Corporations Will Choose Leaders Now

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Constitutional victory I am not sure about... I feel it just goes further to ad case law supporting a cajillion lines of federal code. A corporation has no more standing in my opinion under the US constitution than a Panamanian. So I feel my rights were watered down. In 1886 case law changed that and started recognizing the legal entities known as corporations as natural persons.

You see it as repealing a bad law and upholding free speech for everyone. I see it as repealing a bad law and adding supreme court case law to support making a legal entity my equal under the constitution. Read the thing from start to finish and it makes a hell of a lot of sense along with noah's 1828 dictionary.

I have owned businesses and my rights to free political speech were in no way hindered at any point, not counting limitations on donations, but I didn't donate anyway. Why would my business need access to modifying laws for any other reason than favors? That is in my mind not moral business. But if I wanted to, what stops me from going or petitioning as a citizen? nothing...

Wow, I've missed a bunch, haven't I?

I agree with the SCOTUS decision, FWIW, and I agree with your argument about personhood, but I still don't think it applies. The slave being counted 3/5 of a person

argument had to do with representation in Congress .

"Life liberty and property" was changed to "life, liberty

and the pursuit of happiness'' because of the issue of slavery, and it was finally resolved in the Civil War.

Corporations, individuals and anything that can be taxed

will be taxed because our representatives haven't seen a tax they don't like. That's where they get their power and where we lose our liberty. We keep allowing the hyenas to do this by an amendment which should be

discarded and replaced by something other than a consumption tax. Corporations, businesses, whatever

you want to call them have standing in the community,

but they don't vote. We vote, sometimes poorly, and we allow the hyenas to make a career out of something that

should have been a civic duty. This whole mess is our fault and the politicians should be term limited out of office. They should be held accountable for their actions,

just like we are when we do things that affect others.

They shouldn't have perks just because they think they are Gods. It's probably time for a constitutional convention to clean this mess up. I rather like the Constitution in its original form, too, and I think for years

Congress has been going outside their legal limits on

passing bills without our check on them. It's time to flush the commode in the DC bathrooms. It isn't about

entities, it's corruption, and needs to be stopped cold.

Whether you think it's for or against corporations or people , it still leveled the playing field and I think that was a good decision. Politics was the problem from the start. It's done, anyway.

[sigmtnman]

Ron Paul form meet the press:

MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."

REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist..

MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.

REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.

-------------------------------------

me:

The war was fought to "save the union" Lincoln said so himself. The southern states succeeded because of slavery, but because abolishment was being used as a tool of economic warfare by the northern industrialists (I like industry, but not industries that use the government for their own advantage/gain) who had a hold on the Federal gov. The First Confiscation Act, Second Confiscation Act and Emancipation Proclamation only applied in southern states, and did nothing to make slavery illegal, it only freed slaves in "rebel" states.

The 13th and 14th amendment reduced all of us to property of the federal government, even though the Constitution already applied to us without needing to be declared federal citizens. They also elevated State created legal entities known as corporations to the level of person.

Edited January 27, 2010 by sigmtnman

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I said it resolved the problem, not that it was the right way to do it.

"For their own economic gain"= looters. No use for that. People like GE.

Your last paragraph is why I said Constitutional Convention. Only way to fix it if we the people have the resolve. Keep the original and the Bill of rights, mandate term limits and mandate full disclosure from the Treasury and abolish the Federal Reserve

System or at least make them fully accountable to Congress.

If someone wants pork, tell them to buy a pig.

[sigmtnman]

100% agreement.

[Mark@Sea]

A corporation, like a gas pump, is a mechanism designed, built, and operated by men for a purpose. On what grounds do we deny those men (and women - 'scuse me ladies) the right to free speech?

Some would have us believe that SCOTUS has granted corporations the right to vote. Nothing could be (purposely) further than the truth. SCOTUS simply balanced a law denying the right to free speech against the first amendment, and found that law wanting.

So what we have here is a sitting president attacking the bill of rights.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And a sitting president now attacking SCOTUS. Kind of makes me think of FDR. My way or the highway.

[Guest mosinon]

A corporation, like a gas pump, is a mechanism designed, built, and operated by men for a purpose.

Exactly. For a purpose, that purpose is not necessarily in the best interest of the united states.

On what grounds do we deny those men (and women - 'scuse me ladies) the right to free speech?

As individuals they have the right to free speech

Some would have us believe that SCOTUS has granted corporations the right to vote. Nothing could be (purposely) further than the truth. SCOTUS simply balanced a law denying the right to free speech against the first amendment, and found that law wanting.

I'm not sure I disagree with the ruling. I am sure that this isn't going to turn out the way you want it to. The common wisdom is that this is win for conservatives. The thing is that corporations aren't conservative, they are in it for their profits. Nothing wrong with that. But wait until it is illegal to take your gun to work. Cause it is cheaper to do that than pay the insurance.

Corporations aren't here to protect your rights. They aren't here to do the best thing for the country. Google has a lot of money and Google isn't gun friendly.

So what we have here is a sitting president attacking the bill of rights.

Cause that has never happened before. That other presidents did it doesn't make it right but pretending this is the first time it has happened is disingenuous.

[Mark@Sea]

I don't believe I said it was the first time. FDR is a curse word in my house. Well, he gets cursed once or twice a week on average. Not real fond of Lincoln, either.

[leroy]

I don't believe I said it was the first time. FDR is a curse word in my house. Well, he gets cursed once or twice a week on average. Not real fond of Lincoln, either.

Amen brother!! Sounds like our house. Lincon exchanged states rights for an American Empire. FDR brought socialism to the mainstream in America.

Keep up the good work!!

Kind regards.

Lerpy

[sigmtnman]

A corporation, like a gas pump, is a mechanism designed, built, and operated by men for a purpose. On what grounds do we deny those men (and women - 'scuse me ladies) the right to free speech?

Some would have us believe that SCOTUS has granted corporations the right to vote. Nothing could be (purposely) further than the truth. SCOTUS simply balanced a law denying the right to free speech against the first amendment, and found that law wanting.

So what we have here is a sitting president attacking the bill of rights.

"On what grounds do we deny those men (and women - 'scuse me ladies) the right to free speech?"

On the same grounds as those we use to deny foreigners our rights.

Explain to me how any person in the corporation looses their freedom of speech? Is every member not allowed to still speak? Why would a corporation need a direct say in the policy, other than self benefit? How are the owners and workers of a corporation restricted from free speech if we do not recognize corporations as natural persons?

Do you agree with SCOTUS on all of their rulings since you are using it as the absolute authority? Or do you cherry pick which of their rulings to uphold?Do you agree with their decision that the ATF can regulate firearms?

Edited January 29, 2010 by sigmtnman

[sigmtnman]

FDR was owned by the same folks as Lincoln and worked to the same ends. The enslavement of every US citizen to the .gov.

They are both curse words in my house.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

[quote name=

I'm not sure I disagree with the ruling. I am sure that this isn't going to turn out the way you want it to. The common wisdom is that this is win for conservatives. The thing is that corporations aren't conservative, they are in it for their profits. Nothing wrong with that. But wait until it is illegal to take your gun to work. Cause it is cheaper to do that than pay the insurance.

Corporations aren't here to protect your rights. They aren't here to do the best thing for the country. Google has a lot of money and Google isn't gun friendly.

[/quote]

It doesn't matter whether we agree or disagree at this point. It's not a win for conservatives or democrats. It already is illegal to take our gun to work, or has that one passed? How can a corporation protect your rights, anyway? It is just a legal entity. It is the people in that corporation that decide any status that a corporation may have, like policies and bylaws. Google is made up of people that politically lean to the left, that's all.

When we have a problem, it must seem easier to go to a movie and watch a conspiracy junk thriller and pretend that will fix a problem than getting involved in the system and keeping it on the right course. It is still people who run this country, and if we have resolve, conviction and pay attention, we might be able to keep it. So you don't like Tea Party people, do something

else. But don't complain if you sit back and let Obama's type of politics ruin it for all of us.

Edited January 29, 2010 by 6.8 AR