Two More Free Speech Decisions by the SCOTUS!

[kalm]

here's the problem: "natural persons" have a life span of 100 years at the high end... they die. they cease accumulating power and wealth and influence... corporations do not. THEY ARE NOT PEOPLE. Their directors and officers and owners and shareholders have EVERY SINGLE RIGHT to act for the benefit of their corporation - including forming political action committees to pool PRIVATE donations that will further their companies agenda... but they DO NOT have same rights as individual CITIZENS.

That's why I say it's the worst ruling since Dred - it undermines our entire system to enable an ENTITY to have the same rights as a citizen... at this point I'd wonder when they'll ask for the right to vote... but I suspect with the ability to pour money from their coffers directly in to the system now... who needs it?

Ok, so it's kalm and TTBF who disagree with almost 200 years of jurisprudence.

More like 120 years and we are not alone

Do you think a person and corporation are the same?

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Ok, so it's kalm and TTBF who disagree with almost 200 years of jurisprudence.

More like 120 years and we are not alone

Do you think a person and corporation are the same?

Tell you what - when Microsoft or Coca-Cola has to register for the draft... then maybe my opinion will change.

[Ivytalk]

Hyperbole of the year award goes to TTBF. Corporations are legal persons and have been so recognized for decades. Corporations act by their agents -- directors and officers -- to further the interests of their owners, the stockholders. And yes, corporations themselves have interests, which they should be free to pursue with all of the First Amendment rights that "natural persons" have. Not sure why this concept is so hard for some folks to grasp. But at least TTBF agreed with the result in the Arizona case. For such small favors we should be grateful.

here's the problem: "natural persons" have a life span of 100 years at the high end... they die. they cease accumulating power and wealth and influence... corporations do not. THEY ARE NOT PEOPLE. Their directors and officers and owners and shareholders have EVERY SINGLE RIGHT to act for the benefit of their corporation - including forming political action committees to pool PRIVATE donations that will further their companies agenda... but they DO NOT have same rights as individual CITIZENS.

That's why I say it's the worst ruling since Dred - it undermines our entire system to enable an ENTITY to have the same rights as a citizen... at this point I'd wonder when they'll ask for the right to vote... but I suspect with the ability to pour money from their coffers directly in to the system now... who needs it?

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Grizalltheway]

here's the problem: "natural persons" have a life span of 100 years at the high end... they die. they cease accumulating power and wealth and influence... corporations do not. THEY ARE NOT PEOPLE. Their directors and officers and owners and shareholders have EVERY SINGLE RIGHT to act for the benefit of their corporation - including forming political action committees to pool PRIVATE donations that will further their companies agenda... but they DO NOT have same rights as individual CITIZENS.

That's why I say it's the worst ruling since Dred - it undermines our entire system to enable an ENTITY to have the same rights as a citizen... at this point I'd wonder when they'll ask for the right to vote... but I suspect with the ability to pour money from their coffers directly in to the system now... who needs it?

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Since when is THAT the cs.com way?? We're going to need at least two or three pages of mud-slinging before we can call this thing a wrap.

[kalm]

here's the problem: "natural persons" have a life span of 100 years at the high end... they die. they cease accumulating power and wealth and influence... corporations do not. THEY ARE NOT PEOPLE. Their directors and officers and owners and shareholders have EVERY SINGLE RIGHT to act for the benefit of their corporation - including forming political action committees to pool PRIVATE donations that will further their companies agenda... but they DO NOT have same rights as individual CITIZENS.

That's why I say it's the worst ruling since Dred - it undermines our entire system to enable an ENTITY to have the same rights as a citizen... at this point I'd wonder when they'll ask for the right to vote... but I suspect with the ability to pour money from their coffers directly in to the system now... who needs it?

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Screw you Ivy, you're never that conciliatory to me!

[Ivytalk]

here's the problem: "natural persons" have a life span of 100 years at the high end... they die. they cease accumulating power and wealth and influence... corporations do not. THEY ARE NOT PEOPLE. Their directors and officers and owners and shareholders have EVERY SINGLE RIGHT to act for the benefit of their corporation - including forming political action committees to pool PRIVATE donations that will further their companies agenda... but they DO NOT have same rights as individual CITIZENS.

That's why I say it's the worst ruling since Dred - it undermines our entire system to enable an ENTITY to have the same rights as a citizen... at this point I'd wonder when they'll ask for the right to vote... but I suspect with the ability to pour money from their coffers directly in to the system now... who needs it?

That was exactly my next question for Ivy.
Silly layman, there are common sense definitions and then there are "legal definitions" which often times having nothing to do with common sense, but do a nice job if you want to manipulate a system or feel real smart as a lawyer.

The language of the 14th, 19th and 26th amendments makes it quite clear that voting rights are limited to human beings. Next question.

[Ivytalk]

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Since when is THAT the cs.com way?? We're going to need at least two or three pages of mud-slinging before we can call this thing a wrap.

Good point!

[Ivytalk]

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Screw you Ivy, you're never that conciliatory to me!

Sure I am, Mr. VPOTUS! And you can be POTUS if you want, provided I get to be POTUS next!

[ASUMountaineer]

More like 120 years and we are not alone

Do you think a person and corporation are the same?

Tell you what - when Microsoft or Coca-Cola has to register for the draft... then maybe my opinion will change.

So, women aren't persons either?

[kalm]

That was exactly my next question for Ivy.
Silly layman, there are common sense definitions and then there are "legal definitions" which often times having nothing to do with common sense, but do a nice job if you want to manipulate a system or feel real smart as a lawyer.

The language of the 14th, 19th and 26th amendments makes it quite clear that voting rights are limited to human beings. Next question.

And there are opinions on that yours evidently being that a person and a corporation are the same, but apparently different in some to a human being.

[Ivytalk]

The language of the 14th, 19th and 26th amendments makes it quite clear that voting rights are limited to human beings. Next question.

And there are opinions on that yours evidently being that a person and a corporation are the same, but apparently different in some to a human being.

Not really, kalm. The three amendments I mentioned refer to voting rights of citizens, broken down by age and sex. The latter two are not concepts commonly associated with corporations -- particularly sex! Work with me here!

[kalm]

And there are opinions on that yours evidently being that a person and a corporation are the same, but apparently different in some to a human being.

Not really, kalm. The three amendments I mentioned refer to voting rights of citizens, broken down by age and sex. The latter two are not concepts commonly associated with corporations -- particularly sex! Work with me here!

I'm sorry, it's just that I'm having a difficult time getting past the notion that the constitution was not created to protect the rights of individual...human beings.

[houndawg]

Not really, kalm. The three amendments I mentioned refer to voting rights of citizens, broken down by age and sex. The latter two are not concepts commonly associated with corporations -- particularly sex! Work with me here!

I'm sorry, it's just that I'm having a difficult time getting past the notion that the constitution was not created to protect the rights of individual...human beings.

Jesus, kalm, where the hell do you come up with this crazy stuff?