NoJingoLingo
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,320
- Reaction score
- 325
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
If we limit corporations, or remove this "personhood" title from them then its only fair that all organizations would be censored and not be given any standing with regards to political contributions. Just because you have an INC., LLC., SC after your organizations name doesn't mean other organizations should have an advantage in influencing elections through donations.
If we limit corporations, or remove this "personhood" title from them then its only fair that all organizations would be censored and not be given any standing with regards to political contributions. Just because you have an INC., LLC., SC after your organizations name doesn't mean other organizations should have an advantage in influencing elections through donations.
Actually the Supreme Court struck down those other restrictions as well. As of yesterday, labor unions and non-profits are basically human beings too. As I said in the other thread, I'm not generally a big fan of overly-restrictive limits on campaign finance, but I'm nevertheless horrified at the Supreme Court's recklessness in overturning 100 years of precedent on corporate personhood.
Well I think we should discuss this topic. I don't believe corporations should have the rights of a person. What's your take and why?
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
NOT
"We the entities of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The First Amendment says nothing about protecting only persons. It merely says NO law restricting freedom of speech shall be passed.
Did you happen to notice that the Constitution specifically pointed out that the Press has this right? Hmm... nothing about corporations though. Actually it specifically mentions Religion, The People and the Press and nothing nor anyone else."Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."
NOT
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech of people but not entities, or of the press..."
By the way, most media outlets aren't people - and most are corporations too. Do they have no right to freedom of the press?
Well I think we should discuss this topic. I don't believe corporations should have the rights of a person. What's your take and why?
I am the head of a corporation (don't get too worked up, folks, it is VERY small), and I can state an emphatic NO to that. A corporation is not a person. A corporation is simply a legally defined business enterprise.
"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."
Who was the Constitution written for? To protect the rights of the PEOPLE from government?
"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."
I say if corporations are "people" and deserve the rights of "the people" then they should be subject to all of the same laws as well. If a corporation breaks a law, then that corporation should see jail time as well as financial penalties. The death penalty should be used as well; any company that kills a person or another entity should have the death penalty or life in prison available as a penalty. Who would you put in jail for life? All of the execs? Shareholders? Employees? or should the company be forced to close it's doors and cease functions until the term is complete?
And it does a great job of that. But the First Amendment does more than that. It protects free speech. All free speech.
Corporations are subject to the laws too. Just because you can't treat them the same as persons sometimes doesn't mean they aren't. Of course, you can send corporate execs to jail when appropriate.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/images/smilies/eusa_doh.gifDid you happen to notice that the Constitution specifically pointed out that the Press has this right?
Normally you don't assume something includes everything simply because it doesn't specifically exclude them. Can we include vehicles too, I sit in one, just like I work in a company. How about animals too, they aren't excluded from the Constitution so I should be able to include them where ever I see fit?
Corporations are not people, they do not do anything.
The people who own and run it do.
They should be held to the same legal standards as everyone else and should not be able to hide behind corporate personhood.
Exactly! And they should have the same legal rights too.
The people who own it should, corporations have no legal rights in my reality.
If they have no legal rights, they have no legal obligations so they can do whatever they want.
NOBODY would ever argue that corporations have no legal rights at all. That's ridiculous. They exist in order to have legal rights.
The law doesn't just go one way. It obligates, and also protects.
What is it protecting?
A corporation is just a group of people.
Groups don't have rights, individuals do.
People don't give up their rights just because they form a group. Why would they not have the right speak AS a group?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?