New Constitutional Ammendment

[dblack]

So, you're suggesting that corporation law should be changed to eliminate owner protection?

To some degree, yes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They are. The thing is, corporations were created to limit liability to the actual assets of the business. Eliminating that protection will eliminate investments in corporations.

Why do you say that? Again, I'm not talking about 'unlimited' liability. Just something in between that, and what we have now. The circumstance I'm trying to avoid is something like the following:

If the sole owner of a business hired someone and told them "do whatever it takes to turn a profit", and the employee went out and did all kinds of unscrupulous acts, I assume you'd agree the owner should be held accountable. Well, I see something similar going on with corporations. That's why CEO's are paid so much. They're essentially hired guns, to do the dirty work of the investors, who reap the profits generated by the questionable practices of the executive officers of the corporation. I don't think it's right that the 'owners' of the corporation should be insulated from the activities from which they profit.

Do I think an employer should be held responsible for his employee's actions? Not really, unless that employer specifically told him to do something that caused damage.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Constitutional Convention

An even worse super bad idea.

As court interpretations of the constitution grows, the people have less and less voice on how their government is run.

The peoples’ voice is through their elected officials in a Constitutional Republic – both the people and the government are subject to the rule of law. The Constitution and its subsequent case law codifies that law. We do not want the people making decisions pertaining to individuals’ civil rights via popular vote. See: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.

The constitution needs to be looked at as a living document that changes as times change. IMHO, if the founding fathers were writing the constitution today, if would look quite different.

Actually it would look exactly the same, the Constitution is neither living nor static; it codifies the basic principles of the rule of law necessary to protect our freedoms and rights no government or constitution gave us nor can take away.

Justice Kennedy expressed it perfectly in Lawrence v Texas:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

 

[Nemo]

A corporation is an artificial person. It is a creature of statute, and a citizen of the state of its incorporation. Once formed, a corporation has all the rights and privileges of a natural person, except voting (which it does nevertheless with its checkbook), or appear in federal courts except by attorney; for, unlike a natural person, a corporation may only act through its officers, directors and agents. A corporation, like a natural person, may be licensed to do business in a state other than its domicile. Like a natural person, a corporation may be held accountable for it acts, and even convicted of crimes. Corporations have been around for some time; and, unlike a natural person, a corporation can, potentially, exist indefinitely. Our cities and many towns are municipal corporations through which local government is exercised.

The problem is not with corporations, but those who would abuse its franchise, and much that is wrong with our country is due to such misuse. The pernicious influence of corporate corruption is ubiquitous, even in the halls of Congress where their lobbyists peddle their influence. It is their doing that much of the tax code is so unfairly balanced to the point of subsidization of corporate business, and it is their agenda that sponsors much of the so-called "reform" legislation that has been recently enacted. It is like a cancer that has spread into every cell of our social structure and civic institutions to the detriment of individual rights and liberties.

Is there any remedy? The courthouse doors have been all but closed for individual legal redress; and there are even efforts being made to undermine the independence of the federal judiciary which threatens to subvert the constitutional checks and balances to the excesses of government. Therefore, it will have to be the responsibility of every citizen to be vigilant in overseeing their representatives and holding them accountable lest our democracy turn into a corporate tyranny.

 

[Flopper]

Therefore, it will have to be the responsibility of every citizen to be vigilant in overseeing their representatives and holding them accountable lest our democracy turn into a corporate tyranny.

Hate to be so pessimistic, but I think this is highly unlikely. Over 40% don't know who represents them. Only about 1 in 3 Americans vote in the midterms. Although you would hardly know it from reading this message board, most Americans consider themselves non-political meaning they manage to vote once every 4 years and that's about the extent of their political activity.

 

[MaggieMae]

Constitutional Convention

An even worse super bad idea.

As court interpretations of the constitution grows, the people have less and less voice on how their government is run.

The peoples’ voice is through their elected officials in a Constitutional Republic – both the people and the government are subject to the rule of law. The Constitution and its subsequent case law codifies that law. We do not want the people making decisions pertaining to individuals’ civil rights via popular vote. See: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.

The constitution needs to be looked at as a living document that changes as times change. IMHO, if the founding fathers were writing the constitution today, if would look quite different.

Actually it would look exactly the same, the Constitution is neither living nor static; it codifies the basic principles of the rule of law necessary to protect our freedoms and rights no government or constitution gave us nor can take away.

Justice Kennedy expressed it perfectly in Lawrence v Texas:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

Your Kennedy quote contradicts your opinion that it's not a living document. The founders didn't even get it all right regarding the "basic rules" because almost as soon as the ink was dry, the first ten amendments were being drawn. What held then as a "basic rule" may not have the same effect on the populace as the nation modernized and grew in population. That's why the US Supreme Court reasserts the "law of the land" with its decisions, but there are certain clauses in the basic tenets of the Constitution that need to be rewritten so that the USSC doesn't have to visit bits and pieces of those constantly, which is why I suggested a Constitutional Convention.

 

[MikeK]

"money is not speech" seems like a loaded phrase, [...]

What is "loaded" about it?

Money is property. It is a medium of exchange. Speech is communication. The specious idea that money is speech is predicated on the notion that giving money can be a means of promoting a political thought or supporting a political candidate. While that might be true within a very narrow range of circumstances it is equally true that giving anything of value can serve the same purpose, which by the same reasoning would hold that a canned ham or a gratuitous sex act is also speech.

I would like to ask those Supreme Court Justices who decided that money is speech just how much money and in what form or denominations must I send to them to clearly articulate the thought, "Fuck You!" And exactly how they would manage to interpret the message, complete with capitals and expressive punctuation.

 

[editec]

Do we need this new constitutional ammendment: "Corporations are not citizens and money is not speech"?

Among others, yes.

We might also create a consitutional amendment detailing how to run honest elections.

While we're at it, we might consider rewriting the 2nd amendment to make it absolutely clear that citizens have the right to bear arms, regardless of whether or not they form into local or State militias.

 

[dblack]

"money is not speech" seems like a loaded phrase, [...]

What is "loaded" about it?

It's loaded because it seems to imply that spending money to facilitate 'speaking' isn't a constitutional right, and that doesn't make sense to me. Freedom of speech without the right to spend money in carrying it out is rather pointless. Do we have the right to speak freely but not the right to spend our own money on a microphone and loudspeakers?

I appreciate the intent of "money is not speech" - presumably to prevent quid pro quo donations that amount to bribery - but limiting our rights to donate to a cause we believe in is something of a sledgehammer approach. It's far more effective to prevent elected leaders from "returning the favor". That's precisely why constitutional limits on government and equal protection are such important concepts. If politicians aren't allowed to pass the kinds of laws and policies that these wealthy interests are 'buying' the potential for bribery is drastically reduced - without reducing the right of citizens to express themselves via monetary support.

The real question lurking behind "money is not speech" is whether the legal concept of corporate personhood grants corporations all the same rights as a real person - like freedom of speech - in the first place. And I find that a dubious position. Corporations can't be held accountable for their actions in the same way real people can and that to me is where the concept breaks down. You can't arrest a corporation and put it in jail. You can't even hold the owners of the corporation accountable.