The Forgotten Man

[Grifman]

In a world where corporations get no constitutional protections I wonder if my house would be protected? Who actually owns my house... the mortgage holder, the trustee of the title, or me? Two of those entities are corporations.

That's not even under question. You own your home. You're the one who pays the taxes, pays the insurance, decides if/when to sell it, can make improvements to it, responsible for upkeep, etc. The other parties have rights but they don't own the home by any means.

[noxiousdog]

Religion is explicitly noted in the Bill of Rights. Corporate Charters are not. (But I see your point). For now, I'm going to lump churches into a separate box, because of their special character. Citizens have had to give up rights (Taliban fighters), but that would be another special case.

Additionally, in the case(s) we're discussing, the Citizen hasn't given up the rights, the group they have joined simply doesn't have those rights (e.g. voting).

Religion is to Churches as Speech is to [organized group]

It doesn't have to be churches though. Could be any organization. Newspapers, your local boys and girl's club, or the ACLU.

And I get that you could make all kinds of special rules, and draw neat little boxes to the best of our ability, but it's not about what's good and right, it's about when some state gets a wild hair (think Arizona and immigration) and does something crazy. If there is precident that says organizations aren't entitled to certain protections, then it's quite possible the supreme court wouldn't be able to overturn some really bizzare state law.

[Zarathud]

I do not see the limited 14th amendment protections granted to corporations (due process and equal protection) as necessarily extending to the 1st amendment (speech) or the 5th amendment (self-incrimination).

Why not? Other than "because you don't see it", if 1 doesn't apply, why should the other?

Due process and equal protection under the 14th amendment are substantive and procedural rights, not natural rights. You don't have to have inherent rights for the law to be applied fairly. There's no "natural" source of those rights, they're part of the structure of the law (like the Bill of Rights generally overriding State law).

In addition, this fits the notion that Congress had the power to define corporations as "persons" for general construction of statutes, but reserved the power to provide otherwise either expressly or in the context of the statutory provision:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-- the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

It's not a question of figuring out what the framers intended, it's a matter of figuring out what makes sense in context of the law itself. If corporations live by the law, they can die by the law -- except to the extent that the law should be fairly applied unless the context (not some mythical or historical notion of "framer's intent") dictates otherwise.

[noxiousdog]

I'm sure you've done more study on that issue than I have, so I can't counter intelligently, but it would be interesting to see Mr. Fed's response.

[RunningMn9]

I can easily understand an interpretation of the 14th Amendment that corporations are entitled to equal protection under the law (relative to other corporations).

But corporations (or any other legal fiction you want to bring up) are just artificial constructions. They can't have any inalienable rights on their own because their existence is a figment of our imagination.

I don't understand why it is so complicated to understand that for the purposes of contract law, we can treat the corporation as a single party akin to a natural person, but for purposes of political participation, they don't exist.

The organization and running of the US government is about citizens. It's not about artificial legal constructs acting in their own economic interest (even when directly opposed to the political interests of its owners).

I'm not sure why it's a problem to tell corporations "No, you can't finance the election of candidates". Somehow I think they'll manage to survive and do ok.

[noxiousdog]

I'm not sure why it's a problem to tell corporations "No, you can't finance the election of candidates". Somehow I think they'll manage to survive and do ok.

Because if you tell them that, then you can tell them, "if we suspect you of hiring illegal aliens, we can freeze all your assets and search your records without warrant" or "penalties will be enacted for publishing information that could make our government unstable." Think Arizona or Department of Homeland Security.

Furthermore, all of those things would be controllable at a state level, because there would be no supreme court protection.

[RunningMn9]

Because if you tell them that, then you can tell them, "if we suspect you of hiring illegal aliens, we can freeze all your assets and search your records without warrant" or "penalties will be enacted for publishing information that could make our government unstable." Think Arizona or Department of Homeland Security.

Furthermore, all of those things would be controllable at a state level, because there would be no supreme court protection.

Yes, of course we could say any of those things - because their entire existence is an imaginary fiction that we came up with.

We could just as easily say different things (i.e. for purposes of contract law and due process, we will treat you like a virtual person, but for purposes of political participation, we won't).

They're made up entities with made up rules that have changed a lot over the years. The idea that the current set is somehow immutable, I just don't get.

The government is our only line of defense against many forms of corporate malfeasance, and we shouldn't be letting corporations be setting the rules (or removing them, as seems to be the case more often than not).

[GreenGoo]

They're made up entities with made up rules that have changed a lot over the years. The idea that the current set is somehow immutable, I just don't get.

Well, this is entirely predicated on a corporation being a person, and therefore entitled to all the rights and privileges that citizens are. Once you decide they are people, of course the constitution and bill of rights will apply. Hell, that 18xx ruling even used the words "natural born person" (or whatever the term is) and applied it directly to corporations. It is mind boggling that that has become precedent, because that position is demonstrably false.

While I agree with your position, it's fairly clear that the law is immutable in the same way that the bill of rights and the constitution is immutable. Impossible and/or extremely difficult to change.

Remove the "corporations are people" and suddenly the laws are whatever the government decides they are.

[Pyperkub]

I'm not sure why it's a problem to tell corporations "No, you can't finance the election of candidates". Somehow I think they'll manage to survive and do ok.

Because if you tell them that, then you can tell them, "if we suspect you of hiring illegal aliens, we can freeze all your assets and search your records without warrant" or "penalties will be enacted for publishing information that could make our government unstable." Think Arizona or Department of Homeland Security.

Furthermore, all of those things would be controllable at a state level, because there would be no supreme court protection.

Not really, because property law with regards to corporations and their protections are fairly well documented, and the end-arounds you are positing already in some ways apply to private citizens (drug asset seizures, etc.). Property law is distinct from speech law.

[Exodor]

If corporations are people with all the same rights as other citizens shouldn't they be allowed to vote?

[Freezer-TPF-]

If corporations are people with all the same rights as other citizens shouldn't they be allowed to vote?

And shouldn't they be arrested when they break the law? And if convicted, be jailed?

Why aren't corporations of the appropriate age required to register for Selective Service?

[noxiousdog]

Not really, because property law with regards to corporations and their protections are fairly well documented, and the end-arounds you are positing already in some ways apply to private citizens (drug asset seizures, etc.). Property law is distinct from speech law.

The question would be is why are they documented that way? Is it because they have been treated as people?

[noxiousdog]

If corporations are people with all the same rights as other citizens shouldn't they be allowed to vote?

Strawman. They don't have the same rights at citizens.

[noxiousdog]

And shouldn't they be arrested when they break the law? And if convicted, be jailed?

You say that like they aren't subject to rule of law. They are brought to trial all the time and subjected to fines and penalties.

Which crime has a corporation committed that results in prison?

[GreenGoo]

And shouldn't they be arrested when they break the law? And if convicted, be jailed?

You say that like they aren't subject to rule of law. They are brought to trial all the time and subjected to fines and penalties.

Which crime has a corporation committed that results in prison?

Copyright infringement? Knowingly and intentionally poisoning a town's water supply, resulting in hundreds sick, multiple deaths and birth defects?

Anyway, I don't agree with this line of logic so it's a red herring anyway.

[noxiousdog]

Copyright infringement?

People go to prison for copyright infringement?

Apparently so. Wow. Though, I get it to a certain point. If you get fined and declare bankruptcy, you can just do it again.

Knowingly and intentionally poisoning a town's water supply, resulting in hundreds sick, multiple deaths and birth defects?

I would like to see CEO's held accountable for this personally, along with a lot of financial decisions.

[Pyperkub]

Montana Supreme Court ruling contradicting Citizens United being appealed to Kennedy and/or the Supremes:

The Montana law at issue — the Corrupt Practices Act enacted by the states’ voters in 1912 — was interpreted by the state court as a flat ban on independent spending of corporations’ internal funds to support or oppose specific candidates for state office (independent in the sense that the financial effort was not coordinated with a candidate). The measure thus was nearly identical to the ban in federal law that was struck down by the Citizens United ruling.

The Supreme Court, the state tribunal’s majority concluded, had left open the possibility that a “compelling interest” of the state would allow such a measure, and the majority found such an interest in the state’s past history and its present economic and political climate.

Three private corporations in Montana that want to spend funds independently in state elections urged Justice Kennedy, or the Court, to act swiftly, saying that “immediate relief is needed” because it is “vital that planning begin now for independent expenditures before the election.”

[AWS260]

If you found McNaughton's previous work too subtle and obtuse, his new painting might be for you:

[stessier]

Only you can prevent forest fires.

[Holman]

It's a little-known fact that the Constitution was originally written on brown construction paper slathered with napalm.

[Mr. Fed]

If you found McNaughton's previous work too subtle and obtuse, his new painting might be for you:

I thought that the pointing, glowering look seemed familiar.



I mean, since we're abandoning subtlety and proportion and all.

[Freezer-TPF-]

This thread is bearing some strange fruit.

[Holman]

God. I look at that photo for about three seconds and all my irony goes out the window.

[geezer]

If you found McNaughton's previous work too subtle and obtuse, his new painting might be for you:

The lighting in this painting is all screwed up.

[$iljanus]

The painter's website has a few more choice pics, some even interactive such as this one:

http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/353



On the website you can point your mouse over such subversive characters like "Professor", "Mr. Hollywood", "Lawyer" and "Liberal News Reporter" on the bottom right corner and let the fun commence.

In another painting "Jesus Loves Me Too", it seems that Jesus is filled with love for all the white blond kids and the token brunette.

[raydude]

Act now and you too can have your very own painting with Jesus, starting at a low price of $4,000!

Actual starting price for lowest tier painting $4320 for one person to be with Jesus. Extra charges for each additional person to be with Jesus. Average price for each additional person to be with Jesus $1000. Painter reserves right to photograph people for Jesus approval. If painter cannot photograph person then an additional Jesus charge of $850 applies. Not applicable for scientists, or living astronauts due to the whole Darwin thing. Deceased astronauts accepted because I assume they are with Jesus. How can they not be? Hallelujah, help daddy make it rain Jesus bills.

[Holman]

Act now and you too can have your very own painting with Jesus, starting at a low price of $4,000!

This one is called "Touched by the Scriptures," and that's all I'm going to say about it.

[Mr. Fed]

"No, dude, I swear. 'Gullible' isn't in there. Go on. Look it up."

[Jaymann]

Can you do something about these chest pains?

Yes, my son, lay off the Cheetos.

[Holman]

The more I look at his technique, the more I want to see him painting Ragnarok on the side of a van.

[Canuck]

Colbert did a piece on this. Awesome stuff as usual.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber ... share_copy

[Smoove_B]

I hope he can keep up the pace -- for your review, "The Empowered Man":

[Holman]

Too subtle.

[Kraken]

This meme has finally crossed firmly into self parody. The painter should've quite while he was ahead.

Too subtle.

Yeah, why isn't Obama holding up two fingers in a cross? Or whatever it is Muslims do to ward off evil.

[RuperT]

That ones tamer than most, isn't it? Only Reagan and Kennedy get a pass among modern Presidents, the rest look suitably abashed.
The money in hand means he has no equity, right?

[Jaymann]

That ones tamer than most, isn't it? Only Reagan and Kennedy get a pass among modern Presidents, the rest look suitably abashed.
The money in hand means he has no equity, right?

Actually, his jacket is stuffed with nickel bags and he is doing a brisk business. Obama is just saying no, but the guy on his knees is begging for a fix.

[Holman]

Is that the 2nd Amendment in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me? RAWR!

[Zarathud]

You have more luck if you hold up a boom box....

[Voice of Reason]

Jesus was never White. He was a Palestinian (Canaanite) civil equal rights activist, who's political leanings are what many on the Right would consider Liberal, Marxist, & Socialist. More than half the world's Christians would mistake Jesus for a terrorist had they met him.

If Jesus returned tomorrow, Racists would be among the firsts to be committed to the Pit.

Jesus was never a Druid (lose the Golden Oak).

Jesus' name was never Jesus. Jesus was a term used by his critics & the Romans in a derogatory context to address the Jewish people. The last name Christ, comes from the Latin Christos, meaning to be anointed for sacrifice--as most cultures did anoint (spiritually prepare) that or whom to be sacrificed. His true name is Yesua bin Yusef; Semitic for, "Joshua son of Joseph".

The artist drank enough of the Neocon koolaid to contract ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrone).

This is your wake up call, but those who pretend to be asleep cannot be awakened. Seek & spread truth.

[Pyperkub]

Long live the Overlords!