due process and land seizure without compensation

[erps]

The founders words referred to PEOPLE, not organizations. All MEN are created equal, not "All men, companies, unions, LLC's, Inc's etc. are created equal".

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,"

it's not whether people or groups of people can exercise speech or religion, but Congress shall not pass no laws restricting it.

[xymotic]

My Dog, and my toaster have a right to free speech as well. Since I am their owner, I will make sure to always do what is in their best interest.

Money does not equal speech, and corporations are not people. Corporations exist SOLELY because they are allowed to exist. they are a construction of the state. They have a lot of functions, but namely they shield owners from liability.

Citizens on the other hand, have a lot of responsibilities that go hand in hand with their rights. Nobody asks GM to go die in a war. When GM actually KILLS someone, the owners are not put in prison.

I find it hard to believe that anyone has a hard time seeing the difference.

[jzk]

Originally Posted by xymotic

I find it hard to believe that anyone has a hard time seeing the difference.

What is amazing is that anyone would think that Congress has the right to suppress the political speech of an association of people.

"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

- Justice Anthony Kennedy.

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by jzk

What is amazing is that anyone would think that Congress has the right to suppress the political speech of an association of people.

"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

- Justice Anthony Kennedy.

I wasn't talking about Congress as any part of my comments - I was speaking of SOCIETY.

As I pointed out, corporations, while possibly meeting the strict definition of "associations of citizens" are not, in terms of free speech, anything of the sort. They are wealthy vehicles for the heads of them to use as their personal pulpits while the peasants who make up the erstwhile "association" have no say whatsoever in what is being said "on their behalf".

A true association of citizens, such as a political action group or the Sierra Club and so forth, is an entirely different animal and is what IMHO, the framers and the aforementioned Justice were thinking of - not Exxon or Citibank or Dow Chemical or BP etc. etc. How much evidence do you need that such entities will only ever express their selfish, short term wants and NEVER what is in the best interests of society? If it isn't obvious to you by now, after the past few years, then there is simply no getting the concept through to you I'm afraid.

Lets try another approach - why do you think it beneficial or essential or whatever, that such entities have "personhood" and it's consequent benefits bestowed on them? Such entities were essentially non-existent when the Constitution was framed - the Hudsons Bay Company being a notable exception - so the framers could hardly have been considering such a situation.

[jzk]

Originally Posted by SloopJonB

I wasn't talking about Congress as any part of my comments - I was speaking of SOCIETY.

Well, of course, the right to free speech only applies to actions of the government.

Originally Posted by SloopJonB

A true association of citizens, such as a political action group or the Sierra Club and so forth, is an entirely different animal and is what IMHO, the framers and the aforementioned Justice were thinking of - not Exxon or Citibank or Dow Chemical or BP etc. etc. How much evidence do you need that such entities will only ever express their selfish, short term wants and NEVER what is in the best interests of society? If it isn't obvious to you by now, after the past few years, then there is simply no getting the concept through to you I'm afraid.

The very act in question would have suppressed Sierra Club from engaging in political speech:

"Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests;..."

-Justice Kennedy in the same opinion. I did, btw, get the opportunity to meet Justice Kennedy once.

The problem here, my friend, is that free speech isn't only available to those who would use it "in the best interests of society." Even bad speech is protected. We don't just trash the Constitution "for good reasons." We don't allow the government to filter speech based on what those particular bureaucrats believe to be the best interests of society. Let the people speak, even if they are "wrong."

Originally Posted by SloopJonB

Lets try another approach - why do you think it beneficial or essential or whatever, that such entities have "personhood" and it's consequent benefits bestowed on them? Such entities were essentially non-existent when the Constitution was framed - the Hudsons Bay Company being a notable exception - so the framers could hardly have been considering such a situation.

The framers were certainly considering both the right of free speech and the right to assemble. Of what benefit to society would it be to suppress the speech of the shareholders of Bank of America even if the speech is for the purpose of allowing them to profit? And, corporations were well established and in use hundreds of years before the time of the framing.

I asked a previous question. By what enumerated power can Congress suppress corporate speech in the first place? Hamilton wouldn't have even included the First Amendment, but no way would he support giving Congress the power to suppress the speech of corporations...

[PBzeer]

Unlike most other countries, the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution is a document that defines what government may and may not do, rather than what the citizens are allowed to do.

[xymotic]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Unlike most other countries, the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution is a document that defines what government may and may not do, rather than what the citizens are allowed to do.

corporations are not citizens

[PBzeer]

Let me run that by you one more time ... the Bill of Rights is about what GOVERNMENT can and can not do, not about what ANYONE ELSE, be they individual or group of any form, may or may not do. Laws, within the bounds of the Constitution, determine what may or may not be done

[erps]

corporations are not citizens

they are a group of citizens though, aren't they?

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by jzk

Well, of course, the right to free speech only applies to actions of the government.

??????? I have no idea what you are referring to here.

Originally Posted by jzk

Even bad speech is protected. Let the people speak, even if they are "wrong."

Bad speech is the only kind that NEEDS protecting. The very core of free speech is the right to offend someone. Anything less is merely polite conversation.

BUT... that isn't what we are discussing here - the point under discussion is what constitutes a "person". Someone said recently "I'll believe a corporation is a person when Texas executes one". That describes it pretty well IMHO.

Should corporations have the right to vote? At one time in Vancouver they could until it was repealed as patently absurd. All it did was give TWO votes to the heads of the corporations. If all organizations, corporations etc. were to hold secret ballot voting amongst their members, shareholders etc. prior to determining what to say with their "free speech" then I might have less problem with it but until that day, they only speak for the owners and /or controllers and that ain't free speech, that's subsidized and controlled speech.

Originally Posted by jzk

I asked a previous question. By what enumerated power can Congress suppress corporate speech in the first place?

The one that says "promote the general welfare"? (I'm not a Constitutional scholar so I'm not certain if that's in the Constitution or the Bill).