Brontoforumus Archive
Discussion Boards => Thaddeus Boyd's Panel of Death => Topic started by: Royal☭ on January 22, 2010, 05:54:32 AM
-
So yesterday, the Supreme Court took the biggest blow to our democracy that has ever been waged. In a 5-4 party line ruling, they struck down over 100 years of corporate campaign finance reform (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?hp). This is law that's been going since Teddy Roosevelt's anti-trust days. Now corporations are free to spend as much on electioneering as they want with no oversite or regulation. Corporations that have several billion dollars just lying around that they can throw at political candidates are supportive of their agendas.
Now, the same also applies to labor union but I'm not even going to pretend that labor unions can match that kind of spending. This ruling basically insures that when election time comes around, whoever is most friendly to a corporation won't have to worry about lifting a finger to get donations. It's gross, it's outrageous, and it seems like the twilight of America has come and gone.
-
So yesterday, the Supreme Court took the biggest blow to our democracy that has ever been waged. In a 5-4 party line ruling, they struck down over 100 years of corporate campaign finance reform (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?hp). This is law that's been going since Teddy Roosevelt's anti-trust days. Now corporations are free to spend as much on electioneering as they want with no oversite or regulation. Corporations that have several billion dollars just lying around that they can throw at political candidates are supportive of their agendas.
Now, the same also applies to labor union but I'm not even going to pretend that labor unions can match that kind of spending. This ruling basically insures that when election time comes around, whoever is most friendly to a corporation won't have to worry about lifting a finger to get donations. It's gross, it's outrageous, and it seems like the twilight of America has come and gone.
fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucccccccccccccccccckkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
-
I don't even know, like, how America can ever come back from that. I should move to Northern Europe.
-
Yeah, we're done here.
-
Saw that. Wasn't happy.
This is easily on par with (or much worse than) the Glass-Steagal repeal.
-
Time to break out my old Shadowrun books and start studying in preperation for the America of tomorrow.
-
So, SCOTUS is completely, totally infallible? Nobody can say, "Hey, hey, hey, whoa. What the fuck?"
-
I don't know what you guys are talking about, this is perfect. With any luck corporate America will drive itself into the ground trying to match dollars against each other, and after that we can go ahead and rebuild from the ashes.
-
I wasn't aware that there were limits on how much money corporations could give to campaigns. I'm not sure how much of a difference I'll notice.
And to be perfectly fair to SCOTUS, it's actually a quite sensible ruling, in the context of the idea that corporations are people, too. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find somebody who agrees with the general body of precedent regarding corporations as people but disagrees with this particular ruling.
So, SCOTUS is completely, totally infallible? Nobody can say, "Hey, hey, hey, whoa. What the fuck?"
Of course not! The Founding Fathers had contingency plans for everything. SCOTUS can revisit their previous verdicts and change them (although obviously a few judges have to tag in before that's plausible), and of course Congress can always pass constitutional amendments to make whatever was unconstitutional constitutional. So all you need to do is write to your elected representatives and explain to them that it's very important that they try and get two-thirds of their peers to agree to not take great big stacks of cash from corporations!
-
I don't know what you guys are talking about, this is perfect. With any luck corporate America will drive itself into the ground trying to match dollars against each other, and after that we can go ahead and rebuild from the ashes.
You're assuming they're actually competing with each other instead of colluding with each other.
And to be perfectly fair to SCOTUS, it's actually a quite sensible ruling, in the context of the idea that corporations are people, too.
Right, it's the perfectly logical conclusion of a BATSHIT FUCKING CRAZY premise.
Garbage in, garbage out.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find somebody who agrees with the general body of precedent regarding corporations as people but disagrees with this particular ruling.
Unless they think "people with more money are entitled to more freedom of speech" is an insane premise.
...which, I suppose, if they think corporations are people, they probably don't. Fair enough.
...was going to admonish Catloaf for his post, but fuck it, big red letters + vague references to assassination of people he disagrees with politically = go directly to jail.
-
Obama to "freeze" federal spending (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/25/830197/-Obama-Embraces-Hooverism)
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:getbent:
:fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit:
:fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit:
:fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit:
:fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit:
:fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit:
:fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit:
:fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit:
:fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit::fukit:
Remember when people were saying 2010 couldn't possibly be worse than 2009? We're not even out of January yet!
-
Well... uh... shit.
Ummmmm...
Well, at the very least I'm looking forward to watching all the conservative pundits' heads explode.
-
Well, at the very least I'm looking forward to watching all the conservative pundits' heads explode.
you really think that, huh?
-
... no.
There isn't an emoticon for uncontrollable sobbing.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSNeL0QYfqo
-
...
....can someone tell me if this means I will not get my disability check or not?
And if the answer is no, listen for the loud FUCK coming from the northwest US.
-
I suppose we should just agree to expect large swear words in a topic titled "America is Fucked".
You're assuming they're actually competing with each other instead of colluding with each other.
Some of them are, but I have faith in the theory that as long as at least two rich people are alive, at least two rich people are going to try and screw each other at some point.
-
Oh, they tacked an update to that post for you, Lyrai.
The administration insist that important programs will be kept alive and functioning, and that funding for, say, education initiatives will rise, while funding for other programs will decline -- and that the president's priorities will be well-funded. The freeze is irrelevant to health care because medicare, medicaid and taxes are all mandatory. So too are many of the programs for the neediest, such as unemployment insurance and Pell Grants. And many of the other programs were plussed up recently so the White House is freezing them at a very high level.
Which basically sounds like "No New Taxes" but whatever, bottom line is he's not shutting off the valve to "necessary" services which I am inclined to assume includes disability. So calm down.
-
If they do shut down disability payments I will be the only person in this house of four adults with an income.
Provided I find a job before this takes effect.
-
The issue here is that government spending currently makes up a large portion of GDP. It's basically acting as the finger in the dikd to keep things from getting worse. But since Obama is listening to these brain dead idiots who suddenly find themselves caring about the deficit after 8 years of total silence, we stand a good chance of this recession getting much worse.
All this time we were wondering if Obama would be a Clinton or a Carter. Who knew he'd throw a curveball and become a Hoover?
-
I.
Had.
Better.
Get.
My.
Veterans.
Affairs.
GI.
Bill.
Check.
:rage:
-
Hey hey hey, it could always be worse.
He could suddenly lose his eloquence too and turn into Coolidge.
-
Hi
As a practical matter, this doesn't change anything. Corporations were already shoveling money into their PACs, as the dissent notes.
The problematic thing about this decision is the sweeping dicta about money as an expression of political speech.
EDIT: Oh my. That is just goofy. It's not as bad as all that, however. It's a freeze, not a cut. PS: McDohl, it says in the article the VA is exempt from this.
-
Hi
As a practical matter, this doesn't change anything. Corporations were already shoveling money into their PACs, as the dissent notes.
The problematic thing about this decision is the sweeping dicta about money as an expression of political speech.
Agreed x eleventy-billion.
It's pretty naive to say that corporate money wasn't already severely affecting legislation. Hell, it's been that way for decades. And repealing this will change nothing about that trend.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSNeL0QYfqo
The explanation is that the U.S. has been bankrupted several times over and China has been aggressively encouraging its own consumer market. Comparisons to Hoover are accurate but not entirely fair.
-
I.
Had.
Better.
Get.
My.
Veterans.
Affairs.
GI.
Bill.
Check.
:rage:
(http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu23/Bon_Bon_2009/scruffy-1.jpg)
-
Well, it's probably fair to say that the current debt carries huge sovereignty baggage, where the Depression was basically borne domestically.
-
Yeah, I went back and read it, and yeah, VA still has their budget.
-
...was going to admonish Catloaf for his post, but fuck it, big red letters + vague references to assassination of people he disagrees with politically = go directly to jail.
Yeah, I'm embarrassed about that post now. I just really fucking hate that ruling and the premise behind it.
Oh, they tacked an update to that post for you, Lyrai.
The administration insist that important programs will be kept alive and functioning, and that funding for, say, education initiatives will rise, while funding for other programs will decline -- and that the president's priorities will be well-funded. The freeze is irrelevant to health care because medicare, medicaid and taxes are all mandatory. So too are many of the programs for the neediest, such as unemployment insurance and Pell Grants. And many of the other programs were plussed up recently so the White House is freezing them at a very high level.
Which basically sounds like "No New Taxes" but whatever, bottom line is he's not shutting off the valve to "necessary" services which I am inclined to assume includes disability. So calm down.
(http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q78/Catloaf/Reactions/1206733389157.jpg)
So.... Then what the hell is actually being cut? If a program isn't "Important" then why the fuck is the federal government doing it? There's an argument to be made on everything that the government spends money on, that's why they have to do all those budget bills in congress, isn't it?
I'm very confused, very sad and very disappointed in Obama.
-
It's interesting to see which of you turn into huge fucking babies when you are mildly shook up
-
:nyoro~n: :;_;:
-
Well, in fairness, not panicking doesn't mean you're A-OK either. I have like no sense of urgency. There could be a house on fire and I'd be all.....hmmmmmmmm that house is... on fiiiire... hmmmmmmmmmmmmm *stare*.
Nor does that mean I don't get mad at things either.
-
It's interesting to see which of you turn into huge fucking babies when you are mildly shook up
Also, Frocto, you have to consider that this VA living allowance, as well as my tuition payments, is extremely important, otherwise I will end up late on a car loan payment, among other things. Plus I owe my parents money. I need this money, and I need it yesterday.
-
Car loan payment? I'll never understand people who finance cars. I mean, everyone who isn't a Rockafella ends up with a morgage on their house but used cars are not that expensive. I've always bought my cars cash.
1995 Ford Aspire - from my sister for $2,000
2000 Chevy Cavalier - $8,000 (Totalled in a bad accident on the highway, otherwise I'd still be driving it)
2004 VW Jetta - $11,000
If I'd financed all I'd have is less money now.
-
Wow, I didn't know you got in an accident in the Cav... when the hell did that happen?
Also, two points: 1 - you are more disciplined with money than most folks I know Geo. Not to mention generally higher costs in the US. I doubt a fresh-out-of-the-military student paying American tuition had even 2k lying around, and 2 - a car is much more of a forced necessity in the states, and many US laws have anti-clunker laws that make the supply of cheap used cars much smaller than they are here. In know in Ontario I could find any number of $500 cars (hell, my dad bought a 95 Saturn for $500 that he's still driving over three years later... that car owes him NOTHING), but in Baltimore a used car simply couldn't be had for less than 3 or 4 grand.
I'd agree that it's generally dumb to finance cars if it isn't a necessity.
-
Now do you mean Rockefeller as in John D., oil magnate, or Rockafella the lead rapper of the Robba Barons?
-
I'm not sure anymore, they both seem so tempting.
-
ah yes the rent-a-center gambit
i will be sure to help you spread the word to all those people for whom $11,000 is six months' pay that they can achieve financial independence by having more cash on hand
-
But how can having more money NOW NOW NOW possibly hurt me in the future? :mystery:
-
All this time we were wondering if Obama would be a Clinton or a Carter. Who knew he'd throw a curveball and become a Hoover?
Hmm.. no one comes to mind here.. (http://harpers.org/archive/2009/06/hbc-90005235)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3582/3668114713_678c55048f.jpg)
-
ah yes the rent-a-center gambit
i will be sure to help you spread the word to all those people for whom $11,000 is six months' pay that they can achieve financial independence by having more cash on hand
But how can having more money NOW NOW NOW possibly hurt me in the future?
Who are you talking to and about what? Your glibness has confused me.
P.Bird, if you are infering that poor people can't afford to buy 2004 Jetta like I can with the money I made working as an intern at RIM and so they clearly have no option but to finance one then I am kind of confused.
I admittedly don't post in Real World much, but I thought Thad bred false choice arguments out of the gene pool here a long time ago.
I think MCE is calling him dumb, but I'm not sure.
-
I think he was saying that poor folks have to finance stuff because they're poor.
It IS a truism that the rich can afford to be more frugal (just because they don't always do so doesn't mean they don't have a better capability).
Anyway, I already went over this:
Wow, I didn't know you got in an accident in the Cav... when the hell did that happen?
Also, two points: 1 - you are more disciplined with money than most folks I know Geo. Not to mention generally higher costs in the US. I doubt a fresh-out-of-the-military student paying American tuition had even 2k lying around, and 2 - a car is much more of a forced necessity in the states, and many US laws have anti-clunker laws that make the supply of cheap used cars much smaller than they are here. In know in Ontario I could find any number of $500 cars (hell, my dad bought a 95 Saturn for $500 that he's still driving over three years later... that car owes him NOTHING), but in Baltimore a used car simply couldn't be had for less than 3 or 4 grand.
I'd agree that it's generally dumb to finance cars if it isn't a necessity.
-
Fiscal Responsibility is practically a super-power and you are over-estimating the number of Americans who are even aware of it. It is the sort of thing that should be taught in primary-to-high school.
You have to understand that this is a culture in which if you have a few hundred extra dollars you go buy a flat-screen TV or a Playstation 3 or something and who cares about tomorrow you'll have another paycheck next week(at which point man wouldn't some surround sound go well with this new TV.) Not to even mention folks with legitimate problems.
But yeah basically you are using yourself as a standard when you are an exception!
-
T FROCTO: The people flipping out here are the ones who have a reasonable expectation to have their shit paid for. The ones generally disinterested are the ones who have never gotten a single dime from the government, and in certain cases are still paying it for the education they never received because they couldn't consistently get a large enough loan.
T GEO: Mind telling us what you actually made doing that? Because I'm seeing RIM intern salaries at anywhere from 2400-4000 per month, which is a pretty good take for a lot of people here. Plus or minus the cost of living in Canada vs. Bushmerica.
-
I financed the car three years ago, when my income was substantially less than what I was making a year ago. Also, I had just come off deployment, so I had a lot of cash in my pocket.
-
I know that I am the exception, I just find it hilarious that I am. I find it silly that so many people are spending money, to buy things that are out of their price range so that they can look like they are more well off than they are.
I'm not tying to mock the poor here, I'm laughing at those that are in say, the lower middle class and are house poor or car poor due to poor decisions.
Anyway, this is all very off topic.
Also, I think I made $13-15 $/hr there, I make $21.75/hr at my current horrible job and I think I'm up for a raise in about a month or so.
-
they can achieve financial independence by having more cash on hand
But how can having more money NOW NOW NOW possibly hurt me in the future? :mystery:
-
Will admit that financing a car is generally a chump idea even though A) I did and B) I don't regret it. Basically the cars I spent cash on were so horrible that I don't at all mind paying relatively low interest on something that I use every day, enjoy, and can feel confident that it won't throw itself into a guardrail.
-
Agreed. I adore my car and would rather have it than a cheap used car for the amount I put down, around 6k. Plus I didn't think the interest rate was bad at 3%. I think it just depends on the person, especially since not everyone can wait until they have the amount of money saved up to pay for a car in cash.
-
Well, as stated previously, a crappy car is not nearly as much a social stigma OR a necessity to get to a job in Canada as it is in most US states.
-
It is if you want to be a social worker.
One of my friends from Uni tried to get into social work. She has her degree and volunteers at the Women's Shelter downtown on shift work. But she's never going to get a job as a full-time social worker because she's got a form of albinism that makes her legally blind.
-
So, what megacorporations will you guys be applying for citrizenship with in a few years? I don't really like needles or the RFID chip thing so I will probably apply to be a citizen of Walmart. Enough Christian influence that the higher ups would realize that any RFID chip would be seen by their constituents as the Mark of the Beast told about in Revealations. Plus, you do get a cool vest and if you work long enough and get your rank up to citizen first class I hear you get a free chinese indentured servent who makes you cheap clothing and sneakers.
In all honesty, I am not too worried. At the risk of sounding jingoistic everything always works out in the end for the USA and has through history so I have no reason to think it will be different this time. I have faith in this country and its people.
-
I think he was saying that poor folks have to finance stuff because they're poor.
It IS a truism that the rich can afford to be more frugal (just because they don't always do so doesn't mean they don't have a better capability).
Yeah, I've always liked the Terry Pratchett theory of wealth - wealthy people stay wealthy because they can afford to be frugal. I think his example was that rich people can afford the boots which cost twice as much but last five times as long - a net savings, if you can afford it up front.
-
I have faith in this country and its people.
That must be really nice. I envy you for that.
-
We can talk about the credit rating system in this country if you like. I don't know if it's US specific but the fact that it exists anywhere in this universe is enough to make you stop believing in rational mathematics.
Though I may just be bitter because I'm going to be up for buying a house* this summer and the fact that I got a car and some health care in the last couple months means I probably can't.
* okaycondothisiscalifornia
-
make you stop believing in rational mathematics.
:hellamad:
Good day sir.
-
I don't know if you're agreeing or threatening to devour me. I haven't really followed what your occupation is other than "office drone" so forgive my harsh tone if you're partially responsible for that fucking mess.
-
I SAID GOOD DAY
-
No you didn't, you edited it in!
-
I most certainly did not, how dare you
-
Hint: she's an auditor.
-
Hint: studied and in love with pure mathematics
-
AND AMERICA. WHICH IS FUCKED. AGAIN.
-
I've been led to believe that if I blindly agree with whatever Brentai says he'll be able to make more Xenogears LP videos.
Also, he appears to be suggesting that the bizarre contortions that are done with numbers to arrive at a credit rating are harrowing events capable of destroying a person's emotions love of maths.
Also, discrete maths?
-
Somehow with that avatar of yours, I don't realize it's you so I forget to not read until after I read.
-
Somehow with that avatar of yours, I don't realize it's you so I forget to not read until after I read.
(http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu23/Bon_Bon_2009/scruffy-1.jpg)
-
Well guys, looks like the debt reduction agenda is going to be subverted anyway (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/us-senate-stymies-obama-on-deficit-cuts/article1445129/).
-
We can talk about the credit rating system in this country if you like. I don't know if it's US specific but the fact that it exists anywhere in this universe is enough to make you stop believing in rational mathematics.
I'm reminded of the section of The Areas of my Expertise in which John Hodgman describes insurence agencies and the various guilds of actuaries that they employ each of which use their own traditional methods of determining when you will die using methods and tools such as animal entrails, crystal ball gazing, sheep dog consultation, and GUESSING.
-
Oh one other thing. The outlandish culture of credit only exists partly because of mindless rampant consumerism.
It also exists because the last thirty years have completely destroyed the American middle class, and only by going into massive debt are we all able to collectively pretend this didn't happen.
-
Somehow with that avatar of yours, I don't realize it's you so I forget to not read until after I read.
It's a trained reflex by this point, and the subject matter of his new avatar is actually terrible as well so it's easy to associate terrible with terrible.
-
Yeah, I've always liked the Terry Pratchett theory of wealth - wealthy people stay wealthy because they can afford to be frugal. I think his example was that rich people can afford the boots which cost twice as much but last five times as long - a net savings, if you can afford it up front.
oh god this
Also, I would add my two cents about the issue: people are people and no one is perfect, so therefore it's a given that through all the myriad choices people have to make over the course of their lives, some will be good choices, and others bad. What money does for you is enable you to benefit more from your good choices and suffer less from your bad ones.
-
Yeah, I've always liked the Terry Pratchett theory of wealth - wealthy people stay wealthy because they can afford to be frugal. I think his example was that rich people can afford the boots which cost twice as much but last five times as long - a net savings, if you can afford it up front.
oh god this
Heh. I can't tell if you're agreeing or horrified (tentatively guessing agreement?).
Also, I would add my two cents about the issue: people are people and no one is perfect, so therefore it's a given that through all the myriad choices people have to make over the course of their lives, some will be good choices, and others bad. What money does for you is enable you to benefit more from your good choices and suffer less from your bad ones.
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/FramFramson/wordup.gif)
-
I suddenly wonder where "money" is distinct from "privilege". Being a white-lookin' male, I basically don't get any shit even for being pants wetting retarded.
-
Privilege is invisible money that never goes away.
-
Also money is free speech. We need a word filter that changes all instances of the word money to free speech.
It is clear that some people have more free speech that others.
-
Well, that's because some people are more equal than others.
-
It's a freeze, not a cut.
It's a freeze that's not tied to inflation. Meaning it's not a cut...until NEXT year.
...back to the corporate personhood thing. The way I see it, the only recourse at this point is a constitutional amendment. Which of course is how I felt BEFORE all this (it's here somewhere, pretend I took the time to find a link).
I found a proposal at someplace called reclaimdemocracy.org (http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/proposed_constitutional_amendments.html).
SECTION 1. The U.S. Constitution protects only the rights of living human beings.
SECTION 2. Corporations and other institutions granted the privilege to exist shall be subordinate to any and all laws enacted by citizens and their elected governments.
SECTION 3. Corporations and other for-profit institutions are prohibited from attempting to influence the outcome of elections, legislation or government policy through the use of aggregate resources or by rewarding or repaying employees or directors to exert such influence.
SECTION 4. Congress shall have power to implement this article by appropriate legislation.
At a glance, it seems to make sense, but something's nagging at me that there must be something wrong here (probably because it's a legal proposition and yet it seems to make sense). Could one of our resident lawyers pick it apart for me and explain what's wrong with it?
Also: if the Democrats were smart (they, of course, are not), they would campaign on this. Of course it won't pass, but that hasn't stopped the Republicans from pushing stupid bullshit like flag-burning and gay-marriage bans in election years.
-
Only protecting the rights of living human beings sounds like a terrible idea. It sounds weird to say it, but dead people have rights too - and so do some things which aren't human at all. Kittens, for example. A sufficiently narrow reading of "only" protecting the rights of "living human beings" could effectively put a stop to, among other things, great huge chunks of wildlife conservation efforts at a government level.
Section 2 sounds really, really odd to me. It sounds wrong on multiple levels. For example: what constitutes an institution? Who has the authority to grant an institution the privilege of existence? Since when is existing ever a privilege? And what is the purpose of this whole line?
Honestly, the more I read this thing, the more it sounds like a terrible phrasing of a suspiciously radical concept to begin with. I would imagine that 'A corporation is not a person and does not possess any of the rights which are otherwise exclusive to people" would rock the boat enough.
And even then I'm not sure if that's sufficiently specific. When you really think about it, a constitutional amendment of "corporations are not people" wouldn't be terribly helpful; nobody's ever actually seriously claimed that they literally are, or should be. (I've never heard anybody claim that corporations should have a right to vote in elections, for example.) What we actually want is for corporations to not have certain rights and abilities that would otherwise be the sole domain of individual people and governments - but (I assume) we want some of those things to remain. The ability to sue and be sued, for example. Or the ability to have money and property. (Physical, not intellectual.)
-
Only protecting the rights of living human beings sounds like a terrible idea. It sounds weird to say it, but dead people have rights too - and so do some things which aren't human at all. Kittens, for example. A sufficiently narrow reading of "only" protecting the rights of "living human beings" could effectively put a stop to, among other things, great huge chunks of wildlife conservation efforts at a government level.
are you fucking retarded or something?
-
Dolphins are too delicious to have rights.
Burrito did a bit of read fail there. We don't consider trees or other "natural resources" to have rights, but there are still great pains to protect them.
-
Would it cover things to simply have an amendment that read exactly what you wanted: That no corporation shall be granted rights on an equal level as an individual and then enumerate the differences?
-
We can even start small and say no corporation can be granted rights that are not available to individuals.
The current ruling is that organizations can contribute as much money as they feel like and, unless I'm misinformed, individuals cannot.
Argue that this is wrong, and then make it very, very, VERY public who disagrees with you. See what kind of chord that strikes.
It's a minor blessing that at the end of the day, every voter is in that latter group.
-
Only protecting the rights of living human beings sounds like a terrible idea. It sounds weird to say it, but dead people have rights too - and so do some things which aren't human at all. Kittens, for example. A sufficiently narrow reading of "only" protecting the rights of "living human beings" could effectively put a stop to, among other things, great huge chunks of wildlife conservation efforts at a government level.
I don't know of anything in the Constitution about wildlife conservation.
Section 2 sounds really, really odd to me. It sounds wrong on multiple levels. For example: what constitutes an institution? Who has the authority to grant an institution the privilege of existence? Since when is existing ever a privilege?
Since it's an abstract entity we're talking about.
The idea that an abstract entity exists at the pleasure of the citizenry, and should be done away with as soon as it ceases to serve the people's needs, is not a new one in American politics.
to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Honestly, the more I read this thing, the more it sounds like a terrible phrasing of a suspiciously radical concept to begin with. I would imagine that 'A corporation is not a person and does not possess any of the rights which are otherwise exclusive to people" would rock the boat enough.
Well, for starters, you have to define "otherwise exclusive to people". The bit I quoted specifically alluded to rights granted in the Constitution.
I've never heard anybody claim that corporations should have a right to vote in elections, for example.
No, only that they should decide them.
What we actually want is for corporations to not have certain rights and abilities that would otherwise be the sole domain of individual people and governments - but (I assume) we want some of those things to remain. The ability to sue and be sued, for example.
I'm not sure that qualifies as constitutional either. Which is precisely the point -- yes, corporations are covered by laws, and yes, they behave as proxies for groups of people. But that doesn't mean they deserve the rights of individual people.
I think you're confused about the specifics of the proposal -- it refers only to rights, and only to those in the Constitution. There's an entire body of US law that's separate from the Constitution itself.
Or the ability to have money and property. (Physical, not intellectual.)
Now see, I'm about as pro-individual and anti-corporate a guy as you'll find here when it comes to the subject of copyrights, patents, and trademarks, but saying corporations shouldn't be able to have them at ALL is, to say the least, problematic. I WOULD argue that corporate ownership should be weakened and individual ownership strengthened, but if corporations can't own ideas, well, they're going to stop investing in them.
-
Woah. Okay, let me see here.
First: I concede my point about kittens. I forgot that the federal government doesn't have any animal cruelty laws.
I'm sticking to my guns on "wildlife conservation", though. Congress has the power to legislate in order to "provide for... the general welfare of the United States", and I would hate to try and justify, say, the national parks system with that clause if it instead read "the general welfare of the living people of the United States".
While we're at it, does anybody have any issue with the federal government being prohibited from protecting the rights of dead people?
Honestly, the more I read this thing, the more it sounds like a terrible phrasing of a suspiciously radical concept to begin with. I would imagine that 'A corporation is not a person and does not possess any of the rights which are otherwise exclusive to people" would rock the boat enough.
Well, for starters, you have to define "otherwise exclusive to people". The bit I quoted specifically alluded to rights granted in the Constitution.
Good point. There's actually a fairly large category of abstract legally-recognized institutions which you'd also have to consider - non-profit organizations and organized religions spring to mind. But it would also be inadequate to simply list the rights they do have, for much the same reason that it's inadequate to list the rights that people have. You'd probably have to block out generalized chunks of rights - absence of free speech is probably the most important one there.
What we actually want is for corporations to not have certain rights and abilities that would otherwise be the sole domain of individual people and governments - but (I assume) we want some of those things to remain. The ability to sue and be sued, for example.
I'm not sure that qualifies as constitutional either. Which is precisely the point -- yes, corporations are covered by laws, and yes, they behave as proxies for groups of people. But that doesn't mean they deserve the rights of individual people.
I think you're confused about the specifics of the proposal -- it refers only to rights, and only to those in the Constitution. There's an entire body of US law that's separate from the Constitution itself.
Or the ability to have money and property. (Physical, not intellectual.)
Now see, I'm about as pro-individual and anti-corporate a guy as you'll find here when it comes to the subject of copyrights, patents, and trademarks, but saying corporations shouldn't be able to have them at ALL is, to say the least, problematic. I WOULD argue that corporate ownership should be weakened and individual ownership strengthened, but if corporations can't own ideas, well, they're going to stop investing in them.
Wait.
There's an entire body of US law that's separate from the Constitution itself.
The entire body of US law is permitted to exist by the Constitution, but the Constitution lays down parameters for what US law can legislate; thanks to the 10th amendment, US law that's separate from the Constitution is, by definition, unconstitutional. The constitution is at the top of the pyramid for all federal legislation.
I'm assuming that the ability of corporations to participate in legal cases falls within the purview of "general welfare". (I essentially read "provide for the general welfare" to mean "make things happen if they are A Good Thing.")
My suggestion that corporations should not be able to own IP was, I think based on the perhaps overly optimistic idea that, if corporations couldn't own IP, they'd just have to make sure that the individuals who owned that IP continued to be on their payroll and continued to be happy to grant that corporation the use of that IP. Creator's rights sort of fing.
To return to the original proposal: I think Section 1 and Section 2 are unnecessary at best and potentially damaging at worst. Section 3 has a good idea but the wording is much too specific; probably better to permit Congress to restrict the free speech of whatever broad category of institution we decide we're talking about. (I could see arguments for churches not being in that list, for example.) I have no particular issues with Section 4.
-
Setting churches out as specially separate from other organizations in terms of speech restrictions is a violation of the Establishment clause.
-
Not if you're doing it in a constitutional amendment. You can do anything you damn well please in a constitutional amendment. Like ban slavery!
-
Not if the Constitutional amendment contradicts another part of the Constitution without repealing it. Like how the 21st amendment had to specifically say "Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed." in it, not just say "Alcohol's legal now!". A Constitutional amendment setting churches out special would need to repeal the Establishment Clause to be a valid amendment.
-
T BAP Animal Welfare Act (http://awic.nal.usda.gov/nal_display/index.php?info_center=3&tax_level=3&tax_subject=182&topic_id=1118&level3_id=6735)
-
What constitutes federal cruelty to animals?
There is no federal cruelty law—and technically, there cannot be. Animal cruelty is dealt with on the state level because the United States Constitution limits the areas in which Congress can pass federal laws applicable nationwide (Article 1, Section 8), and instructs that everything else is up to individual states to handle. However, there are some federal laws to regulate specific activities that affect animals. For example, the Animal Welfare Act regulates the sale, handling and transport of certain animals. Click here to learn more about the Animal Welfare Act.
The U.S. Congress’s broadest Constitutional power is over activities that impact or affect international and interstate commerce. Acts of animal cruelty typically occur in a fixed place, and probably cannot be interpreted to impact interstate commerce—not yet, anyway—so the federal government has no jurisdiction over them. The flip side of this is animal fighting ventures, which do sometimes involve movement between states. Therefore, because can it involve interstate commerce, there are federal laws addressing animal fighting and outlining penalties. One such law is 2007’s Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act.
http://www.aspca.org/fight-animal-cruelty/reporting-cruelty-faq.html#federalcruelty
I took that to mean that it isn't a federal offense to set a kitten on fire, as long as you don't do it across state lines.
-
I'm not sure how the ASPCA interprets the AWA as something other than a cruelty law but okay w/e.
-
So, okay. Grassley and Baucus introduced a bloated jobs bill full of unrelated shit, people started bitching about it, and Reid introduced a barebones version in a matter of hours (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0211/Harry-Reid-scales-back-Senate-jobs-bill-reflecting-voter-anger). I've expressed previously that I think this is what they should have done with the healthcare bill instead of turning it into the clusterfuck it became, and he IS bitchslapping the guys responsible for that clusterfuck here. So, good for him.
It's not going to get much done, but it'll probably pass, and it doesn't have any abortion bans in it.
MEANWHILE. Dems to pass harder restrictions on corporate election financing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/11/AR2010021103122.html), which would mainly require better disclosure -- a CEO would have to do the "I approve this message" bit on the end of a campaign ad, and corporations making campaign ads would be denied federal contracts. It all sounds pretty good to me. It'll get filibustered, but it's going to be a hard one for Fox News to spin. Then again, Fox News's entire audience is made up, by definition, of people who subscribe to whatever political beliefs a corporation tells them to.
A thought that occurred to me: they're also proposing a ban on campaign donations from foreign corporations. Now, that would be a great idea under sane conditions. However, the entire reason for pushing a bill in the first place is that, according to current interpretation of law, corporations are people and money is speech. I disagree, strongly, with both those premises, but they're the law now, barring a constitutional amendment or a new ruling by a new Supreme Court.
So you can see where I'm going with this. If corporations are people and campaign donations are speech, then a law that says foreign corporations aren't entitled to make campaign donations says that foreign people aren't entitled to free speech. That probably sounds a little paranoid, and I hope I'm way off-base with it, but certainly there's a recent trend in claiming the Constitution doesn't apply to foreign nationals (as Colbert put it the other night, the Declaration of Independence says "All men are created equal* * (American citizens only)").
Anyway. That's the kind of shit I think about.
And I would much rather drink beer and play Dragon Age than think about that kind of shit. Which is why I haven't popped in to the Healthcare thread in a month or so.
Let's hunt some Orc.
-
(http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/twotowers-gimli1.jpg)
YYYYES!
-
First: I concede my point about kittens. I forgot that the federal government doesn't have any animal cruelty laws.
No, the CONSTITUTION doesn't have any animal cruelty laws.
I'm sticking to my guns on "wildlife conservation", though. Congress has the power to legislate in order to "provide for... the general welfare of the United States", and I would hate to try and justify, say, the national parks system with that clause if it instead read "the general welfare of the living people of the United States".
While we're at it, does anybody have any issue with the federal government being prohibited from protecting the rights of dead people?
[...]
Wait.
There's an entire body of US law that's separate from the Constitution itself.
The entire body of US law is permitted to exist by the Constitution, but the Constitution lays down parameters for what US law can legislate; thanks to the 10th amendment, US law that's separate from the Constitution is, by definition, unconstitutional. The constitution is at the top of the pyramid for all federal legislation.
I think we're simply dealing with problems of nomenclature here. My "separate from" is the same as your "permitted to exist by". Things like animal cruelty laws and corporate rights fall under that heading, whatever we want to call it.
Good point. There's actually a fairly large category of abstract legally-recognized institutions which you'd also have to consider - non-profit organizations and organized religions spring to mind. But it would also be inadequate to simply list the rights they do have, for much the same reason that it's inadequate to list the rights that people have. You'd probably have to block out generalized chunks of rights - absence of free speech is probably the most important one there.
I'm not sure I agree. I think the rights of institutions SHOULD be defined narrowly.
To return to the original proposal: I think Section 1 and Section 2 are unnecessary at best and potentially damaging at worst. Section 3 has a good idea but the wording is much too specific; probably better to permit Congress to restrict the free speech of whatever broad category of institution we decide we're talking about. (I could see arguments for churches not being in that list, for example.) I have no particular issues with Section 4.
Let me start by re-quoting the thing so I can keep what we're talking about straight.
SECTION 1. The U.S. Constitution protects only the rights of living human beings.
SECTION 2. Corporations and other institutions granted the privilege to exist shall be subordinate to any and all laws enacted by citizens and their elected governments.
SECTION 3. Corporations and other for-profit institutions are prohibited from attempting to influence the outcome of elections, legislation or government policy through the use of aggregate resources or by rewarding or repaying employees or directors to exert such influence.
SECTION 4. Congress shall have power to implement this article by appropriate legislation.
Okay. Take 1 and 2 out and it's toothless. Firstly, the Supreme Court has already made the absurd argument that corporations DON'T influence legislation. Secondly, without explicitly stating that corporations are not protected by the Constitution, you CAN'T say corporations are prohibited from attempting to influence the outcome of elections. Because if a corporation has the same rights as a human being, it has the right to attempt to influence the outcome of elections.
Corporations should not be subject to constitutional protections. Saying corporations have a right to own guns or not be forced to quarter troops is perfectly reasonable. But that's entirely different from saying they're covered by the Second and Third Amendment.
There's nothing wrong with granting corporations some of the same rights granted to human beings in the Constitution. That is different from saying they are PROTECTED by the Constitution. Any privileges (and restrictions) on corporations should be covered by federal and state law. They shouldn't require a constitutional amendment to change or remove.
So that covers section 1. As for section 2, what this means is that if a corporation's rights, as granted by the federal government, come into conflict with an individual's rights, as granted by the Constitution, the individual wins, period.
I suppose where I can see that getting dicey is in the case that the corporate outlet is a news organization, and therefore explicitly covered by the freedom of the press in #1. In that case, for example, if a news agency violated an individual's right to privacy (which is generally believed to be covered under #9), there could be a compelling journalistic reason to do so. Or it could just be a hit piece. That would be up to the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis.
-
While listening to NPR, I heard that one of the Supreme Court Justices argued that spending money was conduct rather than speech when concerning giving money to terrorist organizations.
This contradicts the decision on which this thread is based. I really want to know who it was who said that. Because it potentially was an act of blatant and unforgivable hypocrisy. Although I suspect it was said by one of the 4 sane ones.