[r.stiltskin]

You're overlooking the nuance that is part of everything in politics.

"Will not support" and "opposes" are not the same as "will veto". Vetoing costs more political capital than merely opposing. The president can "oppose" or be "not in favor of" a bill and still not veto it if it is passed.


...as ishkabible said.

This post has been edited by r.stiltskin: 16 January 2012 - 01:00 PM

[Craig328]

r.stiltskin, on 16 January 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

First, where did I say "forbid"?

Right here:

r.stiltskin, on 16 January 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

Corporations are created by the government. The constitution doesn't require that, it simply doesn't forbid that.

r.stiltskin, on 16 January 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

And you're wrong. Corporations are created by the government. A corporation is a legal entity that derives its "personhood" from the government -- usually a state but in a few instances by act of congress. The corporate charter spells out all of its rights and powers. The constitution doesn't mention corporations, so it's reasonable to conclude that the government that creates and empowers an entity can decide exactly what powers it confers on that entity.

Corporations aren't created by the government. I'm not sure how else to say it. Their existence is described by law so unless you're equating "laws" with "government" in a very pliable equivalence, it's just not true. "Citizen" and "legal adult" are also described by law...the government didn't create the people to whom those adjectives apply though.

You're entirely correct though that additional legislation could be introduced to limit the rights and freedoms enjoyed by corporations just as legislation could be introduced to limit the same amongst individuals. This, however, is the prima facie reason for governments to exist. To govern. It's not an extraordinary task they do. And while on the subject, because you disagree with what they currently allow corporations to do doesn't mean they don't describe the limits of what corporations can do. They have and they do. The legislative, executive and judicial branches have all determined that corporations have a right to free speech. A decision needed to be made on that point and it's been made. Government job = done.

The Constitution doesn't address a lot of things we find in everyday life. But then again, it's not meant to. It's a statement of guiding principles and enumerated rights. How subsequent generations chose to interpret and/or modify such was rather cleverly foreseen and the mechanism for such interpretation and modification was also devised.

r.stiltskin, on 16 January 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

Corporations are different from people. How many people do you know who live forever? How many people do you know who have boards of directors, and officers who are elected from time to time?

Limiting the powers of the corporate entity doesn't in any way infringe upon the rights of the individual shareholders. They are still free to enjoy individually and collectively all of the rights that the constitution guarantees to them.

Corporations aren't people...despite the fact they're entirely made up of people? You cannot have a dog as chairman of the board. You cannot have a calculator as chief executive officer. The positions must be filled by people. Longevity isn't at issue. As for how many people I know: I know me. I'm CEO of the corporation I founded. I own 100% of the common stock issued in the name of my corporation and I hold every directorial title in my company. Why not simply just shed the corporation and be me? Because the laws of the state and country I live in provide certain benefits to my conducting my business operations as a corporation and not as an individual. The state of Georgia didn't create my corporation. I did, per their rules. I did all the due diligence. I paid the fees. I arranged matters with the state revenue folk and the IRS. I file the applications and permits for business licenses. And I do the work of the corporation. Being allowed to do something isn't the same as the allowing party doing it. Active and permissive actions are two separate things.

And finally, if the "government" (our elected officials) decided tomorrow to simply say "corporations have no voice" then understand that the only collection of people who do have a collective voice in front of the courts at that point is the government itself. If they decided to sue you in federal court for actions you undertook as a director of a corporation (read: on behalf of those whom the corporation is made up from) then you would stand alone against the federal government's accusations. Do you have the individual resources to defend yourself? If you tried to introduce any evidence in support of your claim that derived from your corporation, the evidence could be rejected. Indeed, testimony cannot be heard from dogs or calculators. Corporate records, other officers of the company and so on would need to testify. Remove personhood from such an entity and you're on your own. In fact, carry it a step further and removing that privilege, who would want to form a corporation in the first place? Nobody sane.

People organizing have to have a single legal voice. As I said before, remove that from corporations and you remove it from similar entities we take for granted to defend our rights against an ever-encroaching government.

[modi123_1]

I think you are meaning to say corporations exist because there is a legal framework to give them shape and form and those laws and framework is held in a semi permanent state by the local and federal governments.

[Craig328]

Well...sure. If yer gonna be all Nazi about post brevity and all.

[modi123_1]

Bah.. typical comment I would expect from some liberal-with-his-words neo-socialist word-ippy. Sure.. they claim "I'm not sure how else to say it." but that is just a giant cover for them to spread, squander, and distribute a cornucopia of words to the masses. Soon we won't have no, mer', wOOOOORDS! They'll be squandered and we'll have to contend with a word-supply gap with the Rooskies!

Irrelevant tangent - do we even have a significant Russian Federation population of folks on DIC? I can't seem to remember if I've seen the flag around here or not.

[r.stiltskin]

Craig328, on 16 January 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

Corporations aren't created by the government. I'm not sure how else to say it.

No matter how you say it, it's wrong. Corporations are legal entities that are created by the government. Corporation isn't an adjective. It's a noun.


You are absolutely correct about this

Quote

The Constitution doesn't address a lot of things we find in everyday life.

The constitution doesn't list everything that the government should do. It lists the things that the government must not do. The government is allowed to do whatever is not forbidden. It isn't forbidden to create corporations -- hence it can. It isn't forbidden to limit the powers of the corporations it creates -- hence it can.

Quote

Corporations aren't people...despite the fact they're entirely made up of people?

Right. People are entirely made up of molecules. Are molecules people?

modi123_1, on 16 January 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

Irrelevant tangent - do we even have a significant Russian Federation population of folks on DIC? I can't seem to remember if I've seen the flag around here or not.

My grandparents came from Ukraine. Does that count?

[modi123_1]

Quote

Corporations aren't people...despite the fact they're entirely made up of people?

I believe the term is super organism. Good ol' "Lucifer Principle" by Howard Bloom to the rescue!

Quote

Viewed from the human perspective, the activities of the individual ants seemed to matter far less than the behavior of the colony as a whole. In fact, the colony acted as if it were an independent creature, feeding itself, expelling its wastes, defending itself, and looking out for its future. Wheeler was the man who dubbed a group of individuals collectively acting like one beast a superorganism

http://howardbloom.n...r/excerpt1.html

Quote

My grandparents came from Ukraine. Does that count?

Nope - too much tainting has occurred between the three generations.

[ishkabible]

So after some research it appears that corporations are created by people but there existence is defined under laws of the state in which they were created. The government did not set out to create Walmart, Sam Walton or what ever that guys name is did. Walmart however is a separate entity from Sam Walton however

Corporations are seen as entities just as people are but they are seen as separate from the individuals composing them. This however dose not make a corporation a person; they just get the same privileges and burdens as a human(free speech is protected and they have to pay taxes)

it's as if there is a base class "legal entity" of which both humans and corporations inherit from

This post has been edited by ishkabible: 16 January 2012 - 01:45 PM

[r.stiltskin]

ishkabible, on 16 January 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

it's as if there is a base class "legal entity" of which both humans and corporations inherit from

I like your base class analogy but only to a point. So people and corporations are both legal entities and they inherit the traits of legal entities:

Quote

In many jurisdictions, legal personality allows such composite to be considered under law separately from its individual members or shareholders. They may sue and be sued, enter contracts, incur debt, and own property. Entities with legal personality may also be subjected to certain legal obligations, such as the payment of taxes. An entity with legal personality may shield its shareholders from personal liability.

But the same Wikipedia article also says

Quote

Natural persons are distinct from juridical persons. The concept of a legal person is a fundamental legal fiction. It is pertinent to the philosophy of law, as is essential to laws affecting a corporation (corporations law) (the law of business associations).

The constitution starts off with We the people ...
not, we the legal entities, so I think we should take that at face value. There's no footnote or amendment that says "by the way, people includes corporations".

[ishkabible]

You do make a good point. I believe that the convolution of what states control and what the federal government controls(and then what the federal government influences like drinking age) has a bit to blame here. Corporations are defined under state law, not federal, yet the supreme court decided to interpret "people" as including corporations. As such any amendment from the bill of rights which has been incorporated(free speech for instance) applies to corporations as well. Like all things conveyed, laws too are up to interpretation; the supreme court's interpretation in this case.

weather their interpretation of "people" is correct is certainly dubious.

This post has been edited by ishkabible: 16 January 2012 - 02:57 PM

[r.stiltskin]

ishkabible, on 16 January 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

Corporations are defined under state law ...

Absolutely.

And "people" apparently didn't have to be defined, because presumably everyone knew what that meant.

(I don't know what a "people" is, but I know one when I see one.)

[Utael]

Unfortunately its up to the people in the supreme court to interpret what we the people includes. I say if you pay taxes you should get all the rights of this country. If not no rights. Yes that means taxation free should be limited in their rights such as churches, illegal imagrants, and people who just don't pay.

Sorry if it sounds harsh but why waste money funding people and groups that don't contribute to pay for it.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk

[Craig328]

Utael, on 17 January 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

Unfortunately its up to the people in the supreme court to interpret what we the people includes. I say if you pay taxes you should get all the rights of this country. If not no rights. Yes that means taxation free should be limited in their rights such as churches, illegal imagrants, and people who just don't pay.

Sorry if it sounds harsh but why waste money funding people and groups that don't contribute to pay for it.

According to whom you believe, between 45% and 50% of Americans don't pay income tax. You just stripped half the country of their rights. Children typically don't pay taxes. No rights for them either. Most charities are classified as 501©(3) organizations (they're corporations too). 501©(3) folk don't pay taxes. You just denied all their rights. These would include the right to not be held indefinitely without charge or trial (habeas corpus), the right to not be arbitrarily searched, the right to speak, the right to assemble peaceably, the right to own property, access to the courts and so on.

Once upon a time in this country, only those who owned land could vote. Then it was only whites could vote. Then it was only men could vote. Voting is the way the population ensures they have representatives who safeguard their rights.

And to clarify your first point: in the absence of a federal or state law that defines "we the people" if the SCOTUS decided to rule that it meant something contrary to the generally accepted notion of what "we the people" means to the rest of the country, there is a mechanism to override even the court (constitutional amendment).

[supersloth]

for the record facebook (along with google, twiter, wikipedia, etc) is against sopa. they instead back the OPEN act http://en.wikipedia....gital_Trade_Act

facebook hasn't listed any official plans to black out like others will, they are holding an event on the same day, no real word on if sopa will be a point of emphasis http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2398927,00.asp

[jon.kiparsky]

Quote

Yes that means taxation free should be limited in their rights such as churches, illegal imagrants, and people who just don't pay.

Illegal immigrants do in fact pay taxes. A migrant worker typically works under a tax ID number which isn't theirs. Payroll taxes are deducted under this ID. Since they're not filing a tax return under that ID, any overpayment they make doesn't get refunded to them, and of course they can never claim the social security that they've paid into.
Illegal immigrants, as a group, are net donors to the American tax system. So, by your logic, they should presumably get extra rights. I propose that they should get to wear badges saying "Paying your social security for you" and we should all be required to say "Thanks!" when we see someone wearing that badge.