Lil Jon
Premium
join:2006-06-26
Lawrenceville, GA
| reply to quatrix
Re: Corps
said by quatrix  :said by TechieZero :They are made up of people who have rights other, than that I got nutin. What? lmao |
|
ProFiOSDude
Premium
join:2005-05-27
Chesapeake, VA | reply to TechieZero
Corporations aren't people...just 1 person.
Look it up. I dare you 
PFD |
|
Freezone
join:2000-09-29
Southfield, MI
| reply to PhoenixDown
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. |
|
Freezone
join:2000-09-29
Southfield, MI | reply to BIGMIKE
The one everyone swears to defend just before they send it through the shredder. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to cdru
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! |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN | reply to Michieru2
Here.
--
Go Colts |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to major marco
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! |
|
ghoward79
Premium
join:2006-03-26
Vista, CA | reply to powerhog
has it had any effect on honest Americans? I doubt it, so I could care less. |
|
No_Code
join:2003-12-12 | reply to TKJunkMail
For medical records, it's HIPAA. For everything else, not sure. |
|
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | reply to TKJunkMail
Law please.
Where is this stated? |
|
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | reply to TKJunkMail
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. |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| reply to quetwo
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
|
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| reply to calvoiper
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
|
|
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
 ·epix
1 edit | reply to forgotpassagain
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. |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
1 edit | reply to forgotpassagain
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. |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | reply to woody7
forget the 'bush' bash,This is getting to be a free for all 
--
BlooMe |
|
roc5955
Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to powerhog
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. |
|
TLS2000
Crazy Canuck
Premium
join:2004-02-24
Mississauga, ON | reply to powerhog
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 |
|
TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA
| reply to pnh102
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. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
1 edit | reply to quetwo
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 |
|
