how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to amigo_boy
Re: Granting the power to giveth, also to taketh. said by amigo_boy:IMO, the problem isn't that the federal government has the power to regulate interstate communications. It's that corporations have been deemed "people" with the same rights as naturally-born people. Corporations were initially legal, yet fictional "persons" created by state legislatures to indemnify officers and investors from personal responsibility for losses created by the business venture. After the 14th Amendment (and its loose definition of citizenship), corporations began to be treated by law as any ordinary "person." This. Treating a Corporation and other entities as legal people with political rights and "Free Speech" rights the same as an individual is doing great harm to our country. And the Supreme Court is ruling that laws that restrict Corporations political influence violate their free speech rights... but they are not a person!
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by KrK: And the Supreme Court is ruling that laws that restrict Corporations political influence violate their free speech rights... but they are not a person! Personally, I believe the SC ruled the way it did to force Congress to deal with the underlying problem: corporations considered "persons" equal to living persons.
If the SC had been expedient and ruled against corporate rights, what would prevent it from being expedient in the future with other unpopular groups?
I don't think individuals should be prevented from joining together to leverage their shared political views.
But, that's not the problem with Corporations. Their right to speech, privacy, association, etc., doesn't derive from the collection of people who join the corporation in some way. It derives from corporations being considered "a person" in law. And, a late 1800s court decision which was construed to apply the privileges and immunities of the 14th Amendment (extended to all persons who are citizens of a state, and the united states) to corporations because they're "persons."
What started out as a way to encourage commercial activity with a goal to serve the community (for example, the original corporate charters of England to establish trading posts), the community now serves the commercial activity (respecting its rights).
We used the the powers of naturally-born persons, delegated to state legislatures, to create (through the fiat of public law) "persons" to shield officers and investors from their financial liability of a commercial venture goes wrong. And now those "persons" compete with the naturally-born persons for representation of those delegated powers from naturally-born persons(!).
That has nothing to do with groups of people (like the elderly, the NRA, pro-life, et. al.) joining freely together to consolidate their representation. | | |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by amigo_boy:Personally, I believe the SC ruled the way it did to force Congress to deal with the underlying problem: corporations considered "persons" equal to living persons. And I think it's too late. With the power lobbyists have over Congress now, It's unlikely we'll ever see change on this issue.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
