Ship of Fools: Purgatory: Is it time to overturn the first amendment?

Thread: Purgatory: Is it time to overturn the first amendment? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001190

Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :

SCOTUS recently overturned campaign finance laws in the U.S. They ruled that, as legal persons, congress could not limit corporate spending on political adverts.

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) is planning on introducing enabling legislation for a constitutional amendment to counter this ruling. Yet according to Norwalkplus.com:

quote:
Dodd’s proposed amendment would authorize Congress to regulate the raising and spending of money for state and federal political campaigns, and to implement and enforce the amendment through appropriate legislation.

This doesn't seem limited to blocking corporate speech. It seems to give congress nearly unlimited power to control elections at both the national and state level. It doesn't seem to single corporations out to any extent, but does give congress the power to limit specific groups it doesn't like.

IMO, this would likely leave us with a government much like China's with legacy princes deciding who to appoint to office. Is this the correct solution? It worked for China.

[ 29. December 2014, 22:09: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

Clearly, Dodds' proposal is ill-conceived. The right thing to do is impeach and remove from the bench those justices who can't tell the difference between a citizen and a legal fiction.

--Tom Clune

[ 10. February 2010, 14:49: Message edited by: tclune ]

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

The problem, IMO, is not in the intent of the amendment but in the use of the word "person".

"Persons" are not "people". "People" are human beings. "People" are not "persons" - they "have persons" - like I have a coat, I have a person. I speak of my person. "My" is a possessive pronoun.

"Persons" cannot speak, only people can speak. "Persons" can't do anything because they are figments of our imagination. We imagine persons can speak, but they can't, because they have no mouths to speak through except our mouths, which belong to individual human beings.

"We the persons" are not the first words in the Constitution for a reason. Government of the persons, for the persons, by the persons is also not part of the foundational language for a reason.

Amend the wording and leave "persons" out of the first amendment, and bring its purpose back to its original intent.

Problem solved.

LAFF

Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :

Since AFF's suggestion is so sensible, why is Dodd proposing to essentially repeal the first amendment?

For what it's worth, Dodd's state of Connecticut has historically been a stronghold of corporate America. Dodd is as likely a supporter for corporations as any congressperson.

Is he hoping to pass this? Or is he hoping to cloud the issue enough so nothing gets passed before next fall's midterm elections? This would allow corporations a lock on the house of representatives.

Fortunately corporations are not monolithic. They have competing interests and many smaller corporations would like to block this action to keep themselves alive. Without free speech, the largest corporation in each sector will quickly eat all it's competition, if allowed legislative leeway.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

No, what you need to do is write a safety-valve amendment into the US Constitution, such as Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms:

"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

It really helps get courts out of legal knots and helps common sense shine through.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
No, what you need to do is write a safety-valve amendment into the US Constitution, such as Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms:

"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

It really helps get courts out of legal knots and helps common sense shine through.

Hasn't the SCOTUS already ruled that there are exceptions to the First Amendment? I seem to remember that for a while at least they held that there was such a thing as obscenity, and that obscenity was not protected by the First Amendment. Not sure what the legal basis was for carving out that exception.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

How about an ammendment that says simply that the rights of persons stated in the constitution (e.g., the right of free speech) apply only to real flesh-and-blood human beings? An ammendment like that might draw support from a wide range of the political spectrum since it is my understanding that quite a few conservatives are not happy with that ruling.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

Thanks Sober Preacher's Kid - a very interesting quote; I'd never come across any attempt to codify what in practice human rights courts have to do all the time, and as you say, it does let some common sense into debates.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

See, when the US Supreme Court wants to create exceptions to the First Amendment for things like obscenity and hate speech, it has to bend and twist the law and otherwise be naughty. When the Supreme Court of Canada does the same thing it is perfectly acceptable to do so as it has explicit authority to do so.

Up here we have a Mark II Bill of Rights incorporating all the latest constitutional innovations that two centuries of rights litigation have shown to be useful.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
How about an ammendment that says simply that the rights of persons stated in the constitution (e.g., the right of free speech) apply only to real flesh-and-blood human beings? An ammendment like that might draw support from a wide range of the political spectrum since it is my understanding that quite a few conservatives are not happy with that ruling.

So what about the New York Time's editorial page? Would it have a license that an administration can take away if it wants? If you want to propose an amendment I will listen, but you have to draft it pretty carefully. I assume you are aiming at "big oil" and the like, but you could end up making some really profound changes to the way we do things with language that expansive.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

It seems likely that the U.S. Congress can devise and pass statutes to fix the situation, although whether they will do so is doubtful. Bear in mind that corporations exist in the first place only because there are laws stating they may.

An amendment to the U.S. Constitution on this topic is probably not a good idea, as various people have observed.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

Seems to me that would take care of gun control too.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

We also have the Notwithstanding Clause:

quote:
Notwithstanding Clause & Constitutional Compromise

In the late-1970s and early-1980s, the federal and provincial governments undertook negotiations to modernize the Canadian Constitution, which eventually led to the passage of a new Constitution in 1982. Central to these negotiations was a federal proposal to introduce a constitutionally-entrenched set of rights and freedoms to replace the Canadian Bill of Rights (this new set of rights eventually became the Charter).

The federal proposal was, however, a controversial one. Several provinces disagreed with its inclusion on the grounds that it would significantly shift political power from elected legislatures to appointed courts. The Notwithstanding clause was subsequently added to the Charter as a means of alleviating these provincial concerns.

...
The Notwithstanding clause was eventually included within the Charter to alleviate these provincial fears of judicial power. Found under Section 33 of the Charter, the clause states:

Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

Emphasis added.

Quoted from here.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
IMO, this would likely leave us with a government much like China's with legacy princes deciding who to appoint to office. Is this the correct solution? It worked for China.

I'm amazed that you can divine so much from one sentence of a press release. For my own part, I don't know whether I approve or disapprove of Dodd's amendment because I haven't read it - and neither have you. Nor has anyone else, apparently, since he hasn't even published it yet. So maybe the hyperventilation is a wee bit premature.

As for this:

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

It really helps get courts out of legal knots and helps common sense shine through.

Common sense? Well, maybe - as long as everyone can agree on what "reasonable limits" are and how they are to be "demonstrably justified". But if everyone agreed on that, you'd hardly need to take such cases to court in the first place, would you? You're still left with the problem of ensuring that "getting out of legal knots" is prevented from sliding into "writing the justices' own policy preferences into law."

Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :

Og, disallowing corporate rights under constitutional protection doesn't automatically mean they don't have those rights. Congress still has control of interstate commerce and can legislate as it pleases. The difference is that humans would still have those rights.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Thanks Sober Preacher's Kid - a very interesting quote; I'd never come across any attempt to codify what in practice human rights courts have to do all the time, and as you say, it does let some common sense into debates.

The Canadian Charter was written in 1980 and its patterned after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which has this kind of clause. Plus the drafters were schooled in Canadian jurisprudence which defers to the legislature. We're the only Westminster parliamentary democracy that has a constitutionally entrenched Bill of Rights.

South Africa thought S. 1 was good enough that they copied it into their own Bill of Rights in their post-Apartheid constitution.

Often if the courts strike down something big, they reserve effective judgment for a year or two until Parliament can rewrite the law into something more constitutionally palatable. The courts like to say what something cannot be, not what it should be. Sure, the courts make stupid decisions but the Supreme Court has a keen sense of when to pass the buck.

Finally, sharkshooter mentioned the Notwithstanding Clause. Again, it fits in with our system in that it leaves the last word to the legislatures. The US Congress has this power too, it's just called a Constitutional Amendment. After a break-in period until 1988 or so, the Notwithstanding Clause has been very rarely invoked. Governments who use it look like they are taking people's rights away. It's seen a political suicide, or at least a very courageous decision (one which will cost you the election). I for one am pleased that our politicians are properly frightened of the people.

[ 11. February 2010, 01:21: Message edited by: Sober Preacher's Kid ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

All that's really needed is for courts to start interpreting a different meaning for the 'free' in 'free speech'.

[Biased]

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Clearly, Dodds' proposal is ill-conceived. The right thing to do is impeach and remove from the bench those justices who can't tell the difference between a citizen and a legal fiction.

--Tom Clune

Alternatively, I suppose we could enforce capital penalties for corporate "persons" who cause lethal harm, or who commit other crimes that are punishable by death. Dissolution of the corporation, with assets to be seized by the government.

Sounds just as reasonable to me as claiming that corporate "persons" have the right to free speech and to privacy...

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Clearly, Dodds' proposal is ill-conceived. The right thing to do is impeach and remove from the bench those justices who can't tell the difference between a citizen and a legal fiction.

--Tom Clune

Alternatively, I suppose we could enforce capital penalties for corporate "persons" who cause lethal harm, or who commit other crimes that are punishable by death. Dissolution of the corporation, with assets to be seized by the government.

Sounds just as reasonable to me as claiming that corporate "persons" have the right to free speech and to privacy...

To suggest the current judges are the problem is to miss entirely the fact that the existence of corporate 'persons' has been well established in English-speaking law for a very, very long time. It's such a basic notion that people who write laws are presumed to know about it, and mean both corporations and natural persons when they just write 'persons'. Generally the only basis for overturning that presumption is when something can't POSSIBLY apply to corporate persons.

Any criminal law I've ever seen here in Australia that is capable of being applied to both corporations and natural persons is smart enough to set out the penalties separately. In fact, it's now written into the standard criminal code how to turn a maximum punishment expressed in terms of imprisonment into a financial sum, because you can't imprison a corporation.

As we're not barbaric enough to have the death penalty, a provision to turn that into a financial sum isn't required.

[ 11. February 2010, 04:33: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

Could someone please explain what a "natural person" is, and by what means or mechanism does a human being become one?

Please do not tell me it is a human being.

The letter of the law is excruciatingly specific. If the law is meant for "human beings" it would use the words "human being".

I have posed this question in other threads. I know there are many lawyers here who can answer this question, can someone take time out of their busy schedule and help me here?

LAFF

[ 11. February 2010, 07:00: Message edited by: A Feminine Force ]

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
The letter of the law is excruciatingly specific. If the law is meant for "human beings" it would use the words "human being".

Why? Anyway, the law is meant for lawyers, a rather unusual variety of human being.

The law uses the term 'natural person' when it means an individual human being. It uses 'corporation' or 'body corporate' when it means a collection of human beings regarded at law as a single human being. And it uses 'person' when it means either a natural person or a body corporate.

Both 'natural persons' and 'bodies corporate' have "human being" (exist as human entities). At least, that is how I think as a philosopher.

I am not a lawyer, so this post is not legal advice. A real lawyer can always come along and correct any errors I might have made.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
...The law uses the term 'natural person' when it means an individual human being. It uses 'corporation' or 'body corporate' when it means a collection of human beings regarded at law as a single human being. And it uses 'person' when it means either a natural person or a body corporate.
...

Some laws use "individual" to mean non-corporate "persons".

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
...The law uses the term 'natural person' when it means an individual human being. It uses 'corporation' or 'body corporate' when it means a collection of human beings regarded at law as a single human being. And it uses 'person' when it means either a natural person or a body corporate.
...
Some laws use "individual" to mean non-corporate "persons".

Both of these are pretty well correct.

As to where 'natural persons' came from... well it's probably from an older form of English where it didn't look so odd. Really, it just emphasises that 'natural person' - real-life individuals - are a subcategory of 'persons'. The other subcategory being... artifical or deemed 'persons', ie corporations.

But yeah... actually it pretty much IS a human being.

I actually write laws for a living, and as these days we tend to encourage plain English, I think saying 'individual' is a lot more likely.

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :

A slippery slope it does seem to be. If you can change the Constitution to limit the rights of corporate persons the next thing will be a change to limit the free speech of natural persons.

Good thing Dodd is retiring. He is a disgrace to the Senate. Don't let the screen door hit you!

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
Why? Anyway, the law is meant for lawyers, a rather unusual variety of human being.

Thanks for this. I agree. I'll point this out next time someone tries to apply the law to me. [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Really, it just emphasises that 'natural person' - real-life individuals - are a subcategory of 'persons'. The other subcategory being... artifical or deemed 'persons', ie corporations.

This term "natural person" is oxymoronic to me. A person is a fictive entity. A figment of my imagination. Since when does a flesh and blood human being become "sub-categorical" to a figment of its own imagination?

To put it another way, since when is Will Shakespeare a figment of Hamlet's imagination?

Can anyone compel me to play the role of "natural person" any more than they can compel me to play the role of, say, Lady Macbeth?

If they can, I want to know who, in a free society, compels me to act as a "natural person"?

It seems to me that "courtroom drama" has more than one meaning.

Cheers
LAFF

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
A slippery slope it does seem to be. If you can change the Constitution to limit the rights of corporate persons the next thing will be a change to limit the free speech of natural persons.

So any change in the constitution is a slippery slope leading to other, more intrusive, changes that will limit individual freedoms? Then why are conservatives so keen on changing the constitution to limit state's rights re: marriage?

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
A slippery slope it does seem to be. If you can change the Constitution to limit the rights of corporate persons the next thing will be a change to limit the free speech of natural persons.

And wanking off causes warts.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Og, disallowing corporate rights under constitutional protection doesn't automatically mean they don't have those rights. Congress still has control of interstate commerce and can legislate as it pleases. The difference is that humans would still have those rights.

You lost me somewhere. You are going to have to define “they” in your first sentence.

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
A slippery slope it does seem to be. If you can change the Constitution to limit the rights of corporate persons the next thing will be a change to limit the free speech of natural persons.
So any change in the constitution is a slippery slope leading to other, more intrusive, changes that will limit individual freedoms? Then why are conservatives so keen on changing the constitution to limit state's rights re: marriage?

Of course not. Some change is good like amending the Constitution to abolish slavery. But when you start limiting the rights of one group of citizens it chips away at the rights of other groups of citizens.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
... But when you start limiting the rights of one group of citizens it chips away at the rights of other groups of citizens.

A corporation is neither a citizen (only individuals are citizens), nor a group of citizens (although it might be a partnership).

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Some change is good like amending the Constitution to abolish slavery. But when you start limiting the rights of one group of citizens it chips away at the rights of other groups of citizens.

Like chipping away at the rights of rich white landowners to possess slaves?

This whole argument smacks of 1984.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:

quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
Why? Anyway, the law is meant for lawyers, a rather unusual variety of human being.
Thanks for this. I agree. I'll point this out next time someone tries to apply the law to me.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Really, it just emphasises that 'natural person' - real-life individuals - are a subcategory of 'persons'. The other subcategory being... artifical or deemed 'persons', ie corporations.
This term "natural person" is oxymoronic to me. A person is a fictive entity. A figment of my imagination. Since when does a flesh and blood human being become "sub-categorical" to a figment of its own imagination?

To put it another way, since when is Will Shakespeare a figment of Hamlet's imagination?

Can anyone compel me to play the role of "natural person" any more than they can compel me to play the role of, say, Lady Macbeth?

If they can, I want to know who, in a free society, compels me to act as a "natural person"?

It seems to me that "courtroom drama" has more than one meaning.

Cheers
LAFF

Eh??

You really did lose me at 'a person is a fictive entity'. Who the blazes am I talking to then?

In ordinary English, people (plural form!) say things like 'that person over there' without a hint of self-consciousness.

If you want to insist on saying "Human beings" or "Men and women" in the place where I said 'people', and say 'human being', 'man' or 'woman' where I said 'person', conversation with you is going to be a real pain in the rear end.

Posted by Bartolomeo (# 8352) on :

This whole thread is a red herring. Many of the campaign finance problems that McCain–Feingold was intended to address involve individual wealthy donors. To believe that limiting corporate donations while still permitting wealthy individuals to make unbounded contributions will solve anything underestimates both the prevalence of individual wealth and the creative mind of attorneys and CPAs throughout our fair land.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

No, a corporation is not a partnership in the legal sense. When two or more people make an agreement to run a business together for profit, without any other actions, they are a partnership. You want to avoid being called a partnership, because you personally are subject to joint and several liability for the actions of your partners. So most businesses file papers with the state to become corporations, LLCs, LLPs, etc., and get the benefit of limited liability.

Interesting question: lots of criticism of this decision centers on the idea that a corporation is an entity that is created by the law. If you get together with a friend and open a shop without doing anything to formalize your relationship, you a partnership by default. Is a partnership then an entity created by the law, or a legal concept, like a citizen?

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
A corporation is neither a citizen (only individuals are citizens), nor a group of citizens (although it might be a partnership).

But we are talking about US corporations that pay US taxes. So chip away at the rights of one group of taxpayers undermines the rights of all taxpayers. Of course, a good portion of natural citizens don't pay taxes, but that's a different soap box.

Posted by five (# 14492) on :

Except that those citizens are specifically created by the US government, whether they pay taxes or not (and many corporations don't).

Given that partnerships pay taxes, and dead people pay taxes and foreign citizens that earn income in the USA pay taxes, your taxation slippery slope argument doens't really hold water.

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :

New Yorker,

Since apparenty you feel that chipping away at the rights of corporations chips away the rights of the rest of us, I imagine that you oppose chipping away at womens' right to privacy and control over their own bodies, felons' right to vote, gays' and lesbians' right to marry, murderers' right to life, patients' right to medical marijuana, and the right of the acutely suffering terminally-ill to end their lives painlessly.

Greta

[ 11. February 2010, 22:32: Message edited by: CorgiGreta ]

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :

Moreover, that list in by no means exhaustive.

Greta

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
New Yorker,

Since apparenty you feel that chipping away at the rights of corporations chips away the rights of the rest of us, I imagine that you oppose chipping away at womens' right to privacy and control over their own bodies, felons' right to vote, gays' and lesbians' right to marry, murderers' right to life, patients' right to medical marijuana, and the right of the acutely suffering terminally-ill to end their lives painlessly.

Greta

You can't 'chip away' at rights that don't currently exist, which is the case for several of the examples you just cited.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
A slippery slope it does seem to be. If you can change the Constitution to limit the rights of corporate persons the next thing will be a change to limit the free speech of natural persons.
So any change in the constitution is a slippery slope leading to other, more intrusive, changes that will limit individual freedoms? Then why are conservatives so keen on changing the constitution to limit state's rights re: marriage?
Of course not. Some change is good like amending the Constitution to abolish slavery. But when you start limiting the rights of one group of citizens it chips away at the rights of other groups of citizens.

Abolition "chipped away" at the rights of white Southerners to own slaves.

Every change in the constitution, every piece of law, inevitably involves that tension between individual rights and corporate "good". If conservatives have their day and enact the "Defense of Marriage Act" it will limit the rights of one group of citizens, as well as the rights of states to enact laws and govern marriage as they see fit. (And conversely if liberals win the day with a pro-gay marriage amendment).

I think what you have done here-- although I realize you'd be drawn and quartered before you'd admit it-- is implicitly concede that the "slippery slope" argument is, as most all such arguments are, a load of hogwash. One amendment that limits "rights' (again, like others here, not sure we can even talk of "rights" for corporations) does not inevitably lead to a whole slew of other limitations, nor does it signal The End of Western Civilization. It is simply one in an endless stream of such legislation, back and forth, that further define both the extent and limits of our personal freedoms-- as all legislation does.

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :

Perhaps they are simply not yet recognized.

Alternatively, the basic rights may exist, but their applicability in certain situations has not yet been determined.

Greta

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :

Posted in response to orfeo.

Greta

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Eh??

You really did lose me at 'a person is a fictive entity'. Who the blazes am I talking to then?

In ordinary English, people (plural form!) say things like 'that person over there' without a hint of self-consciousness.

If you want to insist on saying "Human beings" or "Men and women" in the place where I said 'people', and say 'human being', 'man' or 'woman' where I said 'person', conversation with you is going to be a real pain in the rear end.

Use the word however you like in conversation, I don't care.

Should you be writing laws if you don't understand the definition of the words you are using, as they are applied by justices?

Because I have stood in a court room as a human being, and refused to identify myself as a "person" until the judge told me I was a person, thereby establishing my status under the law, and he not only refused to do so, he could not hear me at all.

Now how wierd is that?

LAFF

[ 11. February 2010, 23:33: Message edited by: A Feminine Force ]

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
New Yorker,

Since apparenty you feel that chipping away at the rights of corporations chips away the rights of the rest of us, I imagine that you oppose chipping away at womens' right to privacy and control over their own bodies,

Not at all. Just don't kill a baby to protect those rights.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
Because I have stood in a court room as a human being, and refused to identify myself as a "person" until the judge told me I was a person, thereby establishing my status under the law, and he not only refused to do so, he could not hear me at all.

Now how wierd is that?

LAFF

It is very weird, and I strongly suspect you are not telling all the pertinent facts.

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :

New Yorker,

I'm delighted to see that you oppose chipping away at the rights protected under Roe v. Wade.

Greta

[ 12. February 2010, 00:54: Message edited by: CorgiGreta ]

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
A corporation is neither a citizen (only individuals are citizens), nor a group of citizens (although it might be a partnership).
But we are talking about US corporations that pay US taxes. So chip away at the rights of one group of taxpayers undermines the rights of all taxpayers. Of course, a good portion of natural citizens don't pay taxes, but that's a different soap box.

Lots of American citizens don't pay taxes. The very young, the very old, those that have had a bad year financially. That doesn't change their fundamental citizenship rights. Conversely many foreigners pay taxes but the US Government has always held the line that paying taxes doesn't buy you citizenship.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:

quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
New Yorker,

Since apparenty you feel that chipping away at the rights of corporations chips away the rights of the rest of us, I imagine that you oppose chipping away at womens' right to privacy and control over their own bodies,
Not at all. Just don't kill a baby to protect those rights.

Ah! So you recognize our freedom has limits.

That's what virtually all legislation-- and constitutional amendments-- are all about: defining both the extent and the limits of our freedom. Extending freedom when that is possible, limiting freedom when needed.

So we agree-- there is no "slippery slope". One can amend the constitution, limiting our freedom to do certain things (e.g. own slaves, or buy a US Senator) w/o that necessarily leading to a whole slippery slope chain of events where additional freedoms are restricted.

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
Because I have stood in a court room as a human being, and refused to identify myself as a "person" until the judge told me I was a person, thereby establishing my status under the law, and he not only refused to do so, he could not hear me at all.

Now how wierd is that?

LAFF
It is very weird, and I strongly suspect you are not telling all the pertinent facts.

What else needs to be said? The law is written so as to apply to "persons". This is the word one finds used in the statutes.

So, in order for a statute to apply to me, I have to become a "person". Except I don't know how to do that. So I asked the judge to please tell me if I am a person or not, this way I would know whether or not I was obligated to perform under the statute.

He refused to tell me that I was a person, and told me that the court was unable to hear any remarks made by me, and that was that.

LAFF

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
Because I have stood in a court room as a human being, and refused to identify myself as a "person" until the judge told me I was a person, thereby establishing my status under the law, and he not only refused to do so, he could not hear me at all.

Now how wierd is that?

LAFF
It is very weird, and I strongly suspect you are not telling all the pertinent facts.
What else needs to be said? The law is written so as to apply to "persons". This is the word one finds used in the statutes.

So, in order for a statute to apply to me, I have to become a "person". Except I don't know how to do that. So I asked the judge to please tell me if I am a person or not, this way I would know whether or not I was obligated to perform under the statute.

He refused to tell me that I was a person, and told me that the court was unable to hear any remarks made by me, and that was that.

LAFF

Look, if you don't want to be described as a 'person', that's really your business.

Meanwhile, about a billion other people on the planet who use the English language will quite happily accept that they are a 'person'. The first definition of person in my dictionary is 'a human being'.

If you want to argue that you are somehow 'a human being' but not a 'person', then I'm not interested. I can only conclude that you are a very well-trained Dachshund.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

To suggest that you have to 'become' a person is honestly the most idiotic suggestion I've heard in years. And that's saying something.

It's the equivalent of telling the judge that you haven't been born yet and asking him how to go about doing it.

[ 12. February 2010, 01:57: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

IF, on the other hand, the question was whether you were the KIND of person to which the statute applied, that would be because the statute said it didn't apply to everyone.

Laws say this kind of thing all the time. Laws about medical malpractice might say they apply to persons who are registered medical practitioners.

In which case, you might want to know how to become a registered medical practitioner. But only a trained Dachshund would need to ask how to become a person.

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

Well, here's the nearest way I can describe what I am getting at.

Will Shakespeare is a human being. Hamlet is a person. In the imagination of Will Shak., the person "Hamlet" has certain attributes and undertakes certain actions that characterize him as "Hamlet". He is a figment of William Shakespeare's imagination that exists only as a bunch of words on paper. Hamlet has no substance other than in the flesh and blood human being who undertakes to represent Hamlet.

"Procter and Gamble" is a person. It is a figment of someone's imagination that has certain attributes and characteristics and which exists only as a bunch of words on paper. It has no substance and it relies wholly on flesh and blood human beings who represent the corporation. In court, I guess these are attorneys. But a human being is not a corporation, a human being can only represent a corporation.

So here I am, simply asking the judge to tell me if I represent the person he's referring to, or am I, in actual fact, that person?

It was quite interesting, to say the least.

I don't know about "medical practitioners" - but I suspect that they are persons as well, in the same sense that Hamlet is a person. Someone has to represent that person. Practicing medicine is something people do or act out, it's not what they are. My guess is that you are right and a "medical practitioner" is probably a person defined somewhere and which exists as a body of words that relies completely on some flesh and blood human being to represent it.

LAFF

[ 12. February 2010, 02:26: Message edited by: A Feminine Force ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE IS A PERSON!

And no judge would tell you otherwise.

For you to even ask such a question is completely bizarre. This isn't an issue about how judges use the word, it's an issue about how YOU use the word - which apparently is different to how the rest of the English-speaking world uses it.

[ 12. February 2010, 02:42: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

You may be right. There's quite a bit of debate about whether the playwright was a human being or a "name" that was used by several human beings.

"William Shakespeare" the playwright may well have been a person, but we'll never know for certain.

And about English, well, lawyers use a language that sounds like English, but isn't. They even have their own dictionary. Webster's isn't one of the ones they acknowledge. Maybe you should refer to the same one as you go about crafting your legislation?

LAFF

[ 12. February 2010, 02:51: Message edited by: A Feminine Force ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:

So here I am, simply asking the judge to tell me if I represent the person he's referring to, or am I, in actual fact, that person?

That sounds almost as off-the-wall as the rantings of this ignorant obsessive looney loser

Mocked at length in this fun thread on Language Log

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

Wow - I'm being compared to ignorant looney losers and dachshunds tonight. I must be hitting all the right buttons. Ad hominems are my favorite arguments.

Have a pleasant evening, gentlemen.

LAFF

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
You may be right. There's quite a bit of debate about whether the playwright was a human being or a "name" that was used by several human beings.

"William Shakespeare" the playwright may well have been a person, but we'll never know for certain.

LAFF

Oh for goodness sake, you are being devious. YOU'RE the one who said William Shakespeare was a human being. Not several human beings.

I can only think that the reason the judge refused to hear anything from you was that he/she had quickly assessed you were being a complete smartarse.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
And about English, well, lawyers use a language that sounds like English, but isn't. They even have their own dictionary. Webster's isn't one of the ones they acknowledge. Maybe you should refer to the same one as you go about crafting your legislation?

I could spend about a page outlining to you precisely what legislative drafting involves, how there is a move to use plain English rather than antiquated English peppered with bad Latin, and so on.

Or I could just say that's the second time you have casually cast a slur on my professional competence, and in return I would like to casually cast another slur on your membership of the human race.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Orfeo , May I suggest that there's no point in proceeding. AFF has already shown ,on this and other threads, no ability to understand, or to try to understand, basic legal concepts, let alone simple English. Plan a pleasant dinner instead.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

No problem, I'd already reached that conclusion.

This was a massive distraction from the original point of the thread anyway. I do think it's genuinely worthwhile to discuss whether NON-natural persons should have the benefits of what are generally described as human rights.

There was an article today in the Australian newspaper about this American decision. It was by Professor David Weisbrot, who is originally from America but has lived in Australia for several decades. He talks about the differing approaches in the US and Australia to rights. Of course, we don't currently have any kind of 'bill of rights' here, but it's an issue being debated.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Yes, I know David Weisbrot. I don't take the Australian, but I'll see if I can get it on the net.

You may know of the High Court decision a few years ago now that a corporation does not have. the right against self-incrimination. I can't quickly find it, but it arose from a prosecution in the Land and Environment Court. That's the sort of authority you're talking of.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I had read that decision at some point, but I'd forgotten all about it. Thanks for the reminder. I remember it did have quite a detailed discussion about the reasons and origin for the privilege against self-incrimination.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Orfeo , the reference is:

Environment Protection Authority v Caltex Refining Co Pty Ltd [1993] HCA 74; (1993) 178 CLR 477 (24 December 1993)

which probably will not work as a hyperlink. As Ken has pointed out on a thread in Hell, the US decision is consistent with well established authority, pre-dating the War of Independence. There would have to be clear words in any legislation to take from a corporation any rights which a natural person has, but this decision is based upon common law authority.

There is no doubt that a corporation may commit offences. The usual penalty is a fine, and the maximum sums for fines are usually much larger than those for natural persons. As a matter of principle, there is no reason why a guilty corporation could not be wound up as if in insolvency, with barring orders for directors and officers. If a company is guilty of contempt of court, it may be sequestrated.

There were a few posts earlier about partnerships. In Australian law, and AFAIK English, Canadian and NZ law, a partnership has no legal identity beyond the identities of the partners. The partners must be legal people, either natural or corporations. I would be surprised if the law in any of the US states were different.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

For us non-US persons, can someone please summarise what this is all about? e.g.
- What is SCOTUS? Are these initials? What do they stand for?
- What is the First amendment?
- Is it regarded as unconstitutional to restrict the size of political donations?
- Who is Senator Dodd?
- With 'no taxation without representation' (which is what I thought the 1770s were about), do legal persons have votes? (ours don't)
- Do legal persons pay taxes (ours do) or is it only the natural persons behind or inside them that pay taxes?
- What is the problem about natural and legal persons? Under our system it is very straightforward. A natural person is a human being. They become a person by being born. They have an objective natural physical existence. A legal person is an abstract entity. It does not have a natural physical existence. It is given an identity as a person by the law, the Companies Acts, a charter, the Local Government Act 1972 etc etc etc. Otherwise it does not exist.
- A natural person and a legal person can both enter into contracts etc. An apparent abstract entity that has not been given legal personhood can't. This is because it does not exist.
- William Shakespeare was a natural person but is now dead. Hamlet was never any sort of person because he is fiction.
- The Queen is both sorts of person, Elizabeth Windsor as a natural person from birth, and the Crown as a legal person from Feb 1952 when her father died. Many clergy are in a similar position.
- A natural person can't argue they aren't a person because they just are one by being born. It would be a nonsense argument.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I can answer the SCOTUS one: Supreme Court of the United States.

Most of the things in the second half of your list aren't problems for anyone other than one poster, who may or may not be a natural person depending on who you ask.

The stuff in the middle, I'd best leave to Americans to sort out.

[ 12. February 2010, 09:33: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
No, a corporation is not a partnership in the legal sense. When two or more people make an agreement to run a business together for profit, without any other actions, they are a partnership. ...

Which is what I meant, but did not well explain - "a group of persons is not a corporation, but may be a partnership".

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
A corporation is neither a citizen (only individuals are citizens), nor a group of citizens (although it might be a partnership).
But we are talking about US corporations that pay US taxes. So chip away at the rights of one group of taxpayers undermines the rights of all taxpayers. ...

No, that is just the making of tax law - the rules change all the time, without it being a "taking away of rights".

Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :

Here are some answers which are from an ignorant lay person and should not be relied on to make legal decisions.

SCOTUS is of course the Supreme Court of the United States. It is often referred to as the Supreme Court, but so are the state supreme courts as well as some foreign countries high courts, so so SCOTUS is more specific.

The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees rights of free speech:

quote:
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.

Due to later amendments these rights apply to people in the U.S. irrespective of state law as well. Also most state constitutions have similar language.

It was not considered unconstitutional to restrict political donations until a recent landmark case. This case basically overturned all political financing laws.

Senator Dodd is the (senior?) senator from the state of Connecticut. He's a Democrat if you care about that.

The Fourteenth Amendment deals with issues of citizenship. It was passed after the Civil War to overturn the Dread Scott decision. Persons must be born or naturalized to be citizens. Since legal persons are not born or naturalized (yet) they are not citizens and can not vote.

The problem arises because, in article 1 section 10, the constitution forbids interfering with contracts. A corporation is a contract as well as a person. Common law as well as state law grants them the privileges of people. Since any law we pass now restricting them would interfere with the contracts, they are difficult to control.

Is there anyone besides Sober Preacher's Kid who thinks overturning the First Amendment is a good idea?

I think the world is rapidly changing and several successful countries have moved away from free speech (Russia, China, and apparently Canada). I can see lots of benefits to this approach (monolithic goals, less person hours wasted on porn, etc.). There are big disadvantages as well.

Are there other social systems that could mitigate the stasis problems? By stasis problems I refer to the inability to change brought on by a lack of dissent. Perhaps other venues for dissent?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:

Is there anyone besides Sober Preacher's Kid who thinks overturning the First Amendment is a good idea?

I think the world is rapidly changing and several successful countries have moved away from free speech (Russia, China, and apparently Canada).

I don't think many Americans would advocate overturning the First Amendment. But I don't think that's what's being proposed, nor do I think Canada has "moved away from free speech".

As has already been shown on this thread, all freedoms exist within boundaries. There are already all sorts of limits on free speech that have been deemed constitutional-- libel laws, for example, deal with some of these. Pharmaceutical companies are not allowed to make certain medical claims that can't be supported by the data-- a limit on their "free speech". Many other examples could be given.

All freedoms exist within certain parameters. Again, most/all legislation is merely the process of defining both the extent and limits of those freedoms. Given the recent SCOTUS decision, apparently additional legislation, possibly even a constitutional amendment, is needed to limit the freedom of corporations to purchase US Congressional reps/Senators-- just as a constitutional amendment was needed to limit the freedom of white Southerners to buy and sell human slaves.

So what's being proposed is not an "overturning" of the first amendment, it is simply a more precise definition of the extent and limits of that freedom.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

One of my favorite legal reporters, Slate's Dahlia Lithwick, wrote a piece on this decision here. FWIW.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I can see plenty of arguments for and against capping political donations, but I thought freedom of speech was about the right to say what you like, not the right pay people, to subscribe, what you like. What has this got to do specifically with freedom of speech, or for that matter the other things, freedom to assemble, freedom to petition etc?

The article is interesting, but it doesn't answer that particular question.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I can see plenty of arguments for and against capping political donations, but I thought freedom of speech was about the right to say what you like, not the right pay people, to subscribe, what you like. What has this got to do specifically with freedom of speech, or for that matter the other things, freedom to assemble, freedom to petition etc?

The article is interesting, but it doesn't answer that particular question.

Her quote, "Even former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist once warned that treating corporate spending as the First Amendment equivalent of individual free speech is 'to confuse metaphor with reality.'" is directed at that. The point is that no-one saw curtailing corporate spending to influence elections as a violation of free speech until these right-wing ideologues became a majority of the Supreme Court. It is a very troubling development for our democracy.

The SCOTUS has been the difficult leg of our democracy one way or the other from the very beginning. It is always problematic to have people unelected and appointed for life in a position that allows them to overturn the decisions of the elected officials (a power that wasn't even included in the constitution that these justices insist should be read in its "original intent" -- Justice Marshall snookered that power into the court in Marbury v. Madison, more than a decade after the constitution was adopted. Before that, it wasn't clear that the Supreme Court had anything of significance to do.)

At various points in our history, the arrogance of the justices has created problems for the country. Oddly, we have never resorted to the constitutional remedy of subjecting these folks to the democratic process by impeaching them and removing them from office. This has only been attempted once in the history of the country -- Samual P. Chase was impeached at Thomas Jefferson's instigation, but was not convicted by the Senate. Since then, the SCOTUS has been untouchable. The idea was to make the justices "free" from political influence, but the effect is that they are free to wreak whatever political influence they like without the need of facing any political consequences.

ISTM that the pretense of these justices of just interpreting precedent instead of making law (a rallying cry of the right-wingers as they sought appointment) has been adequately demonstrated to be a lie under oath during their confirmation hearings, and would serve as a perfectly acceptable basis for canning the lot of them.

--Tom Clune

[ 13. February 2010, 02:10: Message edited by: tclune ]

Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :

Enoch, the court ruled that spending money on advertising was speech. Therefore, limiting such money was limiting speech.

I agree with the court on this. I even think the court handed down the right decision. The law is clear and what started out as a rule to prevent bribes became twisted into a rule to ensure good government.

But IMO it's not the court's job to ensure good government. That's the job of the voters. If there's a problem with corporate donations (and there was even before the court's ruling), limit those. Don't limit everyone else's speech.

A simple amendment defining natural born people as the one's with the rights is all that's needed.

Cliffdweller, the First Amendment rights have always existed within boundaries. But amending the Constitution to allow congress the power to limit free speech on a political basis right before an election is the exact opposite of "congress can pass no law".

BTW, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws did just that. They disallowed most groups except formal candidates from publishing political material some months before elections. They also limited the amount candidates could spend.

When President Bush signed that law he lost my support. I resigned as precinct chair. I did not vote for him for a second term. The law was clearly the exact opposite of what the Constitution says.

I just didn't think SCOTUS had the balls to strike it down. I was wrong.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Enoch, the court ruled that spending money on advertising was speech. Therefore, limiting such money was limiting speech.

That's a bit odd. Speech is speech. Free speech is the right to say something without being put in prison or made to shut up. The right to spend money isn't the same thing.

Is the argument, that spending the money is how you get your words out to those you want to hear what you have to say?

The SCOTUS has been the difficult leg of our democracy one way or the other from the very beginning. It is always problematic to have people unelected and appointed for life in a position that allows them to overturn the decisions of the elected officials.

Why? What's so magic about the elected?

The problem we have with our unwritten constitution is that our elected representatives do (or did until very recently) constitute a completely untrammelled dictatorship. Once they have enacted something, that is it. It is law. However unreasonable, however inconsistent with many peoples' ideas about fundamentals etc., there is no part of the constitution that can hold it up to the light.

There is something equally unsavory about letting 50% + 1 men and women, all politicians, chosen on a dodgy franchise, which they acclaim as sacrosanct because it elected them, exercise that sort of power.

Many other countries have some sort of constitutional court. People agree with it or disagree with it - like everything else - according to whether it does what they agree with. Whichever solution a country adopts, there is a tension there that some people will be unhappy about - 'who will judge the judges'.

There's obviously an issue about who appoints the judges. Will they pack the bench with people who think like they do? But what's the alternative? Either someone's got to choose them, or they self select. You couldn't elect them. How would people, campaign to be a judge - 'vote for me and if a case comes before me about immigrants, I'll throw them out of the country'? That's a really horrible thought.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

It may be a horrible thought for you or I, Enoch, but it's already a reality in some cases in America.

I even find the confirmation process in America to be somewhat strange. It's a requirement of sufficient popularity.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
There's obviously an issue about who appoints the judges. Will they pack the bench with people who think like they do? But what's the alternative? Either someone's got to choose them, or they self select. You couldn't elect them. How would people, campaign to be a judge - 'vote for me and if a case comes before me about immigrants, I'll throw them out of the country'? That's a really horrible thought.

In this country, most of our judges are elected. It is only at the federal level that this is not the norm. It has not proven to be a really horrible thought. We have had an increasing string of anti-democratic actions by our SCOTUS in recent years. The intrusion of the court into the election of GW was just the most egregious (even the court itself acknowledged that there was no basis in law for their action - the constitution provides for the US Congress to decide these political questions of presidential election. It would have most likely decided in favor of GW because, at that time, there was a Reepublican majority in that body. So it was all the more shocking that the court did this unconstitutional usurpation.) The fact that five men can undermine our form of government without our having any recourse is a working definition of tyranny on this side of the ocean.

Personally, I don't think that the virtue of limiting judicial overreaching hinges on whether I agree with the overreach. For example, in my state the Supreme Judicial Court declared homosexual marriage to be required by our state constitution. I agree with the virtue of legalizing homosexual marriage, but it clearly was not a part of our state constitution. Even the court acknowledged that there was nothing in the constitution or precedent that would lead to that conclusion. Nonetheless, they thought it was the right thing to do.

Now, it just isn't their right to change the law of the land based on their personal preferences. They should have been impeached and removed from office for that overreaching. It is fine for them to exercise their personal conscience, but it should carry a personal cost, too. They simply don't have the democratic right to foist their personal views onto the law of the land like that. Once there is a political cost associated with political acts, balance will be restored to the power of the judiciary.

--Tom Cune

Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on :

Tclune, the SCOTUS has the responsibility, in addition to ruling on constitutional issues, to mediate lawsuits between the states. The Florida official responsible for certifying the election certified it. The state court ruled that null. But it was a federal election.

The point is that there was no good solution. Republicans are convinced that the Democrats were trying to steal the election by dominating the recount process. The Democrats are convinced they won and the courts stole the election. If it had been left to a normal litigation process, the presidential term would have been over before the courts finished the recount.

Someone had to decide. Get over it. Win the next election (Oh, you did.)

Enoch, does that mean the congress can pass a law placing anyone they don't want to hear in a soundproof room? They can still speak their piece, but no one will hear.

In our world, the feds control the media due to bandwidth considerations. They have to be fair about who gets access. To a large extent they've done this by auctioning off the bandwidth to various large companies who sublet media access on a pay basis.

If they then forbid people to pay, they have forbidden them to speak so other people can hear them.

I suppose another possibility would be to divide the media bandwidth evenly so every citizen gets an equal amount of time. What would you do with your 100 milli-seconds of time this year?

You will notice that the government has made some effort to keep the internet open to all people. Here bandwidth is more plentiful, so it's not as large an issue.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Enoch, does that mean the congress can pass a law placing anyone they don't want to hear in a soundproof room? They can still speak their piece, but no one will hear.

I can't speak for the American constitution, but would assume not. That would strike me as being a piece of legislation that the Scotus could strike down as being unconstitutional.

Our Parliament could pass such a law, and it would be law, except that it might be in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights which we have now imported, as being imprisonment without trial.

Apart from that, it is possible for Parliament to pass an act of attainder, although I don't think it has done since the C17.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Does that mean the congress can pass a law placing anyone they don't want to hear in a soundproof room? They can still speak their piece, but no one will hear.

If only! Sarah Palin would be the first in line for it.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
There's obviously an issue about who appoints the judges. Will they pack the bench with people who think like they do? But what's the alternative? Either someone's got to choose them, or they self select. You couldn't elect them. How would people, campaign to be a judge - 'vote for me and if a case comes before me about immigrants, I'll throw them out of the country'? That's a really horrible thought.
In this country, most of our judges are elected. It is only at the federal level that this is not the norm. It has not proven to be a really horrible thought. We have had an increasing string of anti-democratic actions by our SCOTUS in recent years. The intrusion of the court into the election of GW was just the most egregious (even the court itself acknowledged that there was no basis in law for their action - the constitution provides for the US Congress to decide these political questions of presidential election. It would have most likely decided in favor of GW because, at that time, there was a Reepublican majority in that body. So it was all the more shocking that the court did this unconstitutional usurpation.) The fact that five men can undermine our form of government without our having any recourse is a working definition of tyranny on this side of the ocean.

Personally, I don't think that the virtue of limiting judicial overreaching hinges on whether I agree with the overreach. For example, in my state the Supreme Judicial Court declared homosexual marriage to be required by our state constitution. I agree with the virtue of legalizing homosexual marriage, but it clearly was not a part of our state constitution. Even the court acknowledged that there was nothing in the constitution or precedent that would lead to that conclusion. Nonetheless, they thought it was the right thing to do.

Now, it just isn't their right to change the law of the land based on their personal preferences. They should have been impeached and removed from office for that overreaching. It is fine for them to exercise their personal conscience, but it should carry a personal cost, too. They simply don't have the democratic right to foist their personal views onto the law of the land like that. Once there is a political cost associated with political acts, balance will be restored to the power of the judiciary.

--Tom Cune

One serious problem is that the Citizens United decision may make it possible for corporations to buy state judgeships. Judges are not high-profile politicians, and they don't typically run for office on a platform of how they will decide cases (in fact, they generally refuse to talk about that at all). Consequently, they get elected mostly on name recognition, which makes money a huge factor. Sandra Day O'Connor has warned about this at length, most recently in a speech very shortly after the SCOTUS decision.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Judges are not high-profile politicians, and they don't typically run for office on a platform of how they will decide cases (in fact, they generally refuse to talk about that at all). Consequently, they get elected mostly on name recognition, which makes money a huge factor.

And they seldom bother to campaign, and they often run unopposed. The voter's revenge is to vote NO for all of them.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
A slippery slope it does seem to be. If you can change the Constitution to limit the rights of corporate persons the next thing will be a change to limit the free speech of natural persons.
And wanking off causes warts.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
One serious problem is that the Citizens United decision may make it possible for corporations to buy state judgeships. Judges are not high-profile politicians, and they don't typically run for office on a platform of how they will decide cases (in fact, they generally refuse to talk about that at all). Consequently, they get elected mostly on name recognition, which makes money a huge factor. Sandra Day O'Connor has warned about this at length, most recently in a speech very shortly after the SCOTUS decision.

But none of that is a problem if corporations are people and money is speech. You say "mega corporation buys a judge," I say "concerned citizen participates in the democratic process." Once you go down the rabbit hole, it all makes perfect sense...

--Tom Clune

[ETA: I may be willing to go along with this nonsense if the court rigorously applies the logic of corporation = man and money = speech to the principle of one man, one vote and redistributes the trillions given to Wall Street to me.]

[ 15. February 2010, 15:11: Message edited by: tclune ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0