Word a Constitutional Amendment that Precludes a Corporation Attaining/Retaining

[Pryderi]

the rights of a human being.

[Learning Nomad]

1. You're going to have to help me here. What groups aren't entitled to free speech?

I'm a little confused, so I need help. Is the ACLU (a corp) entitled to fres speech. The Pta? I'm baffled as to why some groups are entitle to free speech and other groups aren't. Please 'splain.

[Pryderi]

3. The ACLU is not a person. Neither is Exxon GE or the PTA. So the answer to your question is

no.

[Learning Nomad]

4. Are you serious? A group has no right to free speech? Wow?

Is Chavez your hero?

[Pryderi]

7. Are you serious? You're arguing that non-humans have the same Constitutional rights that

a flesh and blood human being does?

[Learning Nomad]

8. When it comes to free speech, yep, as any rational person would.

What, would you argue that the newspapers don't have the same free speech rights as an individual?

[Pryderi]

10. Not if corporate rights are to jeopordize the rights of the individual. Corporations are tax

Golems.

[Learning Nomad]

12. Please tell us you don't vote, or that you're making this argument just to be contrarian.

You can't really believe what you are arguing can you?

[Pryderi]

14. What truly needs to be done is to have money not equal to speech.

[Learning Nomad]

16. You really don't have any understanding of the issues here, do you?

This is about freedom of speech for groups, and they are as entitled to it as individuals. Handling the way that they are handled from a electoral situation is an entirely different matter. But few here really support freedom of speech.

[Pryderi]

17. You don't understand the danger posed to our form of government given the latest ruling of SCOTUS.

We are in danger of becoming a Fascist state, and if you don't see that then I assume you approve of the US becoming owned and run by corporations.

[Learning Nomad]

20. Utter nonsense! And you continue to avoid the relevant question.

And I have faith in the American public to handle the info from corporations and unions in an intelligent way, which noone on this website apparently recognizes.

[Pryderi]

24. Wow. And you thought I had a unicorn to groom. You have "faith in the American public to

handle the info from corporations and unions in an intelligent way"?

Who's kidding whom. The American public is going to be getting their information from media giants that are going to be raking money in hand over fist to blast corporate messages and information to the public. Exactly how is the American public going to get the information it needs to "handle the info" in an intelligent way?

[Old Codger]

25. Sadly

Naive ....... Some dream world you have there, might want to put the kool aid away and wake up...

[safeinOhio]

11. I thought the SC has ruled money is free speech

that might limit my speech.

[Learning Nomad]

13. No they didn't. What in the world gave you that impression?

[safeinOhio]

18. this

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a federal law which set limits on campaign contributions, but ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech, and struck down portions of the law. The court also stated candidates can give unlimited amounts of money to their own campaigns.

spending money to influence elections is a form of protected free speech.

[Learning Nomad]

15. btw, where does the 1st Amendment limit free speech to an individual person?

The Constitution doesn't confer rights, it limits Congress' ability to infringe upon them, such as the right to privacy, which isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

[safeinOhio]

19. The laws of incorporation

restrict the actions of the corporation to act for the good of the state.

[Learning Nomad]

23. Huh? Is it only groups that are incorporated who lose their right to free speech?

Makes no sense at all. Why are the majority of people on this site so terrified of free speech?

[northzax]

21. No, actually

Corporations are treated differently than individuals in every single type of law already. Corporations have different tax codes, different liability requirements, no right to vote, etc. Can a corporation own firearms? Serve on a jury? Run for public office? Go to jail? Register for selective service? Of course not. I personally, have done all of those things. The ACLU, (your mention, not mine) is a not for profit entity that does not pay income or corporate tax. In exchange for that, they give up certain rights. You forfeit responsibilities, you forfeit rights. Qed. Other corporations (Llcs, partnerships, public companies, trusts, etc) all have one other thing in common that makes them different from people: every single one of them is owned. Last time I looked, I was a partial owner of several hundred companies. Not a big chunk, of course, and through a complex series of proxies, of course I have no say in how they are run. You probably are, as well. However, I am fairly certain I don't own any people. (if I do, can they come over and clean my kitchen?) corporations cannot represent themselves, by definition they are proxies for someone else, their ownership and management (which may, in fact, be hard to discern. Give me ten grand and I'll create a series of shell companies with dummy ownership that will take you six months and a couple of subpoenas to pierce. By that time, the elections are over and the results are final, who cares where the money came from? Will it hold up to sustained scrutiny and lawsuits? Nope. But I haven't done anything illegal, just moved some stuff around. But the congressman I bought is now seated. The judge is on the bench. So while the candidate has to say 'i'm Joe jones and I approve this message' I don't? How's that fair?)

[omega minimo]

2. insert "natural' persons where it belongs.

[Old Codger]

5. Never happen in time

It takes years and years to even make a stab at an amendment, they made it hard on purpose and i am glad they did.. Congress has the authority to pass laws to do all that if they want to but I have some serious doubts as to their willingness to do so... have to wait and see how this goes with what Grayson is doing..

[htuttle]

6. A simple "definitions" section would solve the problem

"For the purposes of this document, 'person' refers to a single human being."

[Luminous Animal]

9. The first amendment makes no reference

... to "person" or "persons" or even "people" in regards to speech.


"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

[safeinOhio]

22. Yet, we have all kinds of restrictions that are not in that paragraph.

Libel, slander, defamation and you can't yell fire in a crowed theater. Where does it state any of that?