Comments on: “So what if corporations aren’t people?”

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:46:20 +0000

@Ted: Or commandeer airliners to use as troop transports.

By: Ted Frank

Ted Frank — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 12:07:23 +0000

Do corporations have Third Amendment rights, or can the government billet its troops in the Marriott for no charge?

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 23:29:28 +0000

Do you have money in a bank or credit union?

Then you’re an investor in a corporation.

Which means that you’re part of that corporation, in the sense of voting your proxy stock.

Which means that, if “speech by corporations” is wrong, then you shouldn’t be speaking.

By: Grijalva backs push for authoritarianism | Western Free Press

Grijalva backs push for authoritarianism | Western Free Press — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 21:07:09 +0000

[…] left wing senators and congressmen, including Arizona’s own Raul Grijalva, want to go many steps beyond, to deal a crushing blow to business rights: . . . a constitutional amendment advanced by a number of Democratic representatives and Sen. […]

By: Bumper

Bumper — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 01:13:23 +0000

Way to lazy to research it, but probably most unions are incorporated and for all the same reasons that businesses are incorporated.

By: Yeaah

Yeaah — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 20:28:59 +0000

@Farside someone is claiming that labor union is a person? Never heard of that.

By: Melvin H.

Melvin H. — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:11:25 +0000

Hmmm, take a look at that list of co-sponsors and think about something for a minute: More than a few names on that list have been either opposed by a group in the past for something they did, something they support, and/or something they are personally; impeached; or investigated for something they did.

By: Hans Bader

Hans Bader — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 02:11:01 +0000

Corporations do have free speech rights, and courts around the world have recognized that. One reason is that they are associations of persons, and people have rights. Corporations’ free speech rights have been recognized under the European Convention on Human Rights, and court rulings under it, for example.

Here is a discussion of such rulings and the well-established principle that companies have free speech, due process, and other rights:

http://www.examiner.com/scotus-in-washington-dc/why-intel-s-billion-dollar-fine-violates-human-rights-convention

By: Bumper

Bumper — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:19:25 +0000

Those who espouse the shareholders return on investment might be interested in the following:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/28/maximizing-shareholder-value-the-dumbest-idea-in-the-world/

It might also be worth noting that Apple, except for the time when it was run by the “suits” and almost went under, never gave a royal RA what the shareholders thought.

That said the proposal in question is typical of liberal short sight-ness, as apparently in their myopic view all corporations are conservative and therefore must be held under the liberal boot heel, even though the leader of the aforementioned mega-corporation was very liberal.

The proposed amendment is bad, not only because it proposes to answer a question that no one but liberals are asking, but because of it’s blatant attempt to segregate corporations by an arbitrary standard that appears to be based on the perceived usefulness to “their side.”

By: Farside

Farside — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:31:49 +0000

Yes. I want to expand the exercise in non SCOTUS common sense.

1) It is not murder to kill a labor union
2) It is not kidnap to relocate a labor union
3) A labor union may not be convicted of treason
4) A labor union may not be convicted of murder
5) A labor union may not be convicted of kidnap (torture and too many other things to list)
5.5) A labor union may not be convicted of rape (manslaughter, a long list . . .)
6) A labor union may not hold public office
6.5) A labor union MAY NOT VOTE
7) A labor union may not serve in the military
8) A labor union may not serve on a jury (of ANY kind)
9) A labor union may not serve as a judge
10) A labor union may not serve as a prosecutor
11) A labor union may may not perform as a lawyer (or even hold that title)
12) A labor union n can not be traumatized (and a long list . . . )
13) A labor union has no spousal rights (and EVERYTHING that exists under family law . . . such as alienation of affection , etc. . . . . )
14) A labor union does not pay and can not receive: Social security, food stamps, medicare, etc. . . .)
15) A labor union is not protected by the XIII th amendment
16) A labor union is not protected by the XV th amendment
17) A labor union is not protected by the XIX th amendment
18) A labor union is not protected by the XXIV th amendment
19) A labor union is not protected by the XXVI th amendment
20) Most of the rest can’t even be stretched by a lawyer to even apply to a labor union
21) Labor union are treated differently than individuals under tax law
22) A labor union is immortal.