Can pinheads explain the contradiction? ...Probably not!

D

Dixie - In Memoriam

New member
I've been contemplating this for a few days now. We recently had a SCOTUS ruling, which allows corporations to make political contributions, under the 1st amendment protections of free speech. Pinheads screamed and moaned about this, as you will recall. They questioned the wisdom of bestowing "human rights" or more appropriately, individual constitutional rights, on corporate entities. They've argued up, down, and sideways, that this was never intended by the founding fathers, and is an affront to our democratic system.

Fast forward to the mosque issue, where they are now standing with a "corporate entity" (the people building the mosque) and claiming their 1st amendment rights are being violated. I don't understand this contradiction, I thought "corporations" weren't supposed to have the same rights as individuals?

Now I'm sure they will argue this group doesn't 'qualify' as a 'corporation' but the funding for this project is not being provided by an individual, and this is not an individual's project, it's a group or organization. Why is one such entity entitled to full constitutional rights, and another similar entity isn't?
 
:palm:

i'm no pinhead...but there is no contradiction here

one is about whether a corp CAN do something, the other is about NOT ALLOWING a "corp" to build a church based solely on religious grounds. thats the key...is the REASON one is allowed to do anything.
 
What? Semantics. On one hand the Left wants to restrict corporate activity, while on the other wants corporate activity to be unrestricted.
 
Yurt said:
:palm:

i'm no pinhead...but there is no contradiction here

one is about whether a corp CAN do something, the other is about NOT ALLOWING a "corp" to build a church based solely on religious grounds. thats the key...is the REASON one is allowed to do anything.
Click to expand...

No, it's the same principles in play for both situations. Do Constitutional rights apply to non-individuals? In one case, the pinheads say resoundingly...NO! In the other, they say...HELL YES! I just wondered how the distinction is made to justify the contradiction?
 
NOt only is he a liar, he cant understand basic concepts like freedom of Religen.
 
Dixie said:
No, it's the same principles in play for both situations. Do Constitutional rights apply to non-individuals? In one case, the pinheads say resoundingly...NO! In the other, they say...HELL YES! I just wondered how the distinction is made to justify the contradiction?
Click to expand...

so you're saying....(i agree with citizen btw) that the left is contradictory for claiming corps are not citizens in terms of 1st amendment rights for speech and then claiming they do have a 1st amemdment right to freely exercise their religion?
 
Yurt said:
you're a lawyer....why don't you refute him with your legal prowess
Click to expand...

When someone is willing to lie in the face of hard facts, no amount of rhetorical skill is going to work against that much delusion. He knows he is full of shit.
 
You social conservatives have all gone batshit crazy.

The answer to your question is simple. Buckley v Valeo held that the state had a COMPELLING state interest in preventing corruption of elected officials. Frankly I don't think any rational person could argue otherwise. I would argue that MANY of the CFR laws are not narrowly tailored to that end and should be overturned.

Many on the left think that the state has a compelling interest in ensuring the fairness of elections. The courts have rejected that and will continue to do so.

I don't support CFR, but it is not comparable.

There is no compelling or even remotely valid state interest involved here.
 
There are already restrictions on campaign contributions, and there are already restrictions on where churches can build.

The allowance of corporations to donate as individuals is a loophole that defeats the purpose of the campaign donation restrictions.

The restrictions on building within a city were already met and dealt with before the hoopla starts.



The corporations, if allowed to donate as individuals, can basically buy an election (or at the very least a politician). This is exactly why the campaign restrictions are in place.

But to deny the private owners of land the right to build what they want after having cleared all the building code hurdles, based solely on those people's religion, is exactly why the founding fathers wrote the first amendment.
 
WinterBorn said:
There are already restrictions on campaign contributions, and there are already restrictions on where churches can build.

The allowance of corporations to donate as individuals is a loophole that defeats the purpose of the campaign donation restrictions.

The restrictions on building within a city were already met and dealt with before the hoopla starts.



The corporations, if allowed to donate as individuals, can basically buy an election (or at the very least a politician). This is exactly why the campaign restrictions are in place.

But to deny the private owners of land the right to build what they want after having cleared all the building code hurdles, based solely on those people's religion, is exactly why the founding fathers wrote the first amendment.
Click to expand...

yep
 
RStringfield said:
You social conservatives have all gone batshit crazy.

The answer to your question is simple. Buckley v Valeo held that the state had a COMPELLING state interest in preventing corruption of elected officials. Frankly I don't think any rational person could argue otherwise. I would argue that MANY of the CFR laws are not narrowly tailored to that end and should be overturned.

Many on the left think that the state has a compelling interest in ensuring the fairness of elections. The courts have rejected that and will continue to do so.

I don't support CFR, but it is not comparable.

There is no compelling or even remotely valid state interest involved here.
Click to expand...

also a good point
 
Onceler said:
Dixie- are you trying to surpass Jarod for mosque posts?
Click to expand...

Battle of the dimwits

This topic has been played to death on this board and in the media.

They have the RIGHT to build the friggin mosque.

Others have the RIGHT to ask them to consider a different location and express their opinions on the matter.

Period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top