Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If I'm reading your post accurately, you just fell into the trap. The issue isn't duplicate votes, but that is one corporations are prepared to fight.
With all due respect, the issue is a simple one: does the constitution give the right to vote to bloodless entities and the answer is "No." That camel's nose first got under the tent when the railroad men writing the 14th Amendment excised "natural born" from the original phrase "natural born persons" throughout the amendment. These same men later induced a court clerk to misrepresent SCOUTUS' decision in the notes of the Santa Clara case (1880s).
More recently, nutball hero John Roberts (the bag man between Baker and Rehnquist in 2000) led a gaggle of bought-and-paid-for nutballs in black robes to open the door to that right with their decision in CITIZENS UNITED. Lest some halfwit believe me to be one of the fake liberal fascists passing for liberal today, KELO is an equal legal abomination from the freakshow side of the court.
Neither party has demonstrated as much substantive interest in constitutional limits as in constitutional imperatives since affirmative action was accepted. Like Obamacare, corporations were behind it, but others got the blame. Unlike Obamacare, there were legitimate moral and legal cases for suspending the constitution for maybe twenty years to support fully enfranchising women and racial minorities previously disenfranchised by law. At this point aa is well past its prime, causing more problems than it is paying to the nation in benefits. The only moral argument for retaining aa these days is if it is changed from race and sex to material condition and limited to educational opportunities.
This is not a constitutional issue, so stop trying to base your argument on the constitution. The issue is should any entity that pays taxes be able to vote on said taxes, not should corporations be able to vote. You could easily solve this problem by not forcing corporations to pay taxes, but your brain would probably die if you untwisted it that much.
To recap: Voting rights for bloodless entities is clearly - and SOLELY - a Constitutional issue. Nothing in the Constitution contemplates voting rights for bloodless entities. Not. Anything.
It took the filthy degenerate scum of the earth to raise the issue to its current status. Most recently, it was the Bush League cocksucker John Roberts who elevated corporations' rights to limitless political propaganda.
Now we're down to seeing whether the lowlife scum of the earth win and America loses, or if there are enough rational people remaining to somehow overcome Democrats and Republicans legislative and judicial shilling for corporations and roll back corporate hegemony over the United States of America.
One vote if the corporation owns property within the district. What's all the panic about? Democrats taught a long standing veteran poll official that it was OK to vote two or three times if her daughter couldn't make it to the polls.
What if it's an international corporation? Still ok for them to vote?
This is not a constitutional issue, so stop trying to base your argument on the constitution. The issue is should any entity that pays taxes be able to vote on said taxes, not should corporations be able to vote. You could easily solve this problem by not forcing corporations to pay taxes, but your brain would probably die if you untwisted it that much.
To recap: Voting rights for bloodless entities is clearly - and SOLELY - a Constitutional issue. Nothing in the Constitution contemplates voting rights for bloodless entities. Not. Anything.
It took the filthy degenerate scum of the earth to raise the issue to its current status. Most recently, it was the Bush League cocksucker John Roberts who elevated corporations' rights to limitless political propaganda.
Now we're down to seeing whether the lowlife scum of the earth win and America loses, or if there are enough rational people remaining to somehow overcome Democrats and Republicans legislative and judicial shilling for corporations and roll back corporate hegemony over the United States of America.
Why don't you give me a list of all the cases the Supreme Court has ruled on in this area? It should be really easy, considering that multiple jurisdictions restrict voting rights based on residency, yet allow non residents to vote on tax issues.
One vote if the corporation owns property within the district. What's all the panic about? Democrats taught a long standing veteran poll official that it was OK to vote two or three times if her daughter couldn't make it to the polls.
What if it's an international corporation? Still ok for them to vote?
To recap: Voting rights for bloodless entities is clearly - and SOLELY - a Constitutional issue. Nothing in the Constitution contemplates voting rights for bloodless entities. Not. Anything.
It took the filthy degenerate scum of the earth to raise the issue to its current status. Most recently, it was the Bush League cocksucker John Roberts who elevated corporations' rights to limitless political propaganda.
Now we're down to seeing whether the lowlife scum of the earth win and America loses, or if there are enough rational people remaining to somehow overcome Democrats and Republicans legislative and judicial shilling for corporations and roll back corporate hegemony over the United States of America.
Why don't you give me a list of all the cases the Supreme Court has ruled on in this area? It should be really easy, considering that multiple jurisdictions restrict voting rights based on residency, yet allow non residents to vote on tax issues.
To recap: the issue isn't about natural born persons voting in multiple jurisdictions. I voted three times in 1980 and 1984 in three states (against Reagan and the Democrat in both instances) and can do that again any time it feels right. Anyone can do that.
The only issue we're going to discuss here is bloodless entities like corporations voting in the booth.
If there are cases on that, none are known to me.
Why don't you give me a list of all the cases the Supreme Court has ruled on in this area? It should be really easy, considering that multiple jurisdictions restrict voting rights based on residency, yet allow non residents to vote on tax issues.
To recap: the issue isn't about natural born persons voting in multiple jurisdictions. I voted three times in 1980 and 1984 in three states (against Reagan and the Democrat in both instances) and can do that again any time it feels right. Anyone can do that.
The only issue we're going to discuss here is bloodless entities like corporations voting in the booth.
If there are cases on that, none are known to me.
To recap, the issue is allowing one non resident officer of corporations that own property to vote in municipal elections concerning taxes. This is not a constitutional issue, and nothing you can ever blather will change that.
To recap: the issue isn't about natural born persons voting in multiple jurisdictions. I voted three times in 1980 and 1984 in three states (against Reagan and the Democrat in both instances) and can do that again any time it feels right. Anyone can do that.
The only issue we're going to discuss here is bloodless entities like corporations voting in the booth.
If there are cases on that, none are known to me.
To recap, the issue is allowing one non resident officer of corporations that own property to vote in municipal elections concerning taxes. This is not a constitutional issue, and nothing you can ever blather will change that.
Actually it is, will be, and will overthrow Citizens. Way to go Montana.
To recap, the issue is allowing one non resident officer of corporations that own property to vote in municipal elections concerning taxes. This is not a constitutional issue, and nothing you can ever blather will change that.
Actually it is, will be, and will overthrow Citizens. Way to go Montana.
It has nothing to do with Citizen's United, and is not a constitutional issue.
