APP - Defend Citizens United

Threedee said:
Okay, then ignore the last sentence of what I posted. There is your proof. Or are you going to deny the SCOTUS decisions don't exist so that you can try and waste my time. Quit being a child.
Click to expand...

You stated you could prove it, yet you refuse to do so.
Therefore I must assume proof eludes you.
 
cartoon_200304.gif


Now Nike demands the right to lie
How a clerical error made corporations “people”

There’s a historic date that our country ought to mark every year, which has had as great an impact on the world as the July 4th birth of American democracy itself. The date is May 10, 1886—the day corporate supremacy was born. It came about through a court case that breathed life into these artificial, anti-democratic entities—a move that effectively gave corporations greater power than We the People.

The reason that today’s Powers That Be (which are—big surprise!—corporate powers) don’t want us paying the slightest bit of attention to this momentous date is that the birth of corporate supremacy actually was illegitimate, carrying no force of law.

An old proverb says: “A lie repeated 1,000 times becomes the truth.” This particular lie asserts that every corporate business structure is, in the eye of the U.S. Constitution, equal to real human beings, possessing all the rights of people.

As bizarre as it is, this assertion has been repeated so often by CEOs, politicians, pundits, professors, and judges that it is now assumed to be unassailable truth. Again and again, we hear the establishment speak of the “right” of this or that corporation to do as it pleases, as if the founders themselves had contemplated this as part of their grand democratic design.

Horse dooties. Not only are corporations unmentioned in the Constitution, but the founders would upchuck at the very idea that these things would now be treated by any serious person as part of the natural order.

Read the rest:
http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/664
 
Rune said:
Explain how money is speech.
Show how government by the highest bidder is appropriate.
Tell why a coporation is a person.
Pretend you are on a debate forum, where facts are proven by proof, not your say so alone.

Show why the first ammendment protects the spending of multi-national companies, and why centuries of limited campaign donations was wrong.

Finaly, explain how representative democracy is enhanced by billions of dollars of untrackable donations.
Click to expand...

first off, you continue to show your ignorance by claiming "money" in and of itself is speech. that is not what the ruling held. no wonder you don't have a clue what you're talking about. the case was about ORGANIZATIONS SPENDING money.

let us examine the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

are corporations or other organizations denied the right to petition the government for redress? to peaceably assemble? of course not. in fact, YOU and other liberals cry foul when unions tried to organize but were denied at some event in WI. you would not deny unions the right of redress or assembly. therefore, how is it you can deny them the exercise of speech in political campaigns.

FACT: when unions spend millions, liberal have zero problem with it. (except nigel). the only issue is - who - is spending the money.

CONCLUSION: liberals are hypocrites on this issue and cannot support their stance that citizens was a bad decision. corps cannot give directly, they can only advertise their opinions. this is a two way street given their ads must be disclosed. if they make an ad, customers are free to not give their business. if you want to deny corporations the exercise of speech in politics, then you MUST also deny ANY AND ALL organizations the exercise of that right.
 
From the article:
So where do we get today’s assumption that a corporation is fully entitled to the constitutional rights of the American people? It was a mistake!

The mistake came in the writing of a “headnote” to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1886 decision in an obscure tax case called Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. (I’ll not burden you with any minutiae from this case, which involved, of all things, the county’s right to tax some of the railroad’s fence posts).

As Hartmann details in Unequal Protection, the railroads pushed hard in this unheralded case to get the court to rule that corporations have equal taxation and other human rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Morrison Waite, a failed Ohio politico and former railroad lawyer, seemed a likely bet to do the corporate bidding—but he did not. The court decided in favor of Southern Pacific on the mundane fence-post matter, but it specifically dodged the immense issue of personhood. It held no open court discussion about it, wrote no opinions mentioning it, and rendered no judgment on it.

But a court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis (a former railroad official), wrote the headnote to the decision—a headnote being a summary of the case, for which reporters like Davis received a commission from the publisher of these legal documents. Davis’s lead sentence declares: “The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a state to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That’s it. A clerk’s personal opinion, carrying no weight of law and misinterpreting what the court said—this is the pillar on which rests today’s practically limitless assertions of corporate “rights.” Davis later asked Chief Justice Waite whether he was correct in saying that the court had ruled on corporate personhood, and Waite responded that “we avoided meeting the Constitutional questions.”
Click to expand...
 
There’s a historic date that our country ought to mark every year, which has had as great an impact on the world as the July 4th birth of American democracy itself. The date is May 10, 1886—the day corporate supremacy was born. It came about through a court case that breathed life into these artificial, anti-democratic entities—a move that effectively gave corporations greater power than We the People.

The reason that today’s Powers That Be (which are—big surprise!—corporate powers) don’t want us paying the slightest bit of attention to this momentous date is that the birth of corporate supremacy actually was illegitimate, carrying no force of law.

An old proverb says: “A lie repeated 1,000 times becomes the truth.” This particular lie asserts that every corporate business structure is, in the eye of the U.S. Constitution, equal to real human beings, possessing all the rights of people.

As bizarre as it is, this assertion has been repeated so often by CEOs, politicians, pundits, professors, and judges that it is now assumed to be unassailable truth. Again and again, we hear the establishment speak of the “right” of this or that corporation to do as it pleases, as if the founders themselves had contemplated this as part of their grand democratic design.

Horse dooties. Not only are corporations unmentioned in the Constitution, but the founders would upchuck at the very idea that these things would now be treated by any serious person as part of the natural order.

Read the rest:
http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/664[/QUOTE]

I knew the Founders would not approve and I am a huge fan of Hightower.
 
Dixie said:
Again, corporations are corporations and people are people. Corporations are comprised of many people. The court ruled the 'corporation' could not be denied constitutional rights, without denying those rights to the people who comprise the corporation. Liberals perverted this into the hyperbolic strawman, that "corporations are people."

For the sake of constitutional rights, they are protected whether you belong to a corporation or not, because they are inalienable. Therefore, the fact that you are part of a corporation, doesn't limit, restrict, or deny your constitutional rights. In a sense, you could argue that "Democrats" are a corporation, or "Republicans" ...are they also not entitled to run political advertisements? Seems we might be getting into sketchy territory when we start restricting free speech to ONLY individual persons, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

No, individuals still have their rights, they don't need the double rights as a corporation and no, individuals may speak and donate, they don't get two rights, just one per person.
 
Dixie said:
...Or #41 ?
Click to expand...

i doubt it. most liberals on this board whine that their points are never countered, yet, they constantly ignore the posts that counter their points. or, they simply claim, without any explanation, that you're wrong, because they say you are wrong.
 
Rana said:
No, individuals still have their rights, they don't need the double rights as a corporation and no, individuals may speak and donate, they don't get two rights, just one per person.
Click to expand...

so a group of citizens cannot form and have political speech?
 
How many times is high tower lowdown dot org, going to be plugged here? This is the second posting of the OPINION piece, from a from a biased liberal moron, spewing mindless liberal moron propaganda, as if it were some kind of credible news commentary.

You people are amazing... and on the APP Board at that!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dixie said:
How many times is high tower lowdown dot org, going to be plugged here? This is the second posting of the OPINION piece, from a biased liberal moron, spewing mindless liberal moron propaganda, as if it were some kind of credible news commentary.

You people are amazing... and on the APP Board at that!
Click to expand...

you would think that Rune posting in this section would want to actually debate the issue. not simply tell people they are wrong. nope...he will continue to ignore posts like 41, 44 because he can't get away with a simple, you're wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dixie said:
How many times is high tower lowdown dot org, going to be plugged here? This is the second posting of the OPINION piece, from a biased liberal moron, spewing mindless liberal moron propaganda, as if it were some kind of credible news commentary.

You people are amazing... and on the APP Board at that!
Click to expand...

And you are free to spew your ultra-biased opinion on Hightower, but to give your hyperbolic spew any significant credibility, it would be helpful for you to refute the content, particularly the part regarding the clerk's error. You don't have to like or agree with Hightower, but just shrieking that he's a liberal moron does nothing to refute what Hightower has said in this article.

Go ahead and document what is wrong, and why, and provide a verifiable citation that refutes what he said. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top