How Democrats Could Pack the Supreme Court in 2021

[mrjurrs]

Hehe, but corporations aren't actually people, its shorthand for the LEGAL FICTION of SEPARATE corporate personhood.

And there are good reasons to due that. Now at the end of the day there is a reason why the phrase 'for purposes of' is used in law and why FOR PURPOSES OF THE DUE PROCESS clause, corporations must be treated as people and entitled to Due Process.

Can the government unilaterally seize the NY Times? Of course not, they must provide DUE PROCESS.

Personally I don't really care if you want to analyze the case as a free speech case or a free press case. At the end of the day one MUST acknowledge that Michael Moore made a film critical of George Bush, Fahrenheit 911, and he did so utilizing the corporate form (Dog Eat Dog Inc was the name of the corporation) and unlike David Bossie, Michael Moore is actually good at making movies. The right of either corporation, Citizens United or Dog Eat Dog Inc, to produce content criticizing not only a candidate for public office but a seated official in the government (Citizens United attached Hillary Clinton while she was seeking the Democratic nomination against Obama while she was a seated Senator while Fahrenheit 911 obviously attached the sitting President running for reelection) lies at the very CORE of the I Amendment, its the absolute highest form of protected speech.

No one disputes that corporations, such as the New York Times Company, can editorialize during an election.

Couple of things, the NYT is protected under a different part of the 1st re editorializing, and I was unclear on my criticism of the decision. IMO, money is not speech, and protection from liability for corporations was clearly not an intention of the framers. So, are you arguing strict or liberal construction? More importantly, are you consistent in your arguments?

 

[mrjurrs]

Corporations exist as an expression of the individuals exercising their fundamental right of association.

Nevertheless XIV Amendment does have an Equal Protection and Due Process clause that protects 'persons' and in Santa Clara it states: "One of the points made and discussed at length in the brief of counsel for defendants in error was that 'corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.' Before argument, Mr. Chief Justice Waite said: The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does" -- https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/118/394.html

You don't really believe that do you? Corporations exist to enhance profits and limit liability.

 

[newpublius]

You don't really believe that do you? Corporations exist to enhance profits and limit liability.

That's not the issue, the issue is government authority and how they utilize that authority. They cannot wantonly exercise that authority in an arbitrary and capricious manner simply because the object of that authority is a corporation which -- according to you --- would not be a person for purposes of the Constitution and hence not entitled to Due Process of law.

The government cannot summarily shut down the NY Times tomorrow.

Why not? Why is the government constitutionally constrained from doing that?

------------------

Why would ANYBODY form a corporation unless it WERE treated as a person for purposes of the XIV Amendment?

 

[ludin]

Not quite. You are referring to changing the rule mid-session. Senate rules can be changed in the first day's of the Congressional term by simple majority.

good luck with that. it will be filibustered.

 

[BlueTex]

good luck with that. it will be filibustered.

How did McConnell change the filibuster rules in April of 2017 for Gorsuch? Did the senate not start till April of that year?

 

[mrjurrs]

good luck with that. it will be filibustered.

If something can be done with a simple majority, the filibuster is not available.

 

[ludin]

If something can be done with a simple majority, the filibuster is not available.

good luck with that.