|
|
 RSS available
Fact: There is no immunity or protection against The Law of Scoreboards. Did you know: What the media does NOT want you to read is at https://market-ticker.org/nad. You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account! |
|
| The Market Ticker Single Post Display (Show in context) |
|
| Top | Login | FAQ | Register | Clear Cookie |
| User Info | Freedom Of Speech: How Quaint; entered at 2010-01-22 15:31:38 | |||
|
Lakeshorelady Posts: 5481 Registered: 2007-08-17 
|
A corporation, although made up of individuals, is a seperate legal enity with a seperate legal identity. One can not be consistent and argue "it is just a group of individuals" when they also acknowledge the benefit of incorporating is to gain advantages a group of unincorporated individuals do not have. Why? B/c the minute they start with the advantages of incorporation, they are ceding their "group of individuals" sought a different identity. Thus taking the stand a corp has the same constitutional rights as a "group of individuals" in one case, the right to free speech, but OTH saying the individuals themselves are shielded in their "group of individuals" when it comes to accountability/taxes/bankruptcy, is hypocrisy. Second. The intended purpose of all political contributions is to swing/decide representation of the individuals who the constitution affords the right of representation to. Whoever wins the vote and will be the actual constitutional "representation" is solely determined by those who have a constitutional right to vote -- individuals NOT by "a group of individuals" who the courts have granted "personhood" to. Corps currently are not given the right of representation under the constitution. Them NOT qualifying for representation is undebateable as they do not have the right to vote. Seeings they do not even qualify for representation, why do people argue they even have any constitutional rights let alone the right to seek/sway representation? If they are not as an entity even granted one of the most basic rights of the constitution, the power to vote, and they are not screaming their "group of individuals" is not being afforded equal protection, why are they as an enity afforded any other constitutional rights at all, ie the right to free speech? How does one pick and choose what individual rights they do have when the individuals are in "group" identity vs personal identity and weigh that against the absence of accountability the individuals have while in "group" legal status? Guns/no guns, speech/no speech, right to privacy/no right to privacy, protected from unreasonable search/not protected, equal protection/no equal protection, vote/no vote? Why the pick and choose when it comes to constitutional rights? Thus logic behind a corporation being "a group of individuals" is a hole ridden "have your cake and eat it too" stance. Seriously one is basically arguing "members of a corporation have individual rights right up until the shit hits the fan. Then well, ya see, a corporation is just some legal thingamagiggy went bad. No individual accountability, nothing to see there, move along" Only one way to resolve what has basically arisen into a constitutional rights loophole is to either give corps full constitutional protection or none at all 2010-01-22 15:31:38
| |||