You are completely ignoring the fact that corporations have rights because they are comprised of people.
Typically exercise one right does not mean you forfeit other rights.
So when you exercise your first amendment right of assembly and association by forming a corporation with others in order to pursue a common goal you do not give up your right of political speech.
Personally I am glad the NAACP had the right of assembly, as well as the unions. Why should workers be mute if they incorporate as a Union?
Do you really think that buy limiting the speech of groups of people like the NEA, NAACP, NRA, AARP or other corporations will mean that more voices are heard in Washington?
IMHO the movement should be pushing Obama and congress to apply the Accumulated Earnings Tax on C corps too, I think there is no way apple could justify having $76,000,000,000 in cash.
Also mutual fund and pension holders should get corp voting rights passed through to them, so that the “Institutional investors” of these stocks have more control over who is sitting on the board.
But the reality is that as I have seen several times before the Left is good at yelling but really bad at the follow through.
This movement is all about blowing off steam and is so disorganized and broad with their message that it will accomplish little.
So the army is a person. The freshman class at U of M is a person. The Catholic Church is a person.
That is really dumb. I suppose they all should have rights as a person?
I made a disparaging remark about hippies and made 'luci mad, so maybe this applies to me. Allow me to explain.
When I use the word ‘hippie’, I am referring to what Deadheads had become in the decade after I graduated from high school, 10-20 years ago. In my personal experience in a particular place and time, the hippies had hardly anything at all to do with social consciousness. They seemed to have become followers of a religion of ‘never get a job’, ‘mooch off of anyone you can’, and ‘take any drug you can get your hands on.’ They certainly didn’t limit themselves to weed and acid IME. I’m sorry, they were simply irresponsible, vapid and frankly openly criminal. Shoplifting was very in vogue. Stealing in general- they stole from me, they stole from everyone whose house they got into AFAIK. Having a job made a person suspect to them, and also selfish if you didn’t support them and their ever-growing band of buddies indefinitely. I wasn’t exactly Mr. Square in those days either.
To me this is distinct from the 60’s hippies who may have engaged in some of the same behavior but at the same time also had a clear and worthy cause. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. I admit there is no way to tell from my previous comments that I was disparaging my idea of '90’s hippies and not 60’s hippies (who I tend to like).
Anyway, it doesn’t seem like the #occupy Wall Street movement has much to do with hippies no matter how you slice it. Even The New Yorker remarked at the remarkable lack of pot smoking in Zucotti Park.
Let us see what Justice Kennedy wrote in the opinion:
Corporate person-hood is separate and was not the reason 2 U.S.C. § 441(b) has held as unconstitutional.
Ignoring the army because it is part of the government and thus subject to the restrictions of the 1st vs being offered protection by it (although it’s member are) I would say yes, student bodies and churches should have the freedom of political speech.
The legal vehicle the people use to form an association is immaterial, the freedom of association is the core fundamental right.
I strongly disagree with the politics of Citizens United-ed’s poorly written movie, but I still see no reason to allow the government to silence their political speech.
If you want to debate the issue of corporate person-hood we can, it is quite useful to have a fictitious person to sue or hold responsible (even if our politicians fail at their duty to do so)
Yes the occupations are getting international attention and are growing.
’ Corporate person hood was created by subterfuge in 1886. The decision used as a precedence, should have been scrapped. The supremes said the case was not going to deal with person hood, but the court recorder, a former railroad exec, included it anyway.
It was a bullshit case and should have been immediately fixed.
I think you may want to go back and read some more, Corporations were artificial persons in common law.
As an example it was Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819 and Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of Pawlet in 1823
So what is this “bullshit” that you claim?
Are you talking about the application of the 14th to corporations?
Are you saying that any state should be able to deprive corporations of property without due process of law?
Should the state of Alabama be able to seize the assets of the ACLU without going through the courts?
Or are you just unaware that the 14th was written in a way that was intended to give rights to former slaves while attempting to prevent giving those same rights to Indians or Asians.
I think it may be useful if you realized that the very first SCOTUS case of 1886 was Yick Wo v. Hopkins where San Francisco had passed a law in order to discriminate against Chinese immigrants who owned laundries so they had extended 14th amendment protections to other groups that same session.
But I would say through what method would you claim that people lose their right to due process because they have formed a corporation. How do you justify that those owners have no right to due process of law?
This is where I think that the anger is misdirected and wasted, people should be demanding the government should be perusing criminal actions through the law, not around it.
I was at the occupation today. I met a guy who was a Ron Paul fan. He was anti-Federal Reserve too.
I met people from many walks of life and all ages. Since it is only starting, a few groups sent people to scope it out. There were union people. There were engineers who dropped a wad of money in the basket for helping feed the people. There were no hippies at all. Everyone seemed to be working people.
The organizers have a tricky problem because there are so many different types of people, with different problems. Some were concerned about foreclosures. Some were concerned about the 1 percent looting the system. The Ron Paul fans thought we need to at least audit the Fed, on a regular basis. The union people were concerned about the Right Wing anti union pressures being exerted. Many were upset by income disparity. There were people pissed about the bankers not having to answer for their crimes. They also did not see how the Ratings agencies were able to walk away in the clear. Some were pissed by the credit card rates and fees being jacked up .
There is no spokesman because there are a lot of complaints about the bankers and politicians. There is no single complaint.
Some are also concerned about the unemployment problem. In Detroit it is huge.
The fact that unemployment is being cut in Michigan is a concern. Welfare time is also being slashed too.
That is why there is no spokesman. There are lots of them.
The key word in the headline “massive”.
Do you suggest if Sharpton shows up it puts the entire march in question. Or can you get past your petty hatreds?
Mmm hmmm. You are not all vulnerable and sensitive :rolleyes:
Just remember you are my favorite 'doper, no matter what I say about hippies.
I sometimes wonder if I am not a reincarnated dead hippie, a la Ubik. Maybe I met you back then, croaked, and returned in the early '70s as another person. I mean, maybe not is also a possibility…
I mean, I am actually not very good at yoga, but sometimes it makes me wonder.
Anyway*, I think we ought to explore the space between the concepts of a total revocation of corporate personhood and a reversal on the position that money=speech.
Living in Florida I tend to forget that, out on the West Coast somewhere, hippies still exist. I saw some when I visited my brother when he lived there. We really don’t have them here – you’ll see somebody wearing tie-dye and sandals now and then but it’s not the same.
Sharpton is irrelevant.That is why he likes to stick his face in front of so many causes. Nobody sees him as a spokesman. He needs all the press he can get. He speaks for Sharpton.
He is like Bill Kristol, who has been wrong about everything for so long, that it is a joke. But his face is on Fox almost everyday.
They can not take any scrutiny whatsoever.
In context, shouldn’t that be, “Peace and Love, Sibling! puff cough hug”?