Scalia says the 14th amendment doesn't apply to women

[Fear_Itself]

@Pierrot_Le_Fou

Because you claimed that the “press” as the founder understood it included movies and all forms of media. I would like to see some authority for this view.

Because the Constitution used a collective noun, “the press” and did not exclude electronic media.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Pierrot_Le_Fou

First, the Supreme Court established corporate personhood long before Citizens, in 1886 to be exact, meaning Scalia could not have established a precedent of corporate personhood even if he made a ruling respecting corporate personhood, which he did not. Second, you bolded a part of the first amendment a part of the first amendment that applies to assembly not speech. Third, Scalia’s analysis does not argue for or rely on corporate personhood. Scalia’s position is that the government cannot restrict speech whether it is made by an individual acting alone or individuals acting in a group. Scalia’s position is that by allowing the government to infringe on corporate speech, the Court would be allowing the government to infringe on the right of individuals to speak as part of a group. After all, a corporation is nothing but a bunch of individuals.

I also might add, as noted before, that while a corporation is a collection of people a corporation in no way pretends to speak for those people.

I own stock, no corporation I own stock in has solicited my view to speak for me. Not once, not ever.

If I join something like the NRA then fine…they are explicitly an organization to advance a singular cause. If I give them money I am joining with others to pool our resources to advance that cause.

If I have stock in Exxon that is not the case at all. The Board and/or president are able to leverage the company’s resources to affect the political landscape. They never ask me or anyone if I agree. They do NOT speak for me.

[Pierrot_Le_Fou]

@Whack-a-Mole

It seems to me the whole US constitution was a document to spell out the rights of the people and the restrictions of government.

Please point to anywhere in the constitution where “corporations” are mentioned.

To grant corporations constitutional protections on par with the people is to grant corporations personhood. There is no way around that because the cosntitution never ever ever ever mentions corporations. Not once.

The rights in the constitution is a covenant between the people and the government.

Corporations are not mentioned in the constitution, but corporations are made up of people. I agree that the corporate personhood cases are problematic, but Citizens is not a corporate personhood case. It is about individuals coming to together to speak as a group. Whack-a-mole, what is your position on corporate presses? Can the government shut them down at any time?

Whack-a-mole, do you think the government can just take corporate property without due process? How is that not a taking from the individuals that make up the corporation?

[Pierrot_Le_Fou]

@Whack-a-Mole

I also might add, as noted before, that while a corporation is a collection of people a corporation in no way pretends to speak for those people.

I own stock, no corporation I own stock in has solicited my view to speak for me. Not once, not ever.

If I join something like the NRA then fine…they are explicitly an organization to advance a singular cause. If I give them money I am joining with others to pool our resources to advance that cause.

If I have stock in Exxon that is not the case at all. The Board and/or president are able to leverage the company’s resources to affect the political landscape. They never ask me or anyone if I agree. They do NOT speak for me.

You get to vote for the corporation to extent of your ownership.

[Pierrot_Le_Fou]

@Fear_Itself

What does NOW have to do with corporate speech? I think you are just jerking us around now.

NOW is a 501(c)(3) corporation.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Pierrot_Le_Fou

You get to vote for the corporation to extent of your ownership.

And if the Chinese own 50.1% of it then what?

[Pierrot_Le_Fou]

@Whack-a-Mole

Now, because of Scalia, China can directly affect US elections. All they need is a company incorporated in the US. Nevermind if it is wholly owned by Chinese (or whoever) interests. They can now funnel all the money they want to affect any election they want.

That makes sense to you? A Chinese national should be allowed to sway elections in the US as they see fit? (And not to pick on the Chinese…just an example…take your pick).

I am pretty sure politicians are restricted from taking foreign money. This neatly sidesteps that.

Again, free speech can and does have restrictions on it. Not allowing foreign money in our elections would be one such. This gets around that completely.

You are ok with that Pierrot Le Fou?

What you wrote is not true. Foreign money is regulated by a section (2 USC 441e) that was not a issue in* Citizens*. And even if a foreigners set up a corporation in America, FEC regulations prevent what you are claiming:

@11 CFR 110.20(i)

A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or poltical organization with regard to such person’s Federal or non-Federal election-related activities, such as decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local office or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.

http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.pdf

CFR-2010-title11-vol1.pdf

[Pierrot_Le_Fou]

@Whack-a-Mole

And if the Chinese own 50.1% of it then what?

They cannot direct anything related to elections. See 11 CFR 110.20(i) quoted above.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Pierrot_Le_Fou

Corporations are not mentioned in the constitution, but corporations are made up of people. I agree that the corporate personhood cases are problematic, but Citizens is not a corporate personhood case. It is about individuals coming to together to speak as a group. Whack-a-mole, what is your position on corporate presses? Can the government shut them down at any time?

Whack-a-mole, do you think the government can just take corporate property without due process? How is that not a taking from the individuals that make up the corporation?

Individuals coming together as a group are the likes of the NRA or NOW and so on. They are supported by donations of their members. I have no problem with them as a concept (I may have a problem with their message but that is a different thing).

Exxon is not in business to push an agenda. They are in business to sell oil.

Does Exxon poll its shareholders to push an agenda or support a candidate? Do they poll their employees?

Exxon DOES NOT speak for me yet as a shareholder (I’m not but if I were) they can use my money to push agendas I do not agree with.

As such they are not a “person” and should not enjoy 1st amendment protection.

That said I would not muzzle them but realizing this reality allows for restriction. Same as we have many restrictions on our constitutional rights. The 14th does not prohibit men’s and women’s bathrooms for example. The courts recognize necessary boundaries to our rights and demand if a law impinges on those rights that it meet a stern set of tests.

This is how it should be.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Pierrot_Le_Fou

They cannot direct anything related to elections. See 11 CFR 110.20(i) quoted above.

Swell…so Citizens United only pertains to a corporation that is 100% owned by US citizens? 90%? 75%? How much?

Most companies that sell stock have some foreign ownership. Did Scalia point out where the line is drawn?

Seems to me the ruling allows any company incorporated in the US the protections of the 1st amendment without regard to who owns it.

Constitution trumps federal law.

[Whack-a-Mole]

As for the press being censored:

A publisher may publish Das Kapital and Wealth of Nations. They cannot be stopped because to do so is really censoring the author.

If an employee of Exxon writes a book the government cannot stop it. It is not Exxon pushing the idea.

If Exxon writes a book things are different. The law did not even stop them from that but restricted how and when Exxon could do it. Exxon is not a person. Exxon is not a citizen.

[Pierrot_Le_Fou]

@Whack-a-Mole

Individuals coming together as a group are the likes of the NRA or NOW and so on. They are supported by donations of their members. I have no problem with them as a concept (I may have a problem with their message but that is a different thing).

Exxon is not in business to push an agenda. They are in business to sell oil.

Does Exxon poll its shareholders to push an agenda or support a candidate? Do they poll their employees?

Exxon DOES NOT speak for me yet as a shareholder (I’m not but if I were) they can use my money to push agendas I do not agree with.

As such they are not a “person” and should not enjoy 1st amendment protection.

That said I would not muzzle them but realizing this reality allows for restriction. Same as we have many restrictions on our constitutional rights. The 14th does not prohibit men’s and women’s bathrooms for example. The courts recognize necessary boundaries to our rights and demand if a law impinges on those rights that it meet a stern set of tests.

This is how it should be.

Exxon may feel that pushing an agenda helps them sell oil. A stock holder has as much say in this decision as any other. A stockholder may not agree with press releases from a corporation, either.

And Citizens does not give corporations the right to free speech. It restricts the government from infringing corporate speech, which would infringe the free speech of the individuals that make up the corporation. You can say that it is not the purpose of a corporation to speak, but that is a decision that the stockholders make through their election of corporate officers.

[Pierrot_Le_Fou]

@Whack-a-Mole

As for the press being censored:

A publisher may publish Das Kapital and Wealth of Nations. They cannot be stopped because to do so is really censoring the author.

What is the author is not an American, like Marx or Smith?

[Pierrot_Le_Fou]

@Whack-a-Mole

Swell…so Citizens United only pertains to a corporation that is 100% owned by US citizens? 90%? 75%? How much?

Most companies that sell stock have some foreign ownership. Did Scalia point out where the line is drawn?

Seems to me the ruling allows any company incorporated in the US the protections of the 1st amendment without regard to who owns it.

Constitution trumps federal law.

The ruling does not allow any company incorporated to have 1st amendment protections. The Court expressly declined to rule on foreign issues (they weren’t even at issue), so those provisions remain good law. And again, the decision does not give the corporation the right. It prevents the government from interfering with rights of the individuals that make up the corporation.

I don’t know what the percentages are for ownership, but it is not 100%. The corporation, however, cannot a foreigner directing the speech in any way.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Pierrot_Le_Fou

Exxon may feel that pushing an agenda helps them sell oil. A stock holder has as much say in this decision as any other. A stockholder may not agree with press releases from a corporation, either.

And Citizens does not give corporations the right to free speech. It restricts the government from infringing corporate speech, which would infringe the free speech of the individuals that make up the corporation. You can say that it is not the purpose of a corporation to speak, but that is a decision that the stockholders make through their election of corporate officers.

I’m not sure what distinction you are making in the second paragraph.

Courts usually realize the realities of a given situation. Despite the 14th we have men’s and women’s bathrooms for instance. Laws differ due to women being the ones who get pregnant. And so on…

That said the courts apply special scrutiny to such laws if they distinguish between men and women.

There is nothing wrong with applying that to corporations and individuals. Clearly a corporation is not a person. As such applying the law differently is not amiss.

Scalia tossed that in the bin and the results are frightening.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Pierrot_Le_Fou

The ruling does not allow any company incorporated to have 1st amendment protections. The Court expressly declined to rule on foreign issues (they weren’t even at issue), so those provisions remain good law. And again, the decision does not give the corporation the right. It prevents the government from interfering with rights of the individuals that make up the corporation.

I don’t know what the percentages are for ownership, but it is not 100%. The corporation, however, cannot a foreigner directing the speech in any way.

As an aside I would like this explicitly spelled out.

Not trying to play a game and give you an impossible task. Merely I think it is important to the discussion at hand.

Most any company that sells stock will likely have foreign investors. Where is the line drawn?

[Pierrot_Le_Fou]

@Whack-a-Mole

As an aside I would like this explicitly spelled out.

Not trying to play a game and give you an impossible task. Merely I think it is important to the discussion at hand.

Most any company that sells stock will likely have foreign investors. Where is the line drawn?

I don’t know election well enough to know the percentage. I am sure you could look it up. There is a proposal to lower the percentage of ownership to 5%, but I don’t know where it is now. c

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Pierrot_Le_Fou

I don’t know election well enough to know the percentage. I am sure you could look it up. There is a proposal to lower the percentage of ownership to 5%, but I don’t know where it is now. c

5% total?

I can live with that.

I doubt there is a company that sells stock (at least of any note) that can claim they are 95% owned by US citizens.

My cite earlier suggests this is extremely unlikely.

[Pierrot_Le_Fou]

@Whack-a-Mole

I’m not sure what distinction you are making in the second paragraph.

The Court did not recognize a right of the corporation itself. It recognized the rights of the individuals that make up the corporation.

Courts usually realize the realities of a given situation. Despite the 14th we have men’s and women’s bathrooms for instance. Laws differ due to women being the ones who get pregnant. And so on…

That said the courts apply special scrutiny to such laws if they distinguish between men and women.

There is nothing wrong with applying that to corporations and individuals. Clearly a corporation is not a person. As such applying the law differently is not amiss.

Scalia tossed that in the bin and the results are frightening.

Again, the decision recognizes the rights of individuals that make up the corporation, not the corporation itself.

[Pierrot_Le_Fou]

@Whack-a-Mole

5% total?

I can live with that.

I doubt there is a company that sells stock (at least of any note) that can claim they are 95% owned by US citizens.

My cite earlier suggests this is extremely unlikely.

That’s just a proposal. I have no idea what it actually is. I think it might be much higher.

I would still like to know your position on the government’s ability to block a corporate publisher when the author is a foreigner.