|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is it time to overturn the first amendment?
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
A Feminine Force
Ship's Onager
# 7812
|
Posted
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
--------------------
C2C - The Cure for What Ails Ya?
Posts: 2115 | From: Kingdom of Heaven | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
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."
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
All that's really needed is for courts to start interpreting a different meaning for the 'free' in 'free speech'.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
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
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
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...
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
A Feminine Force
Ship's Onager
# 7812
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
C2C - The Cure for What Ails Ya?
Posts: 2115 | From: Kingdom of Heaven | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
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".
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
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!
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
A Feminine Force
Ship's Onager
# 7812
|
Posted
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
--------------------
C2C - The Cure for What Ails Ya?
Posts: 2115 | From: Kingdom of Heaven | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bartolomeo
Musical Engineer
# 8352
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization society" --Stuart Chase
Posts: 1291 | From: the American Midwest | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
five
Shipmate
# 14492
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
And Jesus said 'the greatest commandments are these: Love the Lord your God with 10% of your time and energy, and Pamphlet your neighbour with tracts' - Birdseye
Posts: 1250 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
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
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
A Feminine Force
Ship's Onager
# 7812
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
C2C - The Cure for What Ails Ya?
Posts: 2115 | From: Kingdom of Heaven | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
A Feminine Force
Ship's Onager
# 7812
|
Posted
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
--------------------
C2C - The Cure for What Ails Ya?
Posts: 2115 | From: Kingdom of Heaven | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
