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.
They weren't decided in the Santa Clara case....It was sneaked in by a clerk, as Yurt very nicely pointed out. I haven't said that there wasn't chicanery involved, just that this is how the decision has been (wrongly) interpreted and applied.Not misread at all...It's merely an intended interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Corporate personhoodBut it's misread, and misused. since you have made the claim - repeatedly - please be kind enough to explain in detail where Santa Clara holds that corporations (or unions, etc.) are entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizenship under the 14th.
That decision dovetails with the passage of 16 Stat 419, in 1871, which created the corporation known as "District of Columbia".
Subsequently, under the auspices of statutory law, the feds became the be-all-end-all dispenser of "civil (as opposed to natural and/or God-given inherent) rights".
You keep on about the 14th, Santa Clara and the District of Columbia. Please explain first, where the 14th Amendment issues are decided in Santa Clara and second, where the incorporation of the District of Columbia (or any incorporated geographical or municipal unit, for that matter) creates citizenship rights under the 14th for corporations and unions in general. Finally, I'd love to see what one has to do with the other.
So all this means is that we go back to the times before the airwaves were deluged by ads from 501c's, 527's and other PACS. We've been there before and it's certainly not as if corporations had not already found ways to get around the unconstitutional provisions of McCain/Feingold. Maybe we can try campaign reform again and get it right this time.
Honestly, I hope you're right that they'll try again. McCain Feingold was a joke.
But I doubt they will. After all, the same people who make the laws are the ones benefitting from the current system. Why would they choke their own golden geese?
Once the politicians are all completely bought and paid for,
Much ado about nothing. This was a Free Speech issue and apparently they ruled that Corporations are people too. I have to agree with them on this one. If Moveon.org and various other Liberal loons can spend $Millions on trashing Corporations,i see no reason why the Corporations shouldn't have the right to respond to such attacks. Corporations really are people too. It's true.
Wow... really? Perhaps you should just leave then.
Money is not speech and corporations are not persons.
The only spin is pretending they are.
Well, Queen. I never said money was speech and I never called coproations persons.
So exactly why did you post that?
I posted it because the Supreme Court decision claims that money = speech and corporations = persons. And because you told him to stop spinning.
It's pretty easily understood. I hope this helps.
Once the politicians are all completely bought and paid for,
What do you mean "once"? the vast majority of "the politicians" are ALREADY bought and paid for.
They weren't decided in the Santa Clara case....It was sneaked in by a clerk, as Yurt very nicely pointed out. I haven't said that there wasn't chicanery involved, just that this is how the decision has been (wrongly) interpreted and applied.Not misread at all...It's merely an intended interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Corporate personhood
That decision dovetails with the passage of 16 Stat 419, in 1871, which created the corporation known as "District of Columbia".
Subsequently, under the auspices of statutory law, the feds became the be-all-end-all dispenser of "civil (as opposed to natural and/or God-given inherent) rights".
You keep on about the 14th, Santa Clara and the District of Columbia. Please explain first, where the 14th Amendment issues are decided in Santa Clara and second, where the incorporation of the District of Columbia (or any incorporated geographical or municipal unit, for that matter) creates citizenship rights under the 14th for corporations and unions in general. Finally, I'd love to see what one has to do with the other.
The interface between the use of the hijacking of Santa Clara, as it relates to the District of Columbia Corporation dispensing "civil" rights, appears obvious to me...How is it unclear to you?
Once the politicians are all completely bought and paid for,
What do you mean "once"? the vast majority of "the politicians" are ALREADY bought and paid for.
And now there is no doubt that they will all be.
There are some still who legislate according to what their constituents believe.
Those will be run out by new ones who legislate according to what their corporate bosses believe.
The semantic wrangling and parsing is at the center of the issue....That's the point. Try parsing the difference between "Must and/or Shall" and "are required", in legalese.One has to do with some semantic wrangling and an obscure statutory provision. The other is again statutory in nature, done to organize a political entity that is in effect (if you like the corporate terms) a wholly owned subsidiary of the Federal government.
I fail to see the 14th being decided in either situation.
WAKE UP. We can control things.......
I really feel sorry for you since you obviously have no idea how business works. You make it sound like these top 1% are out there making all this money doing nothing, completely by themselves. These big corporations have thousands of people working for them to sell a good or service that is needed and wanted, otherwise they wouldn't have anyone purchasing said good/service.There will be more money redistribution to the top 1% and the rest of us will get poorer.
The country wholly controlled by District of Columbia Corporation.Sorry, I for one don't want to live in a country controlled wholly by corporations. Not even a little bit.
WAKE UP. We can control things.......
Do YOU have the money and power to go up against insurance, big pharma and agribusiness? I take it you just LOVE high fructose corn syrup in every damn thing made and beef that is irradiated so that they can allow more shit in it. And you LOVE having health insurance that only 1-2% (if that) of the population could afford without employers matching. Or how much taxpayer money was stolen by Amreican corporations during the Iraq war.
If you're right, why didn't we, the American people get a vote on this??? This is pretty important legislation, is it not?
The semantic wrangling and parsing is at the center of the issue....That's the point. Try parsing the difference between "Must and/or Shall" and "are required", in legalese.One has to do with some semantic wrangling and an obscure statutory provision. The other is again statutory in nature, done to organize a political entity that is in effect (if you like the corporate terms) a wholly owned subsidiary of the Federal government.
I fail to see the 14th being decided in either situation.
Your observation that the political organizations are (for all practical purposes) wholly owned subsidiaries of District of Columbia Corporation is on the mark.
