powerhog
Stinkin' up the joint
Premium
join:2000-12-14
Owasso, OK | Corps Are corporations afforded Constitutional rights? | |
|
 
TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium
join:2002-01-25
Wesley Chapel, FL
|  Re: Corps
said by powerhog  :Are corporations afforded Constitutional rights? Same question I was thinking of too. They are made up of people who have rights other, than that I got nutin.
This is going to turn in to a Bush bash fest soon. However the spin given in these articles don't even scratch the surface of this topic. | |
|
 | quatrix
Premium
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL
| Re: Corps said by TechieZero :They are made up of people who have rights other, than that I got nutin. What? | |
|
| | 
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | Re: Corps "They are made up of people who have rights other, than that I got nutin."
I think what he was trying to say is:
They are made up of people who have rights, other than that I got nothing. | |
|
| | |
TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium
join:2002-01-25
Wesley Chapel, FL
| Re: Corps said by Michieru2 :"They are made up of people who have rights other, than that I got nutin." I think what he was trying to say is: They are made up of people who have rights, other than that I got nothing. yup. Sorry for the misplaced comma.  | |
|
| | 
Lil Jon
Premium
join:2006-06-26
Lawrenceville, GA
| said by quatrix :said by TechieZero :They are made up of people who have rights other, than that I got nutin. What? lmao | |
|
| 
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | It should be a "bush" bash who is asking for this? If the Dems pass this it will be a "Dem" bash too.....I could be wrong, but I thought it was against the constitution to pass laws to cover crimes "retroactively"?
--
BlooMe | |
|
| | 
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Speakeasy
| Re: Corps said by woody7 :It should be a "bush" bash who is asking for this? If the Dems pass this it will be a "Dem" bash too.....I could be wrong, but I thought it was against the constitution to pass laws to cover crimes "retroactively"? What gave you the impression that this group of wannabe-fascists cares about some tupid piece of paper?
--
Everyday, thousands of new cars are delivered to their new owners with poorly-selected radio station presets. | |
|
| | | 
forgotpassagain
@rr.com
| Re: Corps You don't even know what a fascist is. How about you learn the definition of a term before you start painting people with it. I don't even care if you are wrong - just know the basic definition of the insult you are using.
said by nixen :said by woody7 :It should be a "bush" bash who is asking for this? If the Dems pass this it will be a "Dem" bash too.....I could be wrong, but I thought it was against the constitution to pass laws to cover crimes "retroactively"? What gave you the impression that this group of wannabe-fascists cares about some tupid piece of paper? | |
|
| | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
1 edit | Re: Corps said by forgotpassagain :
You don't even know what a fascist is. How about you learn the definition of a term before you start painting people with it. I don't even care if you are wrong - just know the basic definition of the insult you are using.
He said "wannabe-fascist". However, I also consider them fascista. The suspension of Habeas Corpus, the USA Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the bypassing of judicial oversight in the area of wholesale warrantless search and seizure, wire-tapping under CALEA and other domestic spy programs, suppression of political dissent, rigging of elections, illegal and unprovoked war and economic aggression against other sovereign states to seize their natural resources are the earmarks of of the fascist state.
If you don't think Bush is a neo-fascist, prove it! I say you are doomed to fail, as Bush has repeatedly demonstrated that he has taken that path. Any civil liberty you presume to exist has been removed by the numerous unconstitutional legislative acts passed at Bush's direction by his eager minions, executive orders issued by the dixie-fuhrer himself, and sustained by the obsequious Justice Department and Judicial Branch he and other right-wingers have appointed to ravage the founding documents, which Bush refers to, if at all, as just scraps of paper.
If there were a worse, more vile descriptive term for what the Bush criminal cabal is, and has done, I would gladly use it as well. Until then, FASCIST will do nicely. | |
|
| | | | 
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
1 edit | said by forgotpassagain :
You don't even know what a fascist is. How about you learn the definition of a term before you start painting people with it. I don't even care if you are wrong - just know the basic definition of the insult you are using. Here is the definition of a fascist.
»Re: Bound to happen
Since I do not want to be accused of spamming these boards, there is the definition of a fascist.
--
Its the Democrats fault. In fact it is the Speaker of House Polosi fault. Everything is the Democrats fault. Everything. Just like Everything was the Republicans Fault when they were in power. | |
|
| |
justaguy
@lmco.com
| I believe you are referring to 'ex post facto' laws. Or laws that are made after the fact.
It IS unconstitutional to pass a law to make an action illegal, and then prosecute those who committed the actions while it was legal.
I am almost 100% sure that it is NOT unconstitutional to make something legal, and then effectively offer a pardon for such an action. | |
|
| | | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | Re: Corps That's correct. In this case they aren't making spying on Americans legal, of course if they can pardon corps everytime then it's effectively legal. Be sure to vote out your representative if they let Verizon and ATT get away with it. | |
|
| | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by woody7 :If the Dems pass this it will be a "Dem" bash too..... Nah... The Democrat party will never be held liable for this sort of thing. No one ever disses Clinton for signing the DMCA into law or for Carnivore or for the Clipper Chip proposal.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| | | TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA
| Re: Corps said by pnh102 : Nah... The Democrat party will never be held liable for this sort of thing. No one ever disses Clinton for signing the DMCA into law or for Carnivore or for the Clipper Chip proposal. Don't be so sure. I lurked here for a couple years before I ever registered, and I remember several pre-Bush threads, which got a bit heated, about all three of the topics you mentioned.
I can't stand Bush myself, but that doesn't mean I think Clinton was a saint either. No politicians are. | |
|
| | 
BIGMIKE
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Westminster, CA
| said by woody7 :It should be a "bush" bash who is asking for this? If the Dems pass this it will be a "Dem" bash too.....I could be wrong, but I thought it was against the constitution to pass laws to cover crimes "retroactively"? What Constitution?
--
Type "miserable failure" in Google | |
|
| | | Freezone
join:2000-09-29
Southfield, MI | Re: Corps The one everyone swears to defend just before they send it through the shredder. | |
|
| | |
| ProFiOSDude
Premium
join:2005-05-27
Chesapeake, VA | Corporations aren't people...just 1 person.
Look it up. I dare you 
PFD | |
|
|
| Freezone
join:2000-09-29
Southfield, MI
| Re: Corps said by PhoenixDown : quote:
Are corporations afforded Constitutional rights?
Yes, I believe so, as corporations are treated in a legal sense as 'a person'. And if you look at the history of corps, this was not the original intent. Everyone was afraid this would happen. Just like they were all afraid soc. sec. numbers would be used for identity.
Its cool how we do little things now that a generation or tow from now will be some of our worst fears relized. | |
|
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
| On what grounds?
Even if they are to be treated as individuals the constitution states that unless they have probable cause or a warrant they are not authorized to give that data to anyone.
By Verizon participating in giving out data, they by no means should be dismissed from the investigation. | |
|
|
fprgotpassagain
@rr.com
| Re: Corps what? The law should say nothing preventing them from sharing whatever information they choose to with anyone. Verizon signs no confidentiality agreement with its customers so there is no basis for a civil action even.Any law that prevented them from sharing information WOULD violate the 1st amendment.
said by Michieru2 :On what grounds? Even if they are to be treated as individuals the constitution states that unless they have probable cause or a warrant they are not authorized to give that data to anyone. By Verizon participating in giving out data, they by no means should be dismissed from the investigation. | |
|
| |
| | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: Corps Yes, indeed. Thank you, TCH.
I am getting really tired of people deciding what they think the law SHOULD be, and then claiming that the Constitution requires that result.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| |
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | Then what is the point of keeping your "social security number" safe, when the banks and other financial companies are throwing it around like free pizza?
--
Duct tape, saving lives since 1942. | |
|
| | No_Code
join:2003-12-12 | For medical records, it's HIPAA. For everything else, not sure. | |
|
|
|
powerhog
Stinkin' up the joint
Premium
join:2000-12-14
Owasso, OK
 ·AtlasOK
| Re: Corps If true, then I wonder if they've fully considered the implications of their case.
By arguing that "sensitive" customer information is available to be distributed via the First Amendment, then what's to stop one of their employees from giving away corporate "secrets" using the same argument?
The outcome of this should prove interesting. | |
|
|
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | Law please.
Where is this stated? | |
|
| | 
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN | Re: Corps Here.
--
Go Colts | |
|
| | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: Corps The cited provision clearly applies "within the meaning of this chapter...." It does not apply generally.
(The cited provision is part of the Jones Act, which limits shipping within the US to US flagged and crewed ships built and owned by US companies. Such restrictions, and their accompanying definitions of corporations as US Citizens are not generally a part of US commerce.)
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
quetwo
That VoIP Guy
Premium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI | Corporations are not afforded Constitutional rights, however, those working for the corporation do. If they are working under the direction of the corporation, they are not covered. | |
|
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
1 edit | Re: Corps Corporations don't have free speech rights? That would be news to the US Supreme Court, which back in the '80's invalidated state laws requiring utility companies to include consumer group propaganda as bill inserts in their monthly statements. At that time, the Court said that such inclusion violated the free speech rights of the utilities.
calvoiper
Edit update: The case citation is PACIFIC GAS & ELEC. CO. v. PUBLIC UTIL. COMM'N, 475 U.S. 1 (1986).
Besides, the New York Times is a corporation. Are we really going to listen to arguments that the NYT doesn't have free speech rights?
cv redux | |
|
| | 
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| Re: Corps said by calvoiper :Corporations don't have free speech rights? That would be news to the US Supreme Court, which back in the '80's invalidated state laws requiring utility companies to include consumer group propaganda as bill inserts in their monthly statements. At that time, the Court said that such inclusion violated the free speech rights of the utilities. Corporations were afforded personhood loooooooooooooooooong before the PGE case. Try Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886). The case in and of itself was not about corporate personhood per se, but rather, it was about taxes. But based on the decision written by the Supremes that included the 14th Amendment, personhood was has been attributed to corporations ever since.
In short, the same rights and privileges flesh and blood human beings have are the same rights corporations also enjoy since the corporation is treated as if it were a living, breathing person.
--
The Toll
| |
|
| | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: Corps Not entirely true. It's easier to get a death penalty (dissolution order) against a corporation than it is a person.
Corporations also have fewer rights in other areas. For instance, they are generally not afforded the right to avoid self-incrimination in criminal proceedings.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| said by quetwo :Corporations are not afforded Constitutional rights, however, those working for the corporation do. If they are working under the direction of the corporation, they are not covered. Not.
--
The Toll
| |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | They can't vote. I believe that Congress can make laws abridging the free speech of corporations. | |
|
Armada1
Heat Miser
join:2001-05-16
Chicago, IL
| said by powerhog :Are corporations afforded Constitutional rights? No. People have inherent rights created under natural law and the US Consitution is a document that says the Federal Gov may NOT infringe on these rights. Corporations do not exist under these principles, they exist under US State law and US Commerical Code. Their 'rights' are defined by laws that give them a framework to operate. 100,000+ lawyers argue the details of that everyday.
--
Formerly the Snow Miser... | |
|
TLS2000
Crazy Canuck
Premium
join:2004-02-24
Mississauga, ON | Corporations are afforded the same constitutional rights as an individual, as they are seen as the same by government, essentially.
--
Tom Murdoch
»www.authenticgeeks.com | |
|
roc5955
Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| You REALLY do not want to get me started on this one.
The constitution mentions nothing of corporations, and AFAIAC, they were one of the reasons for the Revolutionary War. The Boston Tea Party comes to mind here.
In more recent times, however, the SCOTUS has decided that corporations have the same rights as individuals, though unlike individuals, corporations can have a much longer lifespan, they can change their entity at will, for the most part, they can die and then come back as something else under the control of same crooked corporate leadership.
Needless to say, IMNSHO, our country has been sold out to the corporations. | |
|
ghoward79
Premium
join:2006-03-26
Vista, CA | has it had any effect on honest Americans? I doubt it, so I could care less. | |
|
|
|
|
