how-to block ads
|reply to MyDogHsFleas |
Re: SCOTUS can't get anything right lately
Spin it how you want clown. The only legal standing they have is one of the absolute most horrible rulings the SC has ever made. You make my entire point for me in your posting.
The individuals that make up the corporation, whether it be management or stock holders are the ones with the 1st amendment right and have every right to execute it. So now, you want those individuals (corporate management) to not only have the right to execute it themselves with the limits imposed on them as true people, but then you want them to be able to execute them a second time without all the silly little restrictions put on them as if they were actual people. At the same time doing so for most likely thousands of others who you know as well as I do have very little choice in voting out any officer in a corporation. That group is still a small elitist group with stock that actually gives them voting rights.
While we are at it, why dont we give them full voting rights and not impose the "vote once" rule on them? Are they not "people" enough for that? How about Social Security, medicare when they hit 62 1/2, or welfare if they arent making money? Oh that's right... the entire intent of this is to only give them people rights in that it serves their greed and ability to manipulate policy. They aren't people enough to get all the other entitlements. How convenient huh?
Lets take this even one step further. How about the next time a corporation is convicted of criminal activity that the entire management team and all stock holders go to jail for it? They are "the people" of this corporation person entity are they not and thus should be held accountable just as any single person would? I would even be willing to give you a concession and say all Executive team members and all voting stock holders instead of EVERY single one person. If they want to be a people, then lets make them a people and stop dancing.
I believe you are arguing over the wrong case. THIS ruling has absolutely nothing to do with free speech issues for Corporations. It was simply whether or not a Federal law allowing mandatory arbitration trumped state laws prohibiting it, which boils down to whether or not Federal law trumps state, and the Constitution says it does. The court did it's job.
said by Camelot One:Yes you're absolutely correct. Skippy tossed in the issue of corporations having First Amendment rights of speech, so I was just trying to educate him.
I believe you are arguing over the wrong case. THIS ruling has absolutely nothing to do with free speech issues for Corporations.
SKIPPY: first thanks for the name calling, guess you're getting desperate. Look, dude, I give up. How many times can I say, please educate yourself before going off. You are imagining a legal framework for corporations that you might wish to be, but is nothing like the way it is. I've tried to calmly give you the facts (not opinions). One more time: there is a definition of a "legal person" that includes corporations. This is established law and is fundamental to how corporations are treated in the legal system. Look it up, learn, deal with reality. Here's a Wikipedia link which comes up first when you do a simple Google search on "corporation legal person". I quote from the linked article:
The concept of a legal person is now central to Western law in both common law and civil law countries, but it is also found in virtually every legal system. Corporations are by definition legal persons. (In the United States) because of the First Amendment, Congress can't make a law restricting the free speech of a corporation, a political action group or dictating the coverage of a local newspaper.