Nope, it is the individuals within that group that has the right, and their right is the idea to practice any religion they want without fear of persecution.
The blogosphere has been abuzz on the heels of the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United opinion. Hysteric criticisms of the speculative changes to our political landscape aside — including the President’s misstatements in the State of the Union — one of the most common and oft-repeated criticisms is that the Constitution does not protect corporations. Several “reform” groups have even drafted and circulated constitutional amendments to address this concern.
This line of attack demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of both the nature of corporations and the freedoms protected by the Constitution, which is exemplified by the facile charge that “corporations aren’t human beings.”
Well of course they aren’t — but that’s constitutionally irrelevant: Corporations aren’t “real people” in the sense that the Constitution’s protection of sexual privacy or prohibition on slavery make no sense in this context, but that doesn’t mean that corporate entities also lack, say, Fourth Amendment rights. Or would the “no rights for corporations” crowd be okay with the police storming their employers’ offices and carting off their (employer-owned) computers for no particular reason? — or to chill criticism of some government policy.
Or how about Fifth Amendment rights? Can the mayor of New York exercise eminent domain over Rockefeller Center by fiat and without compensation if he decides he’d like to move his office there?
So corporations have to have some constitutional rights or nobody would form them in the first place. The reason they have these rights isn’t because they’re “legal” persons, however — though much of the doctrine builds on that technical point — but instead because corporations are merely one of the ways in which rights-bearing individuals associate to better engage in a whole host of constitutionally protected activity.
That is, the Constitution protects these groups of rights-bearing individuals. The proposition that only human beings, standing alone, with no group affiliation whatsoever, are entitled to First Amendment protection — that “real people” lose some of their rights when they join together in groups of two or ten or fifty or 100,000 — is legally baseless and has no grounding in the Constitution. George Mason law professor Ilya Somin, also a Cato adjunct scholar, discusses this point here.
In any event, as Chief Justice Roberts said in his Citizens United concurrence: “The First Amendment protects more than just the individual on a soapbox and the lonely pamphleteer.” Justice Scalia makes the same point, explaining that the text of the Constitution “makes no distinction between types of speakers.” The New York Times isn’t “an individual American” but its speech is still protected under the First Amendment (regardless of any exemption for “media corporations” — whatever those are in a world where conglomerates own interests not limited to media, not to mention the advent of blogs and other “new” media).
Why should it? Who says that we should try to interpret the constitution? I believe we have an amendment process if there needs changes but there is nothing in the Constitution nor quotes from the FF on the need to interpret the Constitution.Well, no, that's not enough - especially since it doesn't really leave any room for interepretation in that regard.
I've asked you before to tell us where the period is located in the 1st amendment. You decided to ignore that question so I'll ask it again.It simply says Congress shall make NO law...abridging freedom of speech.
Please quote me saying ""we the people" had decided to exclude corporations from having rights."But my question was aimed at Jingo's claim that "we the people" had decided to exclude corporations from having rights. I asked where that was stated anywhere in law.
You're misusing context of the 1st amendment by reading it as if there was a sentence "Congress shall make no law... abridging freedom of speech." That is NOT how it is written.No, you're the one reading into it. You're reading an exception to the words "NO LAW."
.This is false. Corporations have many constitutional rights, as the courts have held for over a century
Who says they lose their right? No one, that's another strawman. People retain their constitutional right when they go to work for a business. Therefore there is no need to give the corporation itself the right to free speech. That would be a right for the owner in addition to the right he already has. He has the right to free speech in or outside of the company. You're saying let him ALSO use company funds as well as his own.There is no reason to think the Founding Fathers thought that groups of people, in whatever legal form, would somehow lose their rights because they join together as a group. Just the opposite.
It seems your main problem with the 1st amendment is a lack of understanding of the semicolon.The First Amendment doesn't mention people either! Except for the right of the people to peacably assemble. (Presumably forming a group.)
Specious argument. Who is having their rights cut off? Entities that are not people. The only free speech a corporation has is if the owner(s) speaks using his mouth or his own money, in that case he is not exercising his corporations speech he is exercising his own. The SCOTUS has decided that he may also use corporate funds. Corproate funds are NOT funds of the owner as this would violate the shield of liability. Therefore, to get around this, the SCOTUS decided that the corporation itself could use corporate funds. How will the corporation do this? It can't, a corporation has no hands to write a check... it has no corporeal existence and is therefore an entity and not a human nor animal nor any organic matter. In fact a corporation has no matter. It is words on a document.I don't think they would think that the solution to that is simply cutting off the freedom of speech of people or entities we think have too much though.
This is a good point. However, do we not have regulations that corporations are subject to and not people? Can we not make corporate law to cover these things along with all the other corporate laws currently in effect? Obviously the answer is yes. So why do we need to grant corporations protections under the Constitution instead of just protecting those things under corporate law? Because corporate interests get little pieces of personhood here and there whenever the court has a conservative, corporatist majority.Think about it though - what if they had no rights? Could the government seize them without compensation? Search their records without a warrant?
You are wrong. The idea of the free press is protected. Reporters are nothing but people using the free Press as a vehicle to spread the news. They became businesses because they needed a way to pay for the presses, the ink etc. so they begin charging a fee for the paper and form a corporation to handle dispersment of funds and to protect the owners from lawsuits, protecting their personal funds. That is all a corporation is; a liability shield and a bank account to handle the corporate funds. THe owner of a corporation cannot take company funds for personal use as this violates the liability shield and comingles personal and corporate funds.Think about that again. A newspaper has no freedom of the press, only the reporters?
Fallacious argument.Does that make any sense at all? The government could shut down a newspaper, saying the reporters can just write their stories with a pen and paper and make carbon copies? A church has no freedom of religion, so the government could ban the Roman Catholic Church, but as long as catholics can worship at home it's perfectly okay? Really?
You not only have a basic misunderstanding of the Constitution but also of corporate law.In accordance with the strict legislative control exercised over corporations who sought the privilege of incorporation and following in the path of centuries of English commonlaw (case made law), the states codified (made into written law) the power to revoke the charters of corporations who "misused" or "abused" their charter powers. The English foundation for these statutes can be traced to the theory of quo warranto, which literally means that the state is asking the corporation, "By which grant of right do you exercise the powers you are exercising?" The extensive history of quo warranto theory to revoke charters adds credence to its contemporary use.
In addition to this common-law theory, the states codified the law, and in most states, granted the power to revoke the corporation's charter for misuse or abuse to the Attorney General of the state. Forty-nine states have adopted quo warranto statutes. Some states offer even stronger protection, allowing for revocation of corporate charters in specific situations, such as when the corporation has engaged in a conspiracy (Washington) or when the corporation has engaged in bid-rigging or anti-trust activities (Pennsylvania).
Why should it? Who says that we should try to interpret the constitution?
It seems your main problem with the 1st amendment is a lack of understanding of the semicolon.
• SEMICOLON (noun)
The noun SEMICOLON has 1 sense:
1. a punctuation mark (';') used to connect independent clauses; indicates a closer relation than does a period.
A correct reading of the 1st amendment connects the statements and finishes with a period. Perhaps a class in English would be helpful for you.
Specious argument. Who is having their rights cut off? Entities that are not people.
This is a good point. However, do we not have regulations that corporations are subject to and not people? Can we not make corporate law to cover these things along with all the other corporate laws currently in effect? Obviously the answer is yes. So why do we need to grant corporations protections under the Constitution instead of just protecting those things under corporate law? Because corporate interests get little pieces of personhood here and there whenever the court has a conservative, corporatist majority.
You are wrong. The idea of the free press is protected. Reporters are nothing but people using the free Press as a vehicle to spread the news. They became businesses because they needed a way to pay for the presses, the ink etc.
Fallacious argument.
You not only have a basic misunderstanding of the Constitution but also of corporate law.
It seems your main problem with the 1st amendment is a lack of understanding of the semicolon.
• SEMICOLON (noun)
The noun SEMICOLON has 1 sense:
1. a punctuation mark (';') used to connect independent clauses; indicates a closer relation than does a period.
A correct reading of the 1st amendment connects the statements and finishes with a period. Perhaps a class in English would be helpful for you.
James Madison and his buddies might have used bullet points, but they weren't invented yet.
Look at the structure of Article I, Section 8.
The First Amendment is a different style, but same intent, saving the scribe the effort of writing "The Congress shall make no law" a half dozen times in one Amendment.
Whatever, not relevant.
The First Amendment clearly protects the right of people who own companies to have that company represent them as a public mouthpiece.
Agreed.
123
That's simply absurd.
If this were true, the government would be able to ban all churches and other religious groups and organizations in the country. Just ban them. Shut down all the churches and make everyone stay home or meet in someone's basement on Sunday morning. Do you really think the Constitution allows that?
The individual has the right, not the church, since the church is nothing other than a term that represents the individual grouping of like minds.
...and you even state it right there, make them meet in someone's basement. That would then become a church. What do you think that a church actually is?
church /tʃɜrtʃ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [church] Show IPA
–noun 1. a building for public Christian worship.
2. public worship of God or a religious service in such a building: to attend church regularly.
Church | Definition of Church at Dictionary.com:
Its quite ironic that the justices that try to claim they are "Strict Constructionists" twist and manipulate the Constitution to find that a Corporation is a person.
Where in the Constitution does it say that Corporations are persons and entitled to the same rights as people?
Where in this decision does the Court say that?
Where in the Constitution does it say only people have the right of free speech?
Then stop being an oppressor. :lol:Personally, I'm looking forward to the day when my toaster gets free speech rights.
And I can't wait for the rights of corporations to get married!
Personally, I'm looking forward to the day when my toaster gets free speech rights.
And I can't wait for the rights of corporations to get married!
So I ask again - does this mean the government could shut down a church?
An organization. Like the Roman Catholic Church, which has leaders, assets, a governing structure (much like a corporation.) You know, like in "seperation of church and state." Not a physical location, an organization. Could the government ban the Roman Catholic Church from the US? As long as Catholics can gather in a basement?
Do I really have to explain that "church" can also mean "religious organization?" Here, the rest of the definitions from your link:
3. (sometimes initial capital letter) the whole body of Christian believers; Christendom.
4. (sometimes initial capital letter) any division of this body professing the same creed and acknowledging the same ecclesiastical authority; a Christian denomination: the Methodist Church.
5. that part of the whole Christian body, or of a particular denomination, belonging to the same city, country, nation, etc.
6. a body of Christians worshipping in a particular building or constituting one congregation: She is a member of this church.
7. ecclesiastical organization, power, and affairs, as distinguished from the state: separation of church and state; The missionary went wherever the church sent him.
8. the clergy and religious officials of a Christian denomination.
9. the Christian faith: a return of intellectuals to the church.
10. (initial capital letter) the Christian Church before the Reformation.
11. (initial capital letter) the Roman Catholic Church.
12. the clerical profession or calling: After much study and contemplation, he was prepared to enter the church.
13. a place of public worship of a non-Christian religion.
14. any non-Christian religious society, organization, or congregation: the Jewish church.
And what about newspapers?
Yes, why should 100 years of case law take precedence over what the Constitution actually says?
The Constitution says the Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.
Your vaunted 100 years of case law is the court's support of legistion that abridges freedom of speech.
Clearly, applying the Constitution as written voids the case law, which is what this court just did.
Here's 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.
"Used to connect independent clauses"....you mean like "Congress shall make no law;abridging the freedom of speech".
Yes, exactly. You see any exemptions on that? If you do, please get your eyes checked.
What was your point again?
Oh, yeah.
Your point was that Congress can make laws abriding freedom of speech.
You're clearly wrong.
Just in case you missed it, the FA first says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech....without exception...and then it says the freedom of the press is inviolate. Meaning that not only is speech protected, but the means of publishing speech to a wider audience is also protected. You will want to note that it makes no exception for "advertising" in the "press".
I never said that no first amendment right exists independent of the others.So no right in the First Amendment exists independent of the others?
Please stop embarrassing yourself. There's nothing wrong with how I read the First Amendment.
How could I think that when religion and the press are specifically mentioned?Yes, exactly. So you think the government could shut down all religious entities and still be respecting freedom of religion, or all newspapers and still be respecting freedom of the press.
Corporations do not have inalienable rights endowed by their creator, therefore they must be granted them. No we are not following the Constitution, we seem to be interpreting it for corporate interests.It's not a matter of what we "need to grant." We have no choice. We are not writing the Constitution here, we are following it.
I can't even fathom how you built that strawman but maybe you could enlighten me on your presumption.And you are presuming that corporations will have all the rights that people have, but that's not necessarily true.
The free press is the idea we want to protect from the government. The people who work for a company involved in the free press have rights as people under the constitution.Not the "idea" - the newspaper. Please stop playing with words. A newspaper is a business, it - not just the people working there - is protected.
I assure you that you are mistaken.Without actually posting my resume, I assure you that I have a deep knowledge of both the intricacies of the English language and how to interpret laws and the Constitution. Please stick to the topic.
How exactly is that clear? It says nothing in regards to corporations or the activities of business.The First Amendment clearly protects the right of people who own companies to have that company represent them as a public mouthpiece.
NO, FOR ****S SAKE BECAUSE RELIGION IS PROTECTED BY NAME IN THE 1ST AMENDMENT. Now, the government could come and shut down a church (the gathering place) for any number of reasons. But it must have legal cause like, building code violations, use for illegal purposes etc.So I ask again - does this mean the government could shut down a church?
You're being obtuse as usual in this thread. The RCC is simply the name of that religious cult. It is part of the RELIGION of Christianity.An organization. Like the Roman Catholic Church, which has leaders, assets, a governing structure (much like a corporation.) You know, like in "seperation of church and state." Not a physical location, an organization. Could the government ban the Roman Catholic Church from the US? As long as Catholics can gather in a basement?
So you do understand the concept but constantly pretend you don't by asking if the government could shut down the church.Do I really have to explain that "church" can also mean "religious organization?" Here, the rest of the definitions from your link:
3. (sometimes initial capital letter) the whole body of Christian believers; Christendom.
4. (sometimes initial capital letter) any division of this body professing the same creed and acknowledging the same ecclesiastical authority; a Christian denomination: the Methodist Church.
5. that part of the whole Christian body, or of a particular denomination, belonging to the same city, country, nation, etc.
6. a body of Christians worshipping in a particular building or constituting one congregation: She is a member of this church.
7. ecclesiastical organization, power, and affairs, as distinguished from the state: separation of church and state; The missionary went wherever the church sent him.
8. the clergy and religious officials of a Christian denomination.
9. the Christian faith: a return of intellectuals to the church.
10. (initial capital letter) the Christian Church before the Reformation.
11. (initial capital letter) the Roman Catholic Church.
12. the clerical profession or calling: After much study and contemplation, he was prepared to enter the church.
13. a place of public worship of a non-Christian religion.
14. any non-Christian religious society, organization, or congregation: the Jewish church.
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?