The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: MrsSmith on January 23, 2010, 12:39:37 PM
-
stellad (27 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Jan-23-10 01:21 PM
Original message (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7553885)
The simplest way to neutralize the SCOTUS ruling:
http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=2797
... Congress should prohibit any corporation from engaging in this new political spending if it has any non-American shareholders or owners. Because after all, foreigners have no 1st Amendment protections.
The “logic†behind the SCOTUS ruling is that a corporation composed of individuals ought to possess the legal attributes of its individual owners. Thus the same logic ought to require that partial foreign ownership renders the corporation a foreign body at least in part. The foreign parts of a corporation have no constitutional right to free speech. And since there is no practical way to distinguish the legal rights of the parts from the rights of the whole corporation (that presumption underpins the SCOTUS ruling), then it’s impossible to give American constitutional rights to part of a corporation but withhold them from another part.
Hence it is constitutionally permissible to deny a partly foreign-owned corporation from spending on political speech within the United States. Congress should act to do so immediately.
Why make this a priority? There can’t be many large corporations that are entirely owned by American persons. Indeed large corporations would not find it easy to determine the legal status of their actual human owners (that’s the rotten core of the Supreme Court’s insistence on treating corporations as if they were homunculi, or composite persons). And it should be obvious that the last trade-off that corporations will want to make, in order to be able to interfere directly in political contests, is to drive away foreign investors.
I can't keep track of which rights foreigners have...and which they don't. Or is it just that enemy combatants have all the rights of US citizens, but not the average foreign investor? ::)
-
I can't keep track of which rights foreigners have...and which they don't. Or is it just that enemy combatants have all the rights of US citizens, but not the average foreign investor? ::)
Interesting. So, you mean we could actually arrest the Mexican illegal immigrants who deface US Flags? Lets apply that policy to the next La Raza protest. Check citizenship, and arrest those who aren't citizens, and of course deport the ones who should be deported.
-
I can't keep track of which rights foreigners have...and which they don't. Or is it just that enemy combatants have all the rights of US citizens, but not the average foreign investor? ::)
They hate corporations, bankers, and anyone who makes money. So it makes sense they would want to take rights from those people. Terrorists on the other hand they love.
-
Interesting. So, you mean we could actually arrest the Mexican illegal immigrants who deface US Flags? Lets apply that policy to the next La Raza protest. Check citizenship, and arrest those who aren't citizens, and of course deport the ones who should be deported.
I would add that all federal aid to sanctuary cities must immediately be cut off.
Since it is impossible to differentiate what benefits the city uniquely then it would have to be applied to the entire state.
At that same point states could declare that they are no longer going to comply with federal mandates as the funding is the sword they hold over their heads to enforce them.
-
The most simple way to neutralize this decision is to do what you always do, stick your fingers in your ears and scream "la la la la la".
:-)
-
What does CATO say about this?
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/22/if-you-prick-a-corporation-does-it-not-bleed/
Having dispensed with the repellent doctrine of corporate personhood, we can happily declare that journalists enjoy full freedom of the press … as long as they don’t plan on using the resources of the New York Times Company or Random House or Comcast, which as mere legal fictions can be barred from using their property to circulate unpatriotic ideas. You’re free to practice your religion without interference — but if it’s an unpopular one, well, let’s hope you don’t expect to send your kids to a religious school or build a church or something, because those tend to involve incorporating. A woman’s right to choose is sacrosanct, but since clinics and hospitals are mere corporations with no such protection, she’d better hope she knows a doctor who makes house calls. Fill in your own scenarios, it’s easy
Very interesting point, wouldn't you say?
-
Congress should prohibit any corporation from engaging in this new political spending if it has any non-American shareholders or owners. Because after all, foreigners have no 1st Amendment protections.
I smell a mole.
-
I can't keep track of which rights foreigners have...and which they don't. Or is it just that enemy combatants have all the rights of US citizens, but not the average foreign investor?
That was my first immediate question, even before I got to the next paragraph the primitive wrote.
-
Funny, but corporations generally don't get treated as merely amalgams of their equity owners, as opposed to partnerships, which do. Furthermore, the mere fact - which I am assuming arguendo - that one group of individuals who may own shares of stock in a corporation do not have rights under the Constitution cannot be used to protect actions by the federal government that - although aimed at that unprotected group - necessarily infringe upon other people who do have protected rights under the Constitution. Thus, even if we assume, arguendo, that foreigners have no rights under the First Amendment - a very, very strange argument for a liberal to make given that liberals have already argued that illegal aliens have all manner of other rights under the Constitution, including Fifth Amendment rights in particular - it would still be unconstitutional for the federal government to remove all First Amendment rights from any corporation that has even a single foreign shareholder, because that would be ipso facto silencing every one of its shareholders who happened to be an American. That, of course, is the real underlying goal of liberals - to shut up Americans with whom they disagree; primarily, I suspect, because there has not been a liberal born yet who can win an argument with a conservative on the basis of logic, reason, and authority.
-
I can't keep track of which rights foreigners have...and which they don't. Or is it just that enemy combatants have all the rights of US citizens, but not the average foreign investor? ::)
They want foreigners to have rights when it's beneficial to them.
They don't when it conflicts with their Statist leanings.
-
Why would anyone need to neutralize anything ? The unions will balance this out.. Oh thats right - the unions and Soros were throwing money at campaigns before this ruling and are now going to be balanced by the corporations.. Now I understand why the Democrats dislike this ruling - it actually levels the playing field.
-
Why would anyone need to neutralize anything ? The unions will balance this out.. Oh thats right - the unions and Soros were throwing money at campaigns before this ruling and are now going to be balanced by the corporations.. Now I understand why the Democrats dislike this ruling - it actually levels the playing field.
Imagine if the BBB had been able to throw money directly into the race against Obama and the other Libs?
The Libtards are terrified of this ruling because years and years of their anti-business legislation and demonizing of Big Business are about to come back and take a super sized bite out of their @ss.
-
The simplest way to neutralize The simplest way to neutralize the SCOTUS ruling.
Have foreign share holders commit acts of treason. Voila, all rights (& then some) bestowed.
-
Amend the Constitution is the ONLY way.. the exceptions were Jackson ignored the SCUS with re-location of the Cherokee, saying that if they wanted to enforce their decision they would have to raise their own army.....or the POPULATION as a whole must ignore it as in Prohaibition, forcing the Constitutional change to conform to scociety.
-
Does this also apply to the IBEW (INTERNATIONAL Brotherhood of Electrical Workers)?
-
So many "IMPEACH" threads on the island it is difficult to deal with the monumental idiocy they posses.
-
So many "IMPEACH" threads on the island it is difficult to deal with the monumental idiocy they posses.
They do posess a lot of posses don't they? :hyper:
-
The simplest way to neutralize The simplest way to neutralize the SCOTUS ruling.
Have foreign share holders commit acts of treason. Voila, all rights (& then some) bestowed.
You're absolutely correct!
-
They do posess a lot of posses don't they? :hyper:
:thatsright:
Note to self...always double check the spell checker.
-
:thatsright:
Note to self...always double check the spell checker.
I am not with the spelling police, I just thought posses sounded funny
-
I am not with the spelling police, I just thought posses sounded funny
I am not a spelling fanatic either but I do try to do it correctly.
To me it shows a level of respect for whoever may be reading but just my opinion.