APP - what constitutes a foreign corporation

AssHatZombie said:
Right. So we do pick and choose.
...it's not abolishing the first amendment, it's just modulating who it applies to, like in the prisoner instance.
Click to expand...

No we don't actually. What we do is, remove all Constitutional rights from prisoners... they have been granted "HUMAN" rights, and indeed we have stretched those to include some rights which are also found in the Constitution, but someone convicted and sentenced is stripped of all Constitutional freedoms, that is what prison is all about. This is a punishment for a citizen convicted for doing something wrong, that is why it is an exception. We typically do not parse Constitutional rights and freedoms to law-abiding, non-convicted citizens.

Okay, let me illustrate why it doesn't work... why the Constitution can't be like a Cafeteria Plan... why we can't selectively choose which rights to apply to which people....

We allow the 4th Amendment to apply to a Gitmo detainee, and he is given his "day in court" pursuant to his rights under the Constitution.... BUT, we have ruled that he doesn't get the rights of the 1st Amendment, so he has no freedom to speak. How can he legitimately obtain his 4th Amendment right to a fair trial by a jury of his piers, if he is not allowed to speak? It is impossible, because his piers would also be prohibited from speaking, therefore, unable to reach a verdict in his case, he couldn't be allowed to testify on his own behalf, as that would involve his speaking, and his attorney would not be able to defend him unless he was free to speak. So you have effectively rendered BOTH rights invalid by eliminating one.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights apply as a whole, we don't parse them.
 
AssHatZombie said:
That's picking and choosing.

We already parse them, cunt.
Click to expand...
There is a vast different between removing a person's right via due process (ie: convicted criminals) and simply making a law diminishing the rights of a person or group. The first is specifically allowed in the Constitution. The second is specifically forbidden by same.
 
AssHatZombie said:
I do know what Im talking about. Fascism is the melding of corporate and government power. WHether it's business taking over government or government taking over business is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
You can claim pink is really blue until the moon falls out of the sky. All that does is prove you to be a childish twit as well as an ignorant one.

Fascism is a dictatorship, not a "melding" of powers. It is government power embodied in a single dictator that takes over all else, including industry.

What you are describing is an economic oligarchy, in which an economic elite maintains control over government.
 
Good Luck said:
You can claim pink is really blue until the moon falls out of the sky. All that does is prove you to be a childish twit as well as an ignorant one.

Fascism is a dictatorship, not a "melding" of powers. It is government power embodied in a single dictator that takes over all else, including industry.

What you are describing is an economic oligarchy, in which an economic elite maintains control over government.
Click to expand...

It could be lead by an oligarchy, that's still fascism.

Let's not parse words, ok dipshit.
 
Good Luck said:
There is a vast different between removing a person's right via due process (ie: convicted criminals) and simply making a law diminishing the rights of a person or group. The first is specifically allowed in the Constitution. The second is specifically forbidden by same.
Click to expand...

There is not a vast difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top