

Absolutely! Thanks

[Sol Rosenberg]

Interesting opinion. Can you imagine if I was thinking that? Can you just imagine!?! Obviously you can.

Or you could look at the merits and address what I posted, rather than what you think I was thinking.

[Tom Ray]

The merits as I see them:

Corporate suffrage is ridiculous and has never been advocated or upheld in any court nor by any elected official and never will be. There are no merits to explore.

Corporate first amendment rights are 50 years old, recognized in numerous opinions including all of the ones in Citizens United, and are here to stay for good reasons.

They are superficially similar, all that is required for a good strawman argument.

[Tom Ray]

The liberals obviously fear corporate suffrage. They hate NASCAR.

What makes you think that? All nine Supreme Court Justices believe in other aspects of corporate personhood. For example, in Citizens United, all nine agreed that corporations have long-established first amendment rights, they just disagreed as to what that meant in practice.

I'd think the liberals' agreement with corporate first amendment rights would indicate at least some friendliness to your corporate suffrage campaign.

The liberals on the Court might go along with it, but the liberals around here keep trying to change the subject. They fear Corporate Suffrage. I think it is due to their hatred of NASCAR.

I think this entire thread is a giant strawman argument that goes like this:

If corporations are people, they must be allowed to vote. Since they obviously should not be allowed to vote, they can't be people.

It takes a complex legal point that merits our serious consideration and reduces it to a talking point and a joke. It is part of a larger pattern to frame the Citizens United decision as one in which the conservatives suddenly conjured up this crazy idea of corporate personhood over the objections of the reasonable left, who can see that no corporation ever took a shit.

Worst of all, this strawman is being constructed by someone who knows better.

Was that adult enough for you, Jeff?

Absolutely! Thanks

You're welcome. It was kinda fun. Maybe I'll grow up one day.

[Sol Rosenberg]

Your opinion re corporate suffrage is noted, as is the failure to address why there should be no corporate suffrage. I just don't know why you feel that way. Do you hate NASCAR?

[Tom Ray]

There should be no corporate suffrage because, while corporations are legally treated as people for some purposes, such as to allow the "orderly group activity" mentioned in NAACP vs Button, that does not mean they should enjoy all of the rights of natural persons, nor that they should enjoy any given right to the same extent as natural persons. They are not treated the same because they are not the same.

It is not because we could not vest the right to vote in corporations, which might be legally possible. It's because, as I said, no court or elected official has gone that way and none ever will. And no, I do not believe it is because they hate NASCAR. It's because none of us want to give them the right to vote, except, apparently, you. Rather than have every elected official explain to you why he has not advocated corporate suffrage, why don't you explain the merits, whatever they are?

[Sol Rosenberg]

The answers to your queries comes from within (this thread).

Treat citizens equally.

I'm getting on the road now. I understand that Jeff's comments on the Zimmerman thread have left you butthurt again. If you wish to continue stalking me because of Jeff's comments, it will have to be some other time.

[Tom Ray]

The answers to your queries comes from within (this thread).

Treat citizens equally.

The idea that corporate citizens should be treated the same as citizens who are natural persons is the same strawman.

Corporations are treated as (people/citizens) for some legal purposes but are not treated as equal to natural persons in many respects, suffrage included. The idea that corporate (persons/citizens) should be treated as equal to natural persons (those who take a shit, in legalese) has no merit. They never have been and never will be.

Justice Stevens said in his Citizens United opinion:

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

A footnote just above that statement provides more insight into his actual argument:

57In fact, the Free Press Clause might be turned against JUSTICE SCALIA, for two reasons. First, we learn from it that the drafters of the First Amendment did draw distinctions—explicit distinctions—between types of “speakers,” or speech outlets or forms. Second, the Court’s strongest historical evidence all relates to the Framers’ views on the press, see ante, at 37–38; ante, at 4–6 (SCALIA, J., concurring), yet while the Court tries to sweep this evidence into the Free Speech Clause, the Free Press Clause provides a more natural textual home. The text and history highlighted by our colleagues suggests why one type of corpora­tion, those that are part of the press, might be able to claim special First Amendment status, and therefore why some kinds of “identity”­ based distinctions might be permissible after all. Once one accepts that much, the intellectual edifice of the majority opinion crumbles.

His argument is that corporate persons should be treated differently from natural persons with respect to their first amendment rights, and further that perhaps media corporations should be treated in yet a third way.

The argument of the majority in Citizens United can be reduced to "treat corporations as equal to natural persons in their first amendment rights." While I do not think that characterization is completely accurate, it is certainly not unreasonable. It is the view of the minority of the court. I don't think the majority went quite that far, but they took a stride in that direction and it's a dangerous direction for the reasons laid out by the minority. It can be summarized this way:

Corporations are treated as (people/citizens) for some legal purposes but are should not be treated as equal to natural persons in many respects, suffrage first amendment rights included. They're right, but it's a bit hard to get all the way to that discussion if the day's talking point is, "Hey, Mitt Romney said that corporations are people!"

Of course they are, and all 9 Supreme Court justices agree. How does that statement generate over 87 million google hits?

Let's explore one, straight from all the news that's fit to print and Paul Krugman:

Suppose that President Obama were to say the following: “Mitt Romney believes that corporations are people, and he believes that only corporations and the wealthy should have any rights. He wants to reduce middle-class Americans to serfs, forced to accept whatever wages corporations choose to pay, no matter how low.”

How would this statement be received? I believe, and hope, that it would be almost universally condemned, by liberals as well as conservatives. Mr. Romney did once say that corporations are people, but he didn’t mean it literally; he supports policies that would be good for corporations and the wealthy and bad for the middle class, but that’s a long way from saying that he wants to introduce feudalism.

The Washington Post quoting DNC Chairwoman:

“Corporations are people, my friend,” Romney said.

Some people in the front of the audience shouted, “No, they’re not!”

“Of course they are,” Romney said. “Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?”

The heated exchange prompted an attack from Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

“Mitt Romney’s comment today that ‘corporations are people’ is one more indication that Romney and the Republicans on the campaign trail and in Washington have misplaced priorities,” she said in a statement, calling the comment a “shocking admission.”

Gee, how does a completely non-controversial statement become such a talking point?

It happens when a good strawman is needed.

[Sol Rosenberg]

Perhaps it would be a straw man in a thread about something other than corporate suffrage. Perhaps you should start a thread about something other than corporate suffrage, in which corporate citizenship might be a straw man. But in a thread about corporate suffrage, corporate citizenship is at the heart I the matter.

You seem confused again, Tom. This I a thread about corporate suffrage. That thing at the beginning of the thread that says "Corporate Suffrage" is a tell tale sign.

PS. I am sorry that Jeff taunted you. Perhaps you should stalk him.

[JBSF]

Tom, I get all what the SC majority ruled in CU. I just think they got it wrong. I think corporate people DO have 1st Am rights but it should be limited in exactly the same way that we limity individual contributions to campaigns. There's nothing wrong with saying that money should be limited to level the playing field so that someone can't bully GREATER freedom of speech over someone who has limited cash.

Why is it ok if MY 1st Am rights rights are mimited in my cash contributions to candidates while corporations are not. And if you argue that as long as we're talking about direct contributions are limited but general contributions are not - then it doesn't count. Well, disagree. If I can be limited in my cash contribution to a candidate - then you are limiting my 1st Am rights to unfettered free speech, right?

Riddle me this please: Why does the law make a distinction between direct cash to a political candidate (and limit me) while there is NO limit on political speech that is not directly aimed at a specific candidate? One is limiting speech and the other supposedly isn't. Why the diff?

[Tom Ray]

Tom, I get all what the SC majority ruled in CU. I just think they got it wrong. I think corporate people DO have 1st Am rights but it should be limited in exactly the same way that we limity individual contributions to campaigns. There's nothing wrong with saying that money should be limited to level the playing field so that someone can't bully GREATER freedom of speech over someone who has limited cash.

Why is it ok if MY 1st Am rights rights are mimited in my cash contributions to candidates while corporations are not. And if you argue that as long as we're talking about direct contributions are limited but general contributions are not - then it doesn't count. Well, disagree. If I can be limited in my cash contribution to a candidate - then you are limiting my 1st Am rights to unfettered free speech, right?

Riddle me this please: Why does the law make a distinction between direct cash to a political candidate (and limit me) while there is NO limit on political speech that is not directly aimed at a specific candidate? One is limiting speech and the other supposedly isn't. Why the diff?

I have no problem with limiting (dare I say censoring?) speech based on corporate identity and in many respects agree with the minority in Citizens United. If my opinion were included with those of the Justices in that case, it would look a lot like the rest: concurring in part, dissenting in part, and going off on my own tangent because the issue is impossibly complex.

I think you misunderstand contribution limits and what are called "electioneering communications." Corporations are limited in contributions, but not general expenditures. The distinction is important. Corporations can spend money to express themselves, in much the same way as natural persons. That's a good thing, but leads to bad places.

The place it leads is, I think, where you were going: a corporation whose expression is suspiciously agreeable/disagreeable to a certain candidate. That starts looking very much like a political contribution. It is not, actually, because the politician has less control over the message, but in practice it turns out to often be the same as a political contribution. Especially if they mention the name of a candidate. And especially if they did it right before an election.

That's what the Citizens United corporation did. They spent their money to broadcast their view that Hillary sucks, and they did it right before an election. That's pretty identifiable as a direct contribution of some kind, even if it did not pass through any campaign. It's going to hurt her and benefit any other candidate in the race, or at least it was supposed to do that. Suppose (yikes, hypothetically) that they had made a political propaganda film about how much ethanol sucks as fuel instead of how Hillary sucks. That may help some candidates and hurt others, but is not really any kind of a campaign contribution and they should be free to say such things.

But sometimes ethanol absolutely IS political and such a film might look a lot like a contribution to one side or another in some areas of the country. The difficulty of drawing that line made them draw it at the mention of a candidate.

[Tom Ray]

Perhaps it would be a straw man in a thread about something other than corporate suffrage. Perhaps you should start a thread about something other than corporate suffrage, in which corporate citizenship might be a straw man. But in a thread about corporate suffrage, corporate citizenship is at the heart I the matter.

I meant this statement to apply to the entire thread, especially the title and subject matter:

I think this entire thread is a giant strawman argument that goes like this:

If corporations are people, they must be allowed to vote. Since they obviously should not be allowed to vote, they can't be people.

I did start another thread on corporate rights and you simply couldn't resist the title I chose in your first thread about corporate suffrage later that same day. Same strawman, different day.

[Sol Rosenberg]

Last time I checked, I could start a discussion on any topic I wanted to discuss. You might only want to discuss the Second Amendment, Commerce Clause, and corperson First Amendment rights, but I might want to discuss issues I find more important, like corporate suffrage.

All of your threads are straw men to avoid discussing corporate suffrage.

See how delusional that looks in print?

[d'ranger]

Last time I checked, I could start a discussion on any topic I wanted to discuss. You might only want to discuss the Second Amendment, Commerce Clause, and corperson First Amendment rights, but I might want to discuss issues I find more important, like corporate suffrage.

All of your threads are straw men to avoid discussing corporate suffrage.

See how delusional that looks in print?

It's why I almost never participate in these threads because all roads lead to .......

So my question being the simple hillbilly that I am is:

If a corporation is a person, why can't they vote? And be drafted, serve on jury duty, have the right to bear arms and only marry a corporation of the opposite sex?

If those things don't apply how can they be a person? And if that corporation is owned by one person doesn't that mean they are really two people, or one person twice?

So in my simple mind giving a corporation any rights as an individual is stupid. And dumb. And some other monosyllabic words I would bother to write.

[JBSF]

Riddle me this please: Why does the law make a distinction between direct cash to a political candidate (and limit me) while there is NO limit on political speech that is not directly aimed at a specific candidate? One is limiting speech and the other supposedly isn't. Why the diff?

I have no problem with limiting (dare I say censoring?) speech based on corporate identity and in many respects agree with the minority in Citizens United. If my opinion were included with those of the Justices in that case, it would look a lot like the rest: concurring in part, dissenting in part, and going off on my own tangent because the issue is impossibly complex.

I think you misunderstand contribution limits and what are called "electioneering communications." Corporations are limited in contributions, but not general expenditures. The distinction is important. Corporations can spend money to express themselves, in much the same way as natural persons. That's a good thing, but leads to bad places.

The place it leads is, I think, where you were going: a corporation whose expression is suspiciously agreeable/disagreeable to a certain candidate. That starts looking very much like a political contribution. It is not, actually, because the politician has less control over the message, but in practice it turns out to often be the same as a political contribution. Especially if they mention the name of a candidate. And especially if they did it right before an election.

That's what the Citizens United corporation did. They spent their money to broadcast their view that Hillary sucks, and they did it right before an election. That's pretty identifiable as a direct contribution of some kind, even if it did not pass through any campaign. It's going to hurt her and benefit any other candidate in the race, or at least it was supposed to do that. Suppose (yikes, hypothetically) that they had made a political propaganda film about how much ethanol sucks as fuel instead of how Hillary sucks. That may help some candidates and hurt others, but is not really any kind of a campaign contribution and they should be free to say such things.

But sometimes ethanol absolutely IS political and such a film might look a lot like a contribution to one side or another in some areas of the country. The difficulty of drawing that line made them draw it at the mention of a candidate.

Tom, so am I correct in that there is a line if they mention a candidate in a political ad? What is that line and what are the limitations? If that's true, then I would think CU making a film right before the election mentioning Hillary sucked would definitely be a campaign contribution by those standards.

[JBSF]

Last time I checked, I could start a discussion on any topic I wanted to discuss. You might only want to discuss the Second Amendment, Commerce Clause, and corperson First Amendment rights, but I might want to discuss issues I find more important, like corporate suffrage.

All of your threads are straw men to avoid discussing corporate suffrage.

See how delusional that looks in print?

It's why I almost never participate in these threads because all roads lead to .......

So my question being the simple hillbilly that I am is:

If a corporation is a person, why can't they vote? And be drafted, serve on jury duty, have the right to bear arms and only marry a corporation of the opposite sex?

If those things don't apply how can they be a person? And if that corporation is owned by one person doesn't that mean they are really two people, or one person twice?

So in my simple mind giving a corporation any rights as an individual is stupid. And dumb. And some other monosyllabic words I would bother to write.

I mostly agree with you about corporate suffrage and the rights afforded to human people shouldn't always translate into rights for corporate people. However, Tom has a point in that corporations DO (and should enjoy) some rights such as 1st and 5th Am rights. I don't think it would be fair to say that a human person has a right to no unreasonable search and seizure and to be secure in their papers and home and such but a corporation does not. I don't think anyone could advocate for warrantless searches of corporations or that a corporation could not speak freely about any topic they chose.

However, I believe one of the principles of "rights" is that they are not unlimited. We all accept that we cannot do and say certain things - and the SCOTUS has back that up with precedent.

The core issue here is that $$ = speech. As a human person, I have accepted that I do not have totally unlimited free speech nor can I give unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns. I see no reason a corporation would not also have to abide by that limitation. Perhaps its time to have a BOR for corporations seperate and distinct from human persons. And with that maybe we can stop this charade of calling them persons finally.

[Tom Ray]

If a corporation is a person, why can't they vote? And be drafted, serve on jury duty, have the right to bear arms and only marry a corporation of the opposite sex?

If those things don't apply how can they be a person? And if that corporation is owned by one person doesn't that mean they are really two people, or one person twice?

So in my simple mind giving a corporation any rights as an individual is stupid. And dumb. And some other monosyllabic words I would bother to write.

A corporation can't vote because no one has gotten elected making the case that we need to vest the vote in corporations.

They can't be drafted because a corporation is not capable of military service.

They can't serve on juries because a corporation has no judgement, which is required to judge the facts and the law at hand, and for the same reason as the first question.

They can't bear arms because they lack a trigger finger, and for the same reason as the first question.

They can't marry because they simply merge instead and are asexual. More or less.

They can be treated legally as a person for some purposes, but not others. We have, since 1886 when corporations were first recognized as "persons" under the 14th amendment, decided to treat them that way mainly because that is the purpose for which they were created. The name comes from the same word as corpse, or body.

Yes, a person who is the sole owner of a corporation has, in effect, created another person for certain legal purposes, the primary one being avoidance of personal liability, but also tax reasons, etc.

Giving a corporation some of the rights of people is not dumb.

Without fourth amendment rights, the government could just wander into a corporation and search the place at will.

Without 5th amendment rights, the government could simply seize corporate property without any facade of "public use" or "just compensation."

Without property rights and contract rights, they would have a lot more trouble doing business. Corporate rights as persons are woven throughout our legal fabric, so I could go on, but I'm probably tedious already. The point is, when I see calls for a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood, I get the feeling that I'm trapped in a room with a chimpanzee and a very sophisticated bomb, and the little fucker is determined to try to disarm the thing. It's not going to go well.

In NAACP vs Button, the court found that the NAACP's activities (filing and winning civil rights suits) were a form of political expression and were thus protected by the first amendment. Was that really stupid? I think not. I think they were right, and that Virginia was trying to prevent those lawsuits, nipping them in the bud by cutting off access to clients. Protecting the NAACP's corporate first amendment rights was, I believe, important. I should probably note that hypothetically, they could have gone another way, in which case this whole explanation would be slightly different.

Many unions are organized as corporations and the very first sentence in the majority opinion in Citizens United says that the law is talking about corporations and unions. Not mentioned an awful lot is the fact that we are also treating unions as people. This is also not stupid. Protecting their rights has also proven important over the years. That does not mean I think that unions must be given the vote, that they must be able to marry or grow a trigger finger or take a shit.

The straw man Sol has built here appears to have taken you in, but it's deceptive. Treating a corporation as a person for certain legal purposes does not mean they must be treated exactly equally with natural persons in all cases. We have treated them as people since 1886 without treating them exactly equally, and no one is seriously advocating that we treat them exactly equally.

The majority in Citizens United DID take long steps in the direction of treating corporations and natural persons more equally for first amendment purposes. They had some good reasons, but the reasons NOT to do that are also compelling. The main one is: corporations are not equal to natural persons and should not be treated that way.

I should also point out that while this strawman of Sol's is, in my view, oversimplifying and exaggerating the issue, Justice Stevens raised the exact same issue in a slightly different (and much more sensible) way in his CU opinion. He basically said, if the majority is to be taken seriously here, that means we should probably give corporations the vote as well.

Justices do this a lot. Justice Thomas said in the Raich opinion that if the majority is to be taken seriously, the federal government can regulate potluck dinners and quilting bees. These words from distinguished judges do NOT mean that Supreme Court justices have now ruled that corporations can vote and the government can regulate absolutely anything. They're called dicta, which roughly translates to: bullshit. They have no legal force, but are used to make a point.

The point you have drawn from it, that "giving a corporation any rights as an individual is stupid" is a dangerous oversimplification of the issue, not to mention the intended result of the thread, IMO.

[Tom Ray]

I mostly agree with you about corporate suffrage and the rights afforded to human people shouldn't always translate into rights for corporate people. However, Tom has a point in that corporations DO (and should enjoy) some rights such as 1st and 5th Am rights. I don't think it would be fair to say that a human person has a right to no unreasonable search and seizure and to be secure in their papers and home and such but a corporation does not. I don't think anyone could advocate for warrantless searches of corporations or that a corporation could not speak freely about any topic they chose.

However, I believe one of the principles of "rights" is that they are not unlimited. We all accept that we cannot do and say certain things - and the SCOTUS has back that up with precedent.

The core issue here is that $ = speech. As a human person, I have accepted that I do not have totally unlimited free speech nor can I give unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns. I see no reason a corporation would not also have to abide by that limitation. Perhaps its time to have a BOR for corporations seperate and distinct from human persons. And with that maybe we can stop this charade of calling them persons finally.

You're thinking of the 4th, not 5th amendment, but it is important for corporations to have protection under both of those in addition to the first.

As a human, you can spend as much of your own money as you want promoting political causes. Soros and Koch are good examples. You can self-finance a campaign like Meg Whitman did. She could have spent her whole wad if she wanted to do it.

The Supreme Court did not say that corporations are exactly equal to natural persons in that regard and they unanimously upheld contribution limits, BUT they said a corporation could basically spend general treasury money on politics, which is distinct from contributing to candidates.

If we recreated a different BOR and tried to avoid calling corporations persons, we would still wind up treating them as persons mainly because that is the purpose for which they are created. To be legal "persons" for some purposes. Most of what we would recreate would be essentially the same legal structure as has been built through the existing BOR over the years, since most of it is non-controversial. We would wind up with corporations and unions that have some freedom of speech, some property rights, some rights against searches and seizures, no vote, etc. There is no reason to attempt such a project.

Treating a corporation as a person sounds funny and makes a good soundbite. People naturally react much as d'ranger did above, wanting to eliminate all corporate rights. That's a dangerous reaction, and not just for plutocrats.

Funny you should ask about "electioneering communications" in your earlier reply to me.

I received one of those horrible right wing noise machine email alerts today:

Under the "DISCLOSE" Act, if organizations like Campaign for Liberty spent more than $10,000 during a mandatory reporting period, the government could force them to hand over the personal information of many of their donors.

That mandatory reporting period would start 120 days before the first presidential primary or caucus (think August 2011), or on January 1 in the years when there's only a congressional election - meaning the efforts of C4L and other organizations will be under almost non-stop scrutiny from those opposed to our work.

With "DISCLOSE" in effect, Campaign for Liberty could be forced to hand over information on our donors if bureaucrats feel our projects to hold politicians accountable were "influencing elections."

Think about it for a second.

If Campaign for Liberty reports to constituents on how their representative and senators voted on Audit the Fed, for example, "DISCLOSE" leaves it up to government's discretion whether or not that activity constitutes "electioneering" instead of being what it plainly is – keeping our politicians honest.

Just imagine the banksters' bureaucrat pals having the chance to get more information on which donors are helping us take the fight to the Fed.

The last time this act came up, the sneaky bastards at the Sierra Club and the NRA got themselves an exemption. Disclosing donors is good for the small fry, but not the established lobbyists.

Campaign for Liberty seems concerned that donors might face some kind of retaliation. I'm not sure what the Sierra Club is concerned about. The NRA is obviously just evil incarnate. In NAACP vs Alabama, the NAACP had this crazy, paranoid notion that disclosing one's NAACP membership in 1950s Alabama might just be a problem, and forcing that disclosure would suppress political expression.

I think the NAACP was being just exactly as paranoid as Campaign for Liberty.

I'm a disclosure fan. It's good. Sunlight is good. But disclosure for small fry while the bigshots are exempt is not the kind of disclosure we need. It's the opposite of the kind we need. We need it for the NRA and Sierra Club MORE than for the small fry. But incumbents will gerrymander, exempting their pals and putting onerous requirements on anyone else who wants to compete with their pals. We should be mindful of that, and of the potential retaliation dangers in forcing donor disclosure.

[Occams Razor]

In the $ = Speech realm, heard this morning that the Koch Brothers will spend more BY THEMSELVES" than McCain spent 4 years ago in total.

[Saorsa]

In the $ = Speech realm, heard this morning that the Koch Brothers will spend more BY THEMSELVES" than McCain spent 4 years ago in total.

Hey, you should be happy.

[Occams Razor]

Well - it sure keeps a bunch of talking heads employed. So I guess there is that.

[Tom Ray]

In the $ = Speech realm, heard this morning that the Koch Brothers will spend more BY THEMSELVES" than McCain spent 4 years ago in total.

They're free to speak and free to spend their money on political expression, not that those are exactly the same thing.

Is this a problem? One that can or should be addressed by laws?

What is the problem and what might those laws be?

[d'ranger]

In the $ = Speech realm, heard this morning that the Koch Brothers will spend more BY THEMSELVES" than McCain spent 4 years ago in total.

They're free to speak and free to spend their money on political expression, not that those are exactly the same thing.

Is this a problem? One that can or should be addressed by laws?

What is the problem and what might those laws be?

Campaign limits. Individual and corporate. Corporations could be based on $ per member (unions, NAACP) or shareholders. If you own a billion dollar corporation and you are the share holder you get one contribution.

Simple yes but it's a start. Obviously you missed the humor in my earlier post, the point being unlimited money = success. Anyone that doesn't believe that doesn't follow the news and doesn't understand marketing.

Now, what do you think? The reason I don't contribute in your threads is I get tired of you trolling and quoting constitutional law. None of us are constitutional lawyers and while it can be helpful to understand the background unless it is specifically spelled out in the Constitution it is a matter of interpretation. Which can and does get changed.

Back to you Tom.

[Tom Ray]

In the $ = Speech realm, heard this morning that the Koch Brothers will spend more BY THEMSELVES" than McCain spent 4 years ago in total.

They're free to speak and free to spend their money on political expression, not that those are exactly the same thing.

Is this a problem? One that can or should be addressed by laws?

What is the problem and what might those laws be?

Campaign limits. Individual and corporate. Corporations could be based on $ per member (unions, NAACP) or shareholders. If you own a billion dollar corporation and you are the share holder you get one contribution.

Simple yes but it's a start. Obviously you missed the humor in my earlier post, the point being unlimited money = success. Anyone that doesn't believe that doesn't follow the news and doesn't understand marketing.

Now, what do you think? The reason I don't contribute in your threads is I get tired of you trolling and quoting constitutional law. None of us are constitutional lawyers and while it can be helpful to understand the background unless it is specifically spelled out in the Constitution it is a matter of interpretation. Which can and does get changed.

Back to you Tom.

There are already limits to what an individual or company can contribute to a campaign, along with the murkier limits on electioneering communications, but outside of those limits, a guy like Soros or either Koch is free to spend what he wants. That is the source of the controversial "independent expenditures" money.

If Soros wants to spend some of his considerable wealth promoting drug legalization, I want to see that happen. If it's not an "electioneering communication" (meaning judged to be intending to effect the victory or defeat of a certain candidate) then it is legal. He can spend it all. I don't want to take that freedom away from him. Do you?

If you consider Citizens United outside the context of our history of Constitutional interpretation, it is probably easy to jump to the conclusion that the conservatives suddenly conjured up corporate personhood and that we should reverse this idiocy. That is not what happened, and while interpretations change, one has not: since 1886, the Supreme Court has never issued a ruling contradicting corporate personhood. It's a very old concept on which there is the closest you can get to universal agreement within the legal community.

I'm not any kind of lawyer, but feel it is our responsibility as citizens to know at least something about a bomb before attempting to defuse it. Tugging on the "corporate personhood" strand of our legal fabric is going to make a huge mess and is unnecessary.

If you still think it stupid, please explain what was stupid about what the Supreme Court did in NAACP vs Button. It's really not a long read and you're not a stupid hillbilly, just ignorant about some aspects of our law. Ignorance can be fixed.

[d'ranger]

If you still think it stupid, please explain what was stupid about what the Supreme Court did in NAACP vs Button. It's really not a long read and you're not a stupid hillbilly, just ignorant about some aspects of our law. Ignorance can be fixed.

When did I say it was stupid?

I have no problem with people or corporations pushing an agenda, that's what Madison Avenue (haven't heard that term in many years) thrives on. I do want it regulated so we are not being peddled snake oil of course.

It strictly has to do with elections and the legal maneuverings allowing unlimited monies much of anonymously used to influence elections. Is that hard to understand? And you still haven't said what you think should happen.

[Tom Ray]

If you still think it stupid, please explain what was stupid about what the Supreme Court did in NAACP vs Button. It's really not a long read and you're not a stupid hillbilly, just ignorant about some aspects of our law. Ignorance can be fixed.

When did I say it was stupid?

I have no problem with people or corporations pushing an agenda, that's what Madison Avenue (haven't heard that term in many years) thrives on. I do want it regulated so we are not being peddled snake oil of course.

It strictly has to do with elections and the legal maneuverings allowing unlimited monies much of anonymously used to influence elections. Is that hard to understand? And you still haven't said what you think should happen.

In NAACP vs Button, the Supreme Court recognized the NAACP's corporate first amendment rights.

So in my simple mind giving a corporation any rights as an individual is stupid. And dumb. And some other monosyllabic words I would bother to write.

That seems to me to be disagreeing with giving a corporation any rights. The NAACP is a corporation and first amendment rights are rights.

I'm trying not to be tedious here, but sometimes it's hard.

At the moment, I'm focused on what I want to NOT see happen. I want to NOT see an important part of our legal fabric torn up for no good reason. The list of things I want to happen is long and not particularly relevant to the current discussion. It would continue to involve corporate and union first amendment rights, among others.

[d'ranger]

In NAACP vs Button, the Supreme Court recognized the NAACP's corporate first amendment rights.

So in my simple mind giving a corporation any rights as an individual is stupid. And dumb. And some other monosyllabic words I would bother to write.

That seems to me to be disagreeing with giving a corporation any rights. The NAACP is a corporation and first amendment rights are rights.

I'm trying not to be tedious here, but sometimes it's hard.

At the moment, I'm focused on what I want to NOT see happen. I want to NOT see an important part of our legal fabric torn up for no good reason. The list of things I want to happen is long and not particularly relevant to the current discussion. It would continue to involve corporate and union first amendment rights, among others.

OK, you got me on a late night rant. Owning and having owned businesses I understand the need for legal protection. Those protections are an extension of our individual rights of protection from the government. The current situation that gives Citizens United or any SuperPAC the same freedom as the local charity is wrong. Why? Because they exist for different purposes.

It amazes me that any Republican thinks he has a say on the national level (ok, any except that handful of uber wealthy guys) because it's all about the money. I pick on the GOP because of all the hand wringing over George Soros for many years. He doesn't give squat compared to just a handful of my fellow Texans.

[Tom Ray]

OK, you got me on a late night rant. Owning and having owned businesses I understand the need for legal protection. Those protections are an extension of our individual rights of protection from the government. The current situation that gives Citizens United or any SuperPAC the same freedom as the local charity is wrong. Why? Because they exist for different purposes.

I completely agree with this. Corporations are special in many ways that make them dangerous. They're immortal, have limited liability, and can concentrate enormous resources. Also, a corporation may have political interests different from those of shareholders and/or customers. We expect good corporate citizenship, but at the same time, corporations are NOT a part of our body politic in the same way that natural persons are.

It may surprise you to learn that I agree with many aspects of the minority opinions in CU, and it may surprise you even more to learn that what you said above is more or less the point Justice Rhenquist made (in dissent) in Boston v Bellotti. Being afraid of the dangers of corporations is not foolish, nor is it partisan.

My point is that just because they are dangerous, it does not mean we need to strip all rights from them. Nor does the fact that they have some rights mean that they should enjoy all rights to the same extent as people, though that does make an interesting strawman.

[d'ranger]

OK, you got me on a late night rant. Owning and having owned businesses I understand the need for legal protection. Those protections are an extension of our individual rights of protection from the government. The current situation that gives Citizens United or any SuperPAC the same freedom as the local charity is wrong. Why? Because they exist for different purposes.

I completely agree with this. Corporations are special in many ways that make them dangerous. They're immortal, have limited liability, and can concentrate enormous resources. Also, a corporation may have political interests different from those of shareholders and/or customers. We expect good corporate citizenship, but at the same time, corporations are NOT a part of our body politic in the same way that natural persons are.

It may surprise you to learn that I agree with many aspects of the minority opinions in CU, and it may surprise you even more to learn that what you said above is more or less the point Justice Rhenquist made (in dissent) in Boston v Bellotti. Being afraid of the dangers of corporations is not foolish, nor is it partisan.

My point is that just because they are dangerous, it does not mean we need to strip all rights from them. Nor does the fact that they have some rights mean that they should enjoy all rights to the same extent as people, though that does make an interesting strawman.

Well said, and no I am not surprised that you feel that way. It is my belief that the Founding Fathers were most interested in limiting power, because we all know what happens when it isn't. Even the most honest and ethical humans will succumb and if they don't someone else will find a way to.

We put locks on our doors to help keep people honest.

[Tom Ray]

OK, you got me on a late night rant. Owning and having owned businesses I understand the need for legal protection. Those protections are an extension of our individual rights of protection from the government. The current situation that gives Citizens United or any SuperPAC the same freedom as the local charity is wrong. Why? Because they exist for different purposes.

I completely agree with this. Corporations are special in many ways that make them dangerous. They're immortal, have limited liability, and can concentrate enormous resources. Also, a corporation may have political interests different from those of shareholders and/or customers. We expect good corporate citizenship, but at the same time, corporations are NOT a part of our body politic in the same way that natural persons are.

It may surprise you to learn that I agree with many aspects of the minority opinions in CU, and it may surprise you even more to learn that what you said above is more or less the point Justice Rhenquist made (in dissent) in Boston v Bellotti. Being afraid of the dangers of corporations is not foolish, nor is it partisan.

My point is that just because they are dangerous, it does not mean we need to strip all rights from them. Nor does the fact that they have some rights mean that they should enjoy all rights to the same extent as people, though that does make an interesting strawman.

Well said, and no I am not surprised that you feel that way. It is my belief that the Founding Fathers were most interested in limiting power, because we all know what happens when it isn't. Even the most honest and ethical humans will succumb and if they don't someone else will find a way to.

We put locks on our doors to help keep people honest.

The Founders would probably be astonished that we treat corporations as people, manufacturing as commerce, and a host of other things that have become normal.

One area in which I think the majority in CU has the stronger argument is concentration of power. Using the first amendment to counteract some of it is a good thing, even if a lot of things about that use would shock James Madison.

I have locks but no keys. Now and then someone locks the handle lock on my little house, locking us out. I break in quickly and without damage, and I'm not good at breaking into things, especially without damage. There's really not much point in guns or locks out here, but if someone tried to make these locks that I don't use illegal, I'd erupt.

[Tom Ray]

Last time I checked, I could start a discussion on any topic I wanted to discuss. You might only want to discuss the Second Amendment, Commerce Clause, and corperson First Amendment rights, but I might want to discuss issues I find more important, like corporate suffrage.

I'm also rather fond of the fourth and fifth amendments. I have many obsessions.

Is there some merit in the idea of corporate suffrage other than the "merit" of treating corporations exactly the same as natural persons?

[Sol Rosenberg]

Treating citizens equally.

[Saorsa]

Treating citizens equally.

So, how is the corporate voter registration you were working on going?

[Sol Rosenberg]

Treating citizens equally.

So, how is the corporate voter registration you were working on going?

I decided to hold off until I get you to read something, make an honest, fallacy-free argument, and cite your sources.

[Saorsa]

Treating citizens equally.

So, how is the corporate voter registration you were working on going?

I decided to hold off until I get you to read something, make an honest, fallacy-free argument, and cite your sources.

I did, the CDC.

Stop whining. That was bullshit from the gitgo.

[Tom Ray]

Treating citizens equally.

But that only captures the first half of your strawman:

If corporations are people, they must be allowed to vote.

How about the other half?

Since they obviously should not be allowed to vote, they can't be people, right?

when I see calls for a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood, I get the feeling that I'm trapped in a room with a chimpanzee and a very sophisticated bomb, and the little fucker is determined to try to disarm the thing. It's not going to go well.

I forgot to mention... also trapped in the room with me is a bomb squad veteran, who is amusing himself by throwing balled-up pieces of the technical manual at the chimp.

Looks like d'ranger caught some of what you were flinging, leading him to make a statement he had to retract. You should be proud.

[Sol Rosenberg]

Can you IMAGINE me saying such a thing? Yes, obviously you can.

[Saorsa]

Last time I checked, I could start a discussion on any topic I wanted to discuss. You might only want to discuss the Second Amendment, Commerce Clause, and corperson First Amendment rights, but I might want to discuss issues I find more important, like corporate suffrage.

All of your threads are straw men to avoid discussing corporate suffrage.

See how delusional that looks in print?

It's why I almost never participate in these threads because all roads lead to .......

So my question being the simple hillbilly that I am is:

If a corporation is a person, why can't they vote? And be drafted, serve on jury duty, have the right to bear arms and only marry a corporation of the opposite sex?

If those things don't apply how can they be a person? And if that corporation is owned by one person doesn't that mean they are really two people, or one person twice?

So in my simple mind giving a corporation any rights as an individual is stupid. And dumb. And some other monosyllabic words I would bother to write.

I presented something on that once before. Saying a corporation is a person is misdirection. In fact, a corporation is a legal entitiy made up of one or more individuals. Those individuals have individual rights and common rights which are shared by all without definition as a right.

So, if the government must have a warrant to overcome my commonright to privacy, then my right continues into my share of the corporation. Freedom of speech and religion would also fall into what I would call common rights.

Voting however is an individual right. Not all individuals have the right to vote. The right to vote was one of the tasks allocated to the states and, history shows that that right of the states was exercised. You may also recall some efforts last century to ensure that states could not discriminate on individual attributes like race or sex which were vested in constitutional amendments or law.

Individual rights are not transferrable and common rights don't need to be transferred. So, a corporations right to free speech or safety from unwarranted searches is a simple aggregation of the common rights of the owners. If you must have a warrant to search my home, so must you have a warrant to search my place of business.

if political parties (another aggregation of individual) can run ads throughout an election period then so should other such aggregations. To do otherwise is discrimination just as denying the vote to people on the basis of sex or race was.

[Bent Sailor]

Saying a corporation is a person is misdirection.

Actually, no. Stating that a corporation is a person is a statement of the law as it stands. The reason corporations are awarded rights under the constitution is not because of the rights of individual "natural persons" that constitute its ownership and employees, but because law states quite explicitly that corporations are considered people for purposes of interpreting how law applies to them. Don't believe me, ask Tom Ray

[Tom Ray]

Saying a corporation is a person is misdirection.

Actually, no. Stating that a corporation is a person is a statement of the law as it stands. The reason corporations are awarded rights under the constitution is not because of the rights of individual "natural persons" that constitute its ownership and employees, but because law states quite explicitly that corporations are considered people for purposes of interpreting how law applies to them. Don't believe me, ask Tom Ray

Actually, I was corrected by Sol after saying something quite like that once.

The reason is actually because the Supreme Court chose to do it that way. They said that they could have chosen to do it another way, more or less as Saorsa suggests, asserting the "corresponding rights of NAACP members" or something like that, IIRC.

They did not, but hypothetically, they could have.

[Bent Sailor]

My mistake. I took the following from the United States Code to be the origin.

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-- the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

Looks like judicial activism is the source of the rights people wish to defend from judicial activism then. The irony does, indeed, abound in this subject.

[Saorsa]

My mistake. I took the following from the United States Code to be the origin.

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-- the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

Looks like judicial activism is the source of the rights people wish to defend from judicial activism then. The irony does, indeed, abound in this subject.

What is the context in this case?

In any event, states have the authority to determine eligibility to vote. Now, the federal government has stepped in with comments on race and sex but, I haven't seen any where they have demanded that states allow corporations to vote.

[Sol Rosenberg]

Saying a corporation is a person is misdirection.

Actually, no. Stating that a corporation is a person is a statement of the law as it stands. The reason corporations are awarded rights under the constitution is not because of the rights of individual "natural persons" that constitute its ownership and employees, but because law states quite explicitly that corporations are considered people for purposes of interpreting how law applies to them. Don't believe me, ask Tom Ray

Actually, I was corrected by Sol after saying something quite like that once.

The reason is actually because the Supreme Court chose to do it that way. They said that they could have chosen to do it another way, more or less as Saorsa suggests, asserting the "corresponding rights of NAACP members" or something like that, IIRC.

They did not, but hypothetically, they could have.

Inaccurate. I corrected you after you made an incorrect statement about what the Court wrote in NAACP v Button.

[Sol Rosenberg]

Glad to see that the NASCAR haters might be ready to discuss this topic rationally. Isn't it time we Right this wrong?

[Mark K]

Glad to see that the NASCAR haters might be ready to discuss this topic rationally. Isn't it time we Right this wrong?

The addition of the infringement on their first amendment rights by not being designated members of the press, should be added to the scales as well, I reckon. Perhaps this is wrong place to address it, but it must be corrected at some point.

[Sol Rosenberg]

I can't choose between red Gatorade or green Gatorade. Can I get a ruling on which one I agree with the most?

Geez. A guy could die of thirst around here, waiting for someone to tell him what he was intending to have.

[badlatitude]

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

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

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

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

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

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

So if a family owned corporation were to be appointed to the Supreme Court, would that violate the clause that forbids titles of nobility? or can the Sierra Club run for office just to confound the NRA from a position of power? Somethings are just better left alone.

[Sol Rosenberg]

So if a family owned corporation were to be appointed to the Supreme Court, would that violate the clause that forbids titles of nobility? or can the Sierra Club run for office just to confound the NRA from a position of power? Somethings are just better left alone.

Corporate appointment to the Supreme Court? That's a tough one. Better play it safe and ask Tom for a ruling on whether it is a legitimate topic. At worst, you'll find out what you were thinking,.

[badlatitude]

So if a family owned corporation were to be appointed to the Supreme Court, would that violate the clause that forbids titles of nobility? or can the Sierra Club run for office just to confound the NRA from a position of power? Somethings are just better left alone.

Corporate appointment to the Supreme Court? That's a tough one. Better play it safe and ask Tom for a ruling on whether it is a legitimate topic. At worst, you'll find out what you were thinking,.

Hmmm, What about resident alien corporations? They are guaranteed free speech, why shouldn't they be able to vote?

[Sol Rosenberg]

They are people too, but they must satisfy citizenship requirements.

[badlatitude]

This is fun, but before we go further we need to explain the difference between civil rights and political rights. Political rights, for instance, the right to vote, the right to run for office, testifying or sitting on a Grand Jury, have always been limited to qualified members of the body politic. We limit those rights to a wide range of people, the mentally disabled, children, convicted felons,etc civil rights on the other hand is extremely complicated law if you intend to start limiting those rights, it is a completely different matter. All things considered, I think the most important thing to ponder, is how we somehow think a 200 year old elliptical document has the answers to all of our problems.

[Saorsa]

They are people too, but they must satisfy citizenship requirements.

Actually, there is a class of visas for people who start a business in the US. The corporation may well have been made in America but, not by an american. Should these corporations be eligible to vote by your standards?

[Sol Rosenberg]

They are people too, but they must satisfy citizenship requirements.

Actually, there is a class of visas for people who start a business in the US. The corporation may well have been made in America but, not by an american. Should these corporations be eligible to vote by your standards?

If the corporation's citizenship is in the US, and it otherwise complies, then of course.

[Sol Rosenberg]

This is fun, but before we go further we need to explain the difference between civil rights and political rights. Political rights, for instance, the right to vote, the right to run for office, testifying or sitting on a Grand Jury, have always been limited to qualified members of the body politic. We limit those rights to a wide range of people, the mentally disabled, children, convicted felons,etc civil rights on the other hand is extremely complicated law if you intend to start limiting those rights, it is a completely different matter. All things considered, I think the most important thing to ponder, is how we somehow think a 200 year old elliptical document has the answers to all of our problems.

An intelligent response at last. Well put. No dodging the issue, no running around kicking and screaming, no trying to change the subject...just a comment on the issue. Outstanding.

I think the time may be right for the next step...it certainly is for NASCAR. What don't corporations do for us these days? Hell, if you can't beat them, join them...or they'll send a spy to infiltrate your group: http://abcnews.go.co...=1#.UEa8II1lTeo

[Saorsa]

This is fun, but before we go further we need to explain the difference between civil rights and political rights. Political rights, for instance, the right to vote, the right to run for office, testifying or sitting on a Grand Jury, have always been limited to qualified members of the body politic. We limit those rights to a wide range of people, the mentally disabled, children, convicted felons,etc civil rights on the other hand is extremely complicated law if you intend to start limiting those rights, it is a completely different matter. All things considered, I think the most important thing to ponder, is how we somehow think a 200 year old elliptical document has the answers to all of our problems.

An intelligent response at last. Well put. No dodging the issue, no running around kicking and screaming, no trying to change the subject...just a comment on the issue. Outstanding.

I think the time may be right for the next step...it certainly is for NASCAR. What don't corporations do for us these days? Hell, if you can't beat them, join them...or they'll send a spy to infiltrate your group: http://abcnews.go.co...=1#.UEa8II1lTeo

Hmmmm, sounds like cronyism. I have already posited, several times, that the 'right' to vote is actually a license based on meeting requirements established by the state.

How are you coming on that effort to get that eligibility settled in FL or were you just shooting your ass off again?

[Sol Rosenberg]

Ah yes, the ad hominem. It had to happen sooner or later.

[opa1]

I hate to make this easy, but a Corporation is not a person. A Corporation is not a citizen. A Corporation is incapable of making a decision. A board of directors can make a decision for a Corporation, but the Corporation did not make that decision. A Corporation is a legal entity, and legal only for the purpose of doing business, paying taxes, etc.. A Corporation cannot catch a cold. A Corporation cannot get married. Therefor, a Corporation cannot vote.

[Sol Rosenberg]

Do you hate NASCAR?

[Bent Sailor]

@opa1:
The issue is that, as the law stands, none of that matters for considering a corporation a person or a citizen. When the right to vote is applicable only to "natural persons", like being president requires being a "natural citizen", then all of that stuff is applicable. Just as corporations have First Amendment rights due to their nature as a legal person, there is a good legal argument they should get all the other rights that entails.

Personally, regardless of Tom's obsession on the matter, I don't think corporations should be considered people. Also, regardless of Sol's amusing antics, I don't think corporations should ever get the right to vote - the instant they do, the system collapses. Thing is, those aren't legal arguments and so are inapplicable. Boiled down, Tom seems to be saying because corporations haven't been considered able to vote, they cannot be. Sol is stating that because there is a legal argument they can, they should be allowed to. Both are extreme positions on the issue that only SCOTUS can resolve... though I suspect only one of them is actually serious. Call it a hunch

[Sol Rosenberg]

The worm has definitely turned, and courts are starting to recognize how important the right to vote is. Can it be long before corporations finally can avail themselves of their God Given Right to Vote?

http://www2.tbo.com/...vote-ar-491720/

[Sol Rosenberg]

With all of this focus on rights, can it be long before We see the light and stop denying the God Given right to vote to Real Americans...like NASCAR?

[Mark K]

He's a human being, with feelings, just like the rest of us.

[Saorsa]

Bring out your dead.

It doesn't look like Sol has actually managed to register a corporation or taken any legal action whatsoever to make his dream come true.