Proof the SCOTUS decided against the founders intent

[bobbcat]

If that was their intention they would of made it clear, but corporations weren't rampant and gigantic back then.

So? Now that they are 'rampant' and 'gigantic,' they (USSC, Congress, executive branch) are to ignore the Constitution?

Bottom line is corporations are entitled to free speech.

Exactly.

 

[Dr Gregg]

If that was their intention they would of made it clear, but corporations weren't rampant and gigantic back then.

So? Now that they are 'rampant' and 'gigantic,' they (USSC, Congress, executive branch) are to ignore the Constitution?

Bottom line is corporations are entitled to free speech.

Exactly.

Who's ignoring the constitution? The SCOTUS ruled on it based on the constitution. It doesn't exclude corporations specifically. and that's why the constitution sets up the legislative branch and supreme court. Look , i hate the decision, but I also don't like when people make claims of the "intentions of the framers" either and claiming that SCOTUS isn't using the constitution in their decision.

\

 

[Truthmatters]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This is all anyone needs to realise they did not intend corporations to have special rights to have their right to speech defended.

The founders singled out ONE industry for obvious reasons.

They could have said all corporations in all fields if that was the intenet.

They did not.

they mentioned ONLY one industry.

Freedom of the press was the only exception to Human Beings they intended.

"OR."

Somebody will have to get "truthdoesn'tmattertoheratall" a remedial course in English so that she can begin to grasp the meaning of "disjunctive."

That is right and the founders considered industry separate from the freedom of speech and is why they felt it nesessary to mention this industry separately.


You just helped clarify my point fool.

 

[Truthmatters]

So since you don't think corporations are people, then you must agree that we shouldn't be able to sue a corporation either right?

Suing the company is effectively suing the people who comprise it.

Kinda like talking about 'the GOP' is talking about the people who comprise the body which they call the GOP.

Heres your problem, suing a corp is NOT like suing the people who comprize it. The entire REASON corporations exsist is to protect the individuals OWN possesions from being used to compensate a litigant who sues due to the companies actions.

In other words IT IS NOT THE SAME.

The PEOPLE who own or opperate the corporations already have freedom of speach and can donate to campaigns with the same limitations any American has. If they are not Americans they dont deserve this right huh?

Those that own or opperate this corps get better rights than a regular American citizens. They have no limit to the amount they can spend on an election.

 

[dilloduck]

So since you don't think corporations are people, then you must agree that we shouldn't be able to sue a corporation either right?

Suing the company is effectively suing the people who comprise it.

Kinda like talking about 'the GOP' is talking about the people who comprise the body which they call the GOP.

Heres your problem, suing a corp is NOT like suing the people who comprize it. The entire REASON corporations exsist is to protect the individuals OWN possesions from being used to compensate a litigant who sues due to the companies actions.

In other words IT IS NOT THE SAME.

The PEOPLE who own or opperate the corporations already have freedom of speach and can donate to campaigns with the same limitations any American has. If they are not Americans they dont deserve this right huh?

Those that own or opperate this corps get better rights than a regular American citizens. They have no limit to the amount they can spend on an election.

Both parties get all the money they need to buy votes one way or another----who cares how they do it ?

 

[Truthmatters]

they wont be buying any votes they will be OWNED by the corps.

 

[Yurt]

So since you don't think corporations are people, then you must agree that we shouldn't be able to sue a corporation either right?

Suing the company is effectively suing the people who comprise it.

Kinda like talking about 'the GOP' is talking about the people who comprise the body which they call the GOP.

Heres your problem, suing a corp is NOT like suing the people who comprize it. The entire REASON corporations exsist is to protect the individuals OWN possesions from being used to compensate a litigant who sues due to the companies actions.

In other words IT IS NOT THE SAME.

The PEOPLE who own or opperate the corporations already have freedom of speach and can donate to campaigns with the same limitations any American has. If they are not Americans they dont deserve this right huh?

Those that own or opperate this corps get better rights than a regular American citizens. They have no limit to the amount they can spend on an election.

i bet you support moveon.org and the democratic party when it comes to political advertising

 

[Truthmatters]

I would happily see them not be able to spend anything either if it meant corps had to follow suit.

 

[Yurt]

I would happily see them not be able to spend anything either if it meant corps had to follow suit.

uh huh...thats why you were complaining about them influencing elections prior to the scotus ruling....

you just got caught with your hand in the cookie jar

 

[Big Fitz]

they wont be buying any votes they will be OWNED by the corps.

I'm all for taking these rights away from corporations, as long as you include all unions, PACs, Political Parties and 527 groups too. Hard money from individuals only, which will be publicly known and capped at $2000 IIRC

No soft money allowed with heavy felony jail fines for those who violate it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

they wont be buying any votes they will be OWNED by the corps.

I'm all for taking these rights away from corporations, as long as you include all unions, PACs, Political Parties and 527 groups too. Hard money from individuals only, which will be publicly known and capped at $2000 IIRC

No soft money allowed with heavy felony jail fines for those who violate it.

Wow, for once a sensible remark. I would add no tickets to ball games, concerts or plays; no jobs for wives or kids or nephews/nieces/parents; no promises of jobs in the future for the elected offical, his wife, his kids or his mistress.
Full, total, complete, absolute transparency, and the media restricted to only primary sources with time alloted to conterpoints.
And, remove the protection from slander and libel when a public official is defamed. Prove the trouth of an allegation or go to jail.

 

[Big Fitz]

they wont be buying any votes they will be OWNED by the corps.

I'm all for taking these rights away from corporations, as long as you include all unions, PACs, Political Parties and 527 groups too. Hard money from individuals only, which will be publicly known and capped at $2000 IIRC

No soft money allowed with heavy felony jail fines for those who violate it.

Wow, for once sensible remark. I would add no tickets to ball games, concerts or plays; no jobs for wives or kids or nephews/nieces/parents; no promises of jobs in the future for the elected offical, his wife, his kids or his mistress.
Full, total, complete, absolute transparency, and the media restricted to only primary sources with time alloted to conterpoints.
And, remove the protection from slander and libel when a public official is defamed. Prove the trouth of an allegation or go to jail.

File all that under "Bribing a public official".

This has always been my stance.

I particularly enjoy and want to see the bolded text done regardless of the rest.