Can the U.S. Supreme Court Pass this Simple Multiple Choice Test on Self-Government??

[Land Shark]

1. OF THE PEOPLE: In a government "OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people," who is IN CHARGE and the source of all legitimate power?

A. The People
B. The People
C. The People

2. BY THE PEOPLE: Which one of the following provides 100% of the votes used to transfer power to elected representatives who in turn hold that power in trust to serve the public good?

A. The People
B. The People
C. The People

3. FOR THE PEOPLE: Who are the elected representatives obliged to dedicate their entire service to when they become public servants?

A. The People
B. The People
C. The People

4. WHO'S THE PEOPLE: If "of the people" means natural person voters, "by the people" means natural person officeholders, does the word "people" as used for the third time in "for the people" mean something entirely different than natural persons, such as corporations?

A. The same People
B. The same People
C. The same People

5. CONSTITUTIONAL INTENT: In order for something to be in the Constitution, it requires a super-majority such as 3/4 of the state's legislatures to specifically ratify language in order for it to be in the Constitution. When in US history did a supermajority of Americans favor unfettered First Amendment rights as "persons" for corporations, and on what date was there a 3/4 vote in approval of that intent for the Constitution's First Amendment?

A. Never, didn't happen - no way to show history of constitutional debate on this question.
B. Never, didn't happen - no way to show history of constitutional debate on this question.
C. Never, didn't happen - no way to show history of constitutional debate on this question.

6. EXTRA CREDIT: What happens to "Justices" of the Supreme Court who, (even Roberts the "perpetual A student" who vowed as Chief Justice to "call balls and strikes") fail to understand the most basic facts above about self-government and the Constitution, and serve things other than We the People?

A. Impeached, Convicted, Removed from Office with Lifetime Bar, Referred for Investigation of criminal Treason charges.

B. We Accept The Cue from the majority opinion to act on foreign money, take action against "foreign" shareholders, implicitly punish any American co-shareholders, thereby reinforce xenophobia, and finally fall into the trap of believing that corporations can get rights (and characteristics like "foreigner") from their shareholders thereby causing some of us to believe in corporate personhood fictions ourselves, all the while taking a firm course of inaction about the true threat from within: domestic ideological nonprofit corporations like Citizens United itself, who act to drown out the rights and voices of others.

C. I Wish to Put My Brief Essay Response in the thread below.

Corpse may call themselves "persons," but they'll never be The People!


Corpse can hide, but they can't run! (for office).


Corpse: If natural person shareholders can somehow derivatively transfer "rights" TO THEIR CORPORATIONS, then those same shareholders can also get corresponding DUTIES and LIABILITIES shoved right back down the same pipe those "rights" came up in!

Shareholders purporting to transfer any of their rights to corporations have, by their own act of waiver, PIERCED THE VEIL of corporate limited liability for purposes of this "association." Therefore, like any association or partnership, we can sue every member and not just the corporate shell.

That means, with the corporate veil of limited liability thus breached, We can reach into the pockets of those shareholders to pay the damages for all of their crimes: environmental crimes, war crimes, crimes against democracy, crimes against humanity, crimes against workers, tax crimes, frauds, corruptions etc.

Folks, if you just stop thinking it's grim, you can see the great vulnerability of the same over-reaching power grab by corporations that makes some depressed! Then we can be on our way to re-establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquillity, providing for the general welfare, all by making an appropriate adjustment in limited liability laws.

There's DEFINITELY no "First Amendment right" to limited liability!! Take action to pierce the veil permanently and shareholders are going to want to crawl back into the shell they came from!

Answer: All answers A, B and C in questions 1-5 get full credit, as well as Answer A to question 6. Only answer B in question 6 is wrong. Essay responses to answer C of question 6 to be "graded" as they develop.

[theFrankFactor]

1. Powerful! K&R!

[ddeclue]

2. But haven't you got the memo corporations ARE people...

:eyes:

[Land Shark]

3. Recycling, it's EASY to do..... (actually only 5 justices got that memo, none should have believed)

[Land Shark]

9. they never want to be "people" only "persons, for purposes of the __ Amendment" (cherry picking)

They need to learn about the fact that duties are always twinned with rights.

[TexasObserver]

4. Recommend

Recommend, in spite of the fact that I hate it when posters use gigantic fucking letters.

[Land Shark]

5. Just making sure corporate captains of commerce can read it w/o their spectacles.

Good to hear that your eyes are in excellent shape!

[TexasObserver]

7. The next door neighbor can read it. From his house.

[Land Shark]

8. Corporations gotta be able to read it from their GATED COMMUNITIES across the tracks!

Turn your magnifying lens around the opposite way and it will get lots smaller (if you have one). ;)

[bleever]

6. "Piercing the corporate veil" concept is intriguing.

Land Shark is looking to use the perceived strength gained from this decision into a massive liability.

Man, I love DU.

Keep it coming, Land Shark!

:yourock:

[Land Shark]

24. I am Land Shark, and I approve this message. (OP) (and thanks bleever!)

[Mithreal]

31. +1

[Misskittycat]

33. It is very intriguing and creative, Land Shark. Thanks.

[robinlynne]

10. I love it!

adding; proud to be the 13th rec on Friday!

[BrklynLiberal]

11. K&R!!!

[Union Yes]

12. Huge K&R. Great OP.

:kick:

:patriot:

[Land Shark]

13. Thanks Union Yes! n/t

[arthritisR_US]

14. Brilliant, I love it!!! I'd love to see shareholders squirm when they get the jist of this.

Nice job! :-)

[Land Shark]

28. Thanks; Yeah, like why is SCOTUS so anti-business as to leave business vulnerable like this?? n/t

[diva77]

15. Eegads, should we the people, as individuals, be selling off any corporate stocks in order to avert

being sued as clueless shareholders?!!

:hide:

[Land Shark]

16. Just instruct your corporations to stay where they belong. n/t

[lala_rawraw]

17. Very clever, kick and recom!!! n/t

[GuvWurld]

18. I like the thought of tweaking corporations

Some of your ideas lately are raising notions of looking for ways to make corporations defend the indefensible, what I've long called http://manifestpositivity.blogspot.com/2009/06/glossary.html#tiltstrategy">The Tilt Strategy. I like the general idea of reframing aspects of how we accept and challenge the status and ramifications of corporations, and I further like the idea of having multiple field strategies in play that are all like gnats around the ankles of corporations. Imagine a scenario where this liability veil is pierced because it is chosen by them as a lesser evil they'd prefer to accept than...losing the corporate charter? A legal fiction doesn't make a very good shield against a Land Shark.

[Land Shark]

46. Good thoughts, thanks for the link, I rec your stuff. n/t

[mmonk]

19. Very good. Keep at it.

I keep thinking that the absurdity of this ruling will eventually be its collapse. There are so many legal angles that can be pursued, the ruling will be boxed in so to speak due to the difficulty of entering the status of personhood will bring. They can't make Corporations have special status rights through a pick and choose process unless they grant it to all persons which they can't.

[FLDCVADem]

20. You might want to be careful with #5

Abortion rights were never ratified by 3/4 of the states either.

[Land Shark]

21. Derived from right of privacy. If they got a way to justify corp rights, I say bring it on. n/t

[FLDCVADem]

22. I agree

But #5 doesn't - the clear implication in #5 is that if it wasn't ratified, it isn't Constitutional. If that's the claim the OP wants to make, then it works both ways, for things we like and things we don't.

[Land Shark]

23. to clarify, "express text" doesn't have to be ratified but a CONCEPT capable of covering

thus the notion of privacy can readily be derived from, among other things, the underlying concept of rules against searches and seizures, implying a perimeter of personal freedom.

This is why I pointed to ratification history, if there was discussion of the rights of corporations to use the first amendment without much objection, and it's clear that corporatations' benefit from the First amendment was part of it, that would be good enough for me.

Sure, lots of rights aren't in express text yet have long been solid rights or constitutional rights, like how about

1. interstate travel
2. self-defense
3. right to have children (no forced sterilization)
4. right to marry (even if limit to heterosexuals - NOT in constitution)
5. personal liberty like the right to wear different clothes

[skepticscott]

64. Yes, it was derived from the general right to privacy

But that doesn't qualify it to be Constitutional under your very explicit rule, which says nothing about the Supreme Court being able to "derive" rights:

In order for something to be in the Constitution, it requires a super-majority such as 3/4 of the state's legislatures to specifically ratify language in order for it to be in the Constitution.

(my emphasis)

[Gecko6400]

25. Could Most Members of Congress or

many in this Administration pass it?? Surely the President, being the Constitution scholar and Professor that he is, could pass it.

[Land Shark]

27. Yeah, they can pass it; but can the FOLLOW the correct answers? They should! n/t

[Christa]

26. K & Highly rec'd nt

[midnight]

29. Could you tell us what you think of Al Franken's American Elections Act of 2010.

The "American Elections Act of 2010" was developed in coordination with Professor David Schultz of Hamline University School of Business in Minnesota.

"The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United was an attack on democracy and fair elections," said Professor Schultz. "It undid laws seeking to regulate corporations across the country and in Minnesota that go back over 60 years. As a result of it corporate money will flood into Minnesota, threatening the basic integrity of our elections and the power of citizens to control their own government. Senator Franken's bill is an important first step in addressing Citizens United and preventing money from further destroying our elections in Minnesota."


The "American Elections Act of 2010" will keep foreign interests out of our elections by:

· Banning election contributions and spending by corporations that are controlled or highly influenced by foreign nationals (foreign governments, companies, and persons). This includes:

- Corporations that receive most of their financing from foreign nationals.

- Corporations where foreign nationals hold a controlling share of stock (as defined under leading corporate law) or a majority of the Board of Directors.

- Corporations that allow foreign nationals to control or participate in their political activities - including ad spending, donations, and political action committees.

· Requiring all corporations to certify, before giving or spending in elections, that they are in compliance with these requirements.

· Requiring all corporations to disclose in their political advertising how much of their company is controlled by foreign nationals, or if this isn't possible, how much of their financing comes from foreign nationals.

The "American Elections Act of 2010" is supported by Common Cause, People for the American Way, Common Cause Minnesota, and MPIRG."

<http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/co... >

[Land Shark]

35. What I think is that Rushing to fix a landmark case before analyzed= Foolish, see choice 6(b) above

[Mithreal]

30. Well done.

:applause:

[uberllama42]

32. If you attacked limited liability, they'd say it's protected

under the right to contract. I don't think some clever riposte is going to unravel the Citizens United ruling. If the conservative members of the Court thought this went both ways, they would have said that already. Limited liability would already be gone.

If we push this line of attack, what do you think is going to happen? How is this going to play out?

[Land Shark]

34. It has nothing to do with contract - HOW CAN a "contract" provide protection against NON=signers???

Limited liability is a state statutory provision plain and simple. The law of corporations.

[Land Shark]

36. By the way, no attorney or politician is EVER at a loss for words, no matter how weak the case! n/t

[G_j]

37. elegant in it's simplicity

the way it was meant to be.

what is it about the word "people" they don't understand?

[Land Shark]

38. I think it's the multiplicity of the plural of "people" they don't understand! :) n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

39. Brilliant, Paul. The shareholders have always been a big problem in the UK -

not least, of course, the CEOs and directors. Of course, they a necessary in a mixed economy, but they are managed much better in terms of safeguarding the public good in Continental Europe.

Will Hutton, one-time Economics Editor of the Guardian, was enlightening - at least to me - when he wrote on the subject in his best-selling book, The State We're In.

[sulphurdunn]

40. "Natural Persons"

under the laws of the United States (those possessing First Amendment right) do not posses Constitutionally guaranteed rights to limited liability for their economic activities. Ergo, if corporations are natural persons i.e a group of persons with First Amendment rights, then corporations cannot logically possess limited liability for their economic actions, and their individual stock holders can be sued for everything they've got. Nothing could be more terrifying to a "corporate person" (including me). Well done Land Shark.

[Land Shark]

55. concisely put. n/t

[Union Yes]

41. Afternoon kick.

:kick:

[pleah]

42. K&R

[proReality]

43. Send this to the NYT and see if you can get it published.

I'd love to see it in print on their web page.

[Land Shark]

45. WOrth a shot. THe formatting of the questions might puzzle them, perhaps reword as prose?

The first four questions could fit in a LTE even in paragraph form, I would think. Thanks for the suggestion.

[glinda]

44. 6) Roberts is part of the Federalist Society. Nothing applies to him in his mind about

the interpretation of the Constitution except the dismantling of "BIG" Government (representing the people) by giving BIG Corpse the ability to snuff out the voices of the people by snuffing out laws within our Constitution. He needs to be impeached as well as Alito.

[rhett o rick]

47. k&r. But your stating that corps cant run for office means now. They might before Roberts the

Fuhrer is done.

[Land Shark]

50. who would serve? They'd still have to have a human being officeholder though n/t

[rhett o rick]

51. I am still working on the details. Hows about robots? Maybe HAL will return. nt

[Land Shark]

54. the post-IBM computer might be JCN instead of HAL. Or not. n/t

[rhett o rick]

57. I give up. JCN? nt

[Land Shark]

65. HAL is one letter PRIOR to IBM. JCN is one letter AFTER IBM. n/t

[Oldtimeralso]

48. I Want To Have The Same Rights As A Corporation To Perpetuity.

I want a vote cast in any and all future elections for any liberal, progressive candidate.

[Land Shark]

49. politically active uber alles n/t

[glitch]

52. "We can reach into the pockets of those shareholders to pay the damages for all of their crimes"

:applause:

[Land Shark]

53. You were paying attention when teachers were teaching about thesis sentences and the like? :) n/t

[glitch]

60. Well, you know how it is, trained to see the bottomline.

Maligned and misapplied as it is, bottomline still a useful construct. :hi:

[The Wizard]

56. The Supreme Hacks

opened Pandora's Box. They will go down in History as incompetents at best.

[Rozlee]

58. If corporations can be persons, so can my pet rock

But, since they're conservatives, they can be expected not to know the definition of a real human being. Seeing as how conservatives love torturing humans while bending over backwards to endanger mothers for the sake of a few blastocysts in her uterus.

[varelse]

59. Too late to recommend this - I'll just have to bookmark it

[defendandprotect]

61. K&R ... late -- !! Capitalism is working to destroy democracy... we need to destroy capitalism!!

[Flatulo]

73. D & P never fails to amuse...

[cliffordu]

62. K&R!!!

[skepticscott]

63. You may need a little test on the Constitution yourself

1. Where in the Constitution does it refer to government "OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people"?
A. Nowhere
B. Nowhere
C. Nowhere

2. In the entire history of the United States, how many votes have been cast for publicly elected officials by corporations?
A. None
B. None
C. None

3. On what date was there a 3/4 vote of state legislatures in approval of the federally protected right to an abortion?
A. Never, didn't happen
B. Never, didn't happen
C. Never, didn't happen.


Did you pass or fail?

[FLDCVADem]

66. I pointed out #3 as well

Slippery slope when we start saying that only things expressly written in the Constitution are rights.

[Land Shark]

69. And I replied upthread at that time to make the distinction again made in reply below n/t

[Land Shark]

67. If Decl of Independence, Constitution and Gettysburg address mean ANYTHING, the Sup. Ct said, it

means one person, one vote. Of course, "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is from Lincoln's Gettysburg address. Do you see "Gettysburg" anywhere immediately below in the US SUpreme Court case? (it's not the only such example by any stretch)

''The conception of political equality from the Declaration of Independence to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, to the Fifteenth, Seventeenth, and Nineteenth Amendments can mean only one thing--one person, one vote.'' Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 381 (1963).

But, if the four corners of the Constitution is truly the limitation of our view and the only thing that truly matters, where's "one person, one vote" in the Constitution?

Frankly, if the four corners of a CONTRACT were the only thing that mattered, everyone would be in big trouble since many laws imply terms in contracts that otherwise would have to be much longer to constitute a fair agreement between the parties.

Where's privacy in the Constitution?

Self defense? I can't find it.

The right of civilians not to wear a uniform or other garment in public even if dictated by the state?

The right to travel and move interstate?

The right to have children?

To marry, even for heterosexuals?

Where's the right to seek a job? Are laws prohibiting certain people from employment anywhere OK?

All of these are long-established CONSTITUTIONAL rights recognized by the US Supreme Court.

To be a constitutional right, there need not be express language precisely on point - if that's needed all or most of the above recognized constitutional rights would fall.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ABOVE RIGHTS and CU is that there's clear evidence and belief that the above have and continue to have super-majority support at a time when the Constitution was drafted or when it was amended.

The Gettysburg address is not only referenced in and animating election law holdings, it has accomplished something more deeply meaningful and much more difficult than mere constitutional law status: it is deeply ingrained in the hearts and the minds of Americans.

Thus, as I asked in the OP, for the equality principle between corporations and individuals for 1st amendment purposes, where's the evidence of intent at any constitutional moment of super-majority ratification of corporate rights?

Of course, Lincoln's definition of our country in the Gettysburg address as part of the reigning ideology of our country, is in one sense outside/above the Constitution (see quote above) but also has similar super-majority support (later ratified via the Civil War Amendments 13th 14th and 15th),

Since the Civil War, the Gettysburg address it has also become incorporated into constitutional law rationales and principles via the above case law of the US Supreme Court for example, specifically acting in a constitutional case regarding voting and elections, which makes it part of our overall constitutional case law as well.

I'd be happy to take up your question of who exactly is in need of additional education to any jury composed of random members of DU. WOuld you like to do this?

[skepticscott]

71. I'll remind you again

of your VERY explicit declaration about the only way that something can qualify as a Constitutional right:

In order for something to be in the Constitution, it requires a super-majority such as 3/4 of the state's legislatures to specifically ratify language in order for it to be in the Constitution.

(emphasis mine)

But then you say:

But, if the four corners of the Constitution is truly the limitation of our view and the only thing that truly matters, where's "one person, one vote" in the Constitution?

Frankly, if the four corners of a CONTRACT were the only thing that mattered, everyone would be in big trouble since many laws imply terms in contracts that otherwise would have to be much longer to constitute a fair agreement between the parties.

Where's privacy in the Constitution?

Self defense? I can't find it.

The right of civilians not to wear a uniform or other garment in public even if dictated by the state?

The right to travel and move interstate?

The right to have children?

To marry, even for heterosexuals?

Where's the right to seek a job? Are laws prohibiting certain people from employment anywhere OK?

All of these are long-established CONSTITUTIONAL rights recognized by the US Supreme Court.

To be a constitutional right, there need not be express language precisely on point - if that's needed all or most of the above recognized constitutional rights would fall.

(emphasis mine)

Which is correct, but in direct contradiction of the previous quote (which is what I criticized and which is dead wrong, as you yourself demonstrate).

Also in contradiction to the first statement is this:

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ABOVE RIGHTS and CU is that there's clear evidence and belief that the above have and continue to have super-majority support at a time when the Constitution was drafted or when it was amended.

"Clear evidence and belief" (even assuming that meant something concrete) is not the same as a 3/4 majority vote of the state legislatures to ratify specific language. And not even all the rights you cited had super majority support of ANY kind at the time the constitution was ratified or for long after.

As far as the Gettysburg address, since you claim there are many examples of its citation, I'm sure you could name a few where it is the ONLY justification for deducing a principle that is not explicit or implied anywhere else in the Constitution.

To reiterate, here are the three points I made in my previous post:

1. The Gettysburg address has no force of law, and cannot, by itself, be used as a basis for derived constitutional principles.

2. No corporation has ever cast a vote for an elected public official in the United States.

3. A 3/4 majority vote of state legislatures is not necessary in order to establish a new constitutional right.

You've already conceded #3, but if you'd care to argue against 1 or 2, have at it.

[Land Shark]

76. Let me show you the way: INTENT of a law or amendment goes along with the text

That's how more gets into a document than is apparent on its four corners or its face. Or, rather, it's one major way that happens. Another is by operation of law, rules of legal construction, and (with regard especially to contracts) terms that are added by operation of law.

The original question could have been more precisely drafted but brevity and clarity was the goal, and as my later posts you call correct indicate, to put that another way, what Larry Tribe has called a "sea of principles" necessarily comes in to elucidate the meaning of the Constitution. It is those principles, which i often write about and call guidestars, that are most often the true principles at stake in big court cases.

It appears we pretty much agree but you are stuck on finding me "contradictory" as a way to preserve your original attack while also admitting my response is something you agree with.

In any event, the thread as a whole, or as amended (if you prefer to see it that way) has a correct statement on the point you were concerned about. We need not decide finally if there's a big difference between the OP and my defense of it, considering that where the OP ended up, whether a clarification as I say or a contradiction as you say, is a point of agreement.

[skepticscott]

77. Nice spin

But the question stands-Do you agree with this statement or not?

In order for something to be in the Constitution, it requires a super-majority such as 3/4 of the state's legislatures to specifically ratify language in order for it to be in the Constitution.

My original attack was against this statement. And since your response argued something diametrically opposed to it, why are you surprised that I agreed with that response? If you argue X in one post and NOT X in another, you're bound to be right half the time, but no one will accuse you of wisdom or understanding.

[Land Shark]

80. Yeah, I could easily stand by that statement but instead I'll just "amend" it

in an imaginary way since I can't amend it actually. Next time I'll make langauge like that more complete, in your honor, if you like. And I'm sure someone then will find it wordy for reasons they can't figure out. Oh well.

Or, if that's not enough (saying I'd word it slightly differently if I could) then I'm still happy to show a jury of DUers why its range of reasonable meanings includes what I said later.

You're being far too literal, while the S.Ct. is far too expansive. The First amendment says Congress shall "make no law abridging the freedom of speech..." However, the First amendment does not literally PROVIDE for freedom of speech, it merely says it shouldn't be infringed.

Under your view, if pressed, which I am sure you'd resist, you would be logically compelled to agree that there's no affirmative right of freedom of speech at all, for anyone, in the Constitution.

I would go to the intent of the language and realize that more was carried with it including the assumption of a pre-existing right, most likely an inalienable right of speech, that the Constitution of course didn't create, since governments guarantee but do not grant rights (See Decl of Independence, for example). This approach would reason both that this intent existed as well as that the contrary conclusion is absurd; namely that the First amendment provides for the noninfringement of a non-existent right. But its nonexistence is directly shown by the kind of narrow blinders' approach like the one you took to the OP wording.

So, if I "contradict" myself still (in your mind) then I'm doing a fairly passable job, according to some of your earlier comments, at seemingly backtracking to the correct view. The better retort for you to make would have been that I was busy researching constitutional interpretation in order to make these points, but alas, I was doing no such thing.

I already knew all of this, so what you keep jumping up and down about is not so much a "contradiction" as it is either a typo or a misstatement. That's why I think it's kind of amusing to see how dedicated you are to nailing me for a "contradiction"-typo-misstatment. Even though if the editing period hadn't elapsed before we started talking then-

I could easily have edited the OP without changing the meaning results or conclusions at all, as to your 3/4 ratification question.

By the way, which side are you on: (1) that the concepts so concisely and famously alluded to the Gettysburg address, but not word for word are not part of the meaning of the Constitution (ignoring completely the title of the OP that this is a self=government test, or- heading in the other direction (2) that concepts like privacy, which are also not expressly part of the text of the constitution, ARE part of the meaning of it?

Since these subthreads started, I've staked out a consistent position that there is a "sea of principles" including but not limited to intent that come to the fore and circumstances DO change over time, the 15th amendment being a constitutional revolution then as well as in modern times. However, unless it was somebody else, you've been trying to have it both ways, arguing "of the people, by the people and for the people OUT, while arguing privacy IN." I don't suppose it's utterly impossible to rescue that but you're the one that's got explaining to do.

I don't have any explaining because I've already said I'd edit the OP slightly on the one question if editing weren't closed. If you wish to, for the third or forth time, taunt me about the alleged "contradiction" between my explanations below and the OP, the answer, of course, and once again, is that the editing period has expired.

Again.

1. You're right, there's more than the text of the Constitution or any given amendment.
2. If you want to continue to claim you've somehow educated me, I will email 6 people or so and point to this thread as an example of how I was educated by a fellow DUer.
3. The above wouldn't bother me, because I know in my heart beyond any doubt what I've believed all along, and if in fact I misspoke in one question slightly, I stand corrected.
How's that?
I'd still debate you but you're right it's not worth it there's not much meat to chew on.
Thanks for all the thread kicks, my friend.

[skepticscott]

81. Truly amazing

How far you'll go to avoid a direct response to a simple question. If you prefer unimpressive bluster and and long-winded non-answers, that's your business, but wouldn't it be easier to just admit you said something silly, then corrected it, and move on?

[Land Shark]

70. Bring it on, but only after you read my reply #67 to your specifics.

Let's bring on a real test: How about a thread where you give your implicit view of the Constitution and I give mine mostly already laid out and DU votes on which is more accurate?

[skepticscott]

72. Since, as I noted above,

your view of the Constitution and how rights are derived from it is completely self-contradictory, why would I waste my time?

[Land Shark]

75. Because it would be easy for you to win and you support the truth over contradiction?

You're just not wanting to back off your original and LONELY attack in this thread, even though my reply upthread is something you agree with. You prefer to call it a contradiction rather than a clarification. Well. lots of support you got upthread there.

In any event, the thread as a whole, or as amended (if you prefer to see it that way instead of as a clarification) has a correct statement on the point you were concerned about. We need not decide finally if there's a big difference between the OP and my defense of it, considering that where the OP ended up, whether a clarification as I say or a contradiction as you say, is a point of agreement.

[skepticscott]

78. No, I didn't back off

because my original attack was spot-on, and the fact that you did a 180 in your response does nothing to convince me otherwise. And as far as "lonely" is concerned, maybe you judge the merits of an argument by how many people type an emotional and unsupported "K&R!!" in response, but I prefer to base that judgement on facts and reason. Silly me...

BTW, I suppose you're still working on those SC case cites where the Gettyburg Address is used as the sole justification, and those records of corporate votes for President? I'm guessing those will take a while...

[Land Shark]

79. SO then why wouldn't you want to bring in neutral jury members?

I'm not working on any more cites I've since published one or two other threads, perhaps you'd like to trash it before it goes over the 40 rec level it's approaching now?

I'm not doing any more research now or lately and I didn't do any extra to find the quote, except the (literally) three minutes it took to google some words I already knew would be in that quote.

New thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7617648

There aren't any "corporate votes for President" - I guess you know that so your point is lost.

Bring some friends. Even though "shark" is part of my name I don't literally bite.

[EFerrari]

68. Too late to rec. I was listening to dear Howard Zinn last night

and he reminded his audience that the Supreme Court is just a bunch of political appointees. LOL

[gtar100]

74. Excellent point on breaking the veil of limited liability.

Really shows the selfishness behind this ruling. Nothing but a power grab; not in the best interests of the country in the least. Only a very small minority of people will benefit from this ruling and a large majority are in danger of being disenfranchised from their government.