Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 42

Thread: Extremist Left attack on the Constitution

  1. #1
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,521

    Extremist Left attack on the Constitution

    redundant title is redundant :eek:

    ------------------------------------------------------


    An absurd attack on free speech

    Last Updated: 10:41 PM, May 6, 2012

    Posted: 10:22 PM, May 6, 2012
    George F. Will

    Controversies can be wonderfully clarified when people follow the logic of illogical premises to perverse conclusions.

    For example, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), joined by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, 26 other Democrats and one Republican, proposes a constitutional amendment to radically contract First Amendment protections.

    His purpose is to vastly expand government’s power — i.e., the power of incumbent legislators — to write laws regulating, rationing or even proscribing speech in elections for the Legislature and the rest of the government. McGovern’s proposal vindicates those who say most campaign-finance “reforms” are incompatible with the First Amendment.


    His “People’s Rights Amendment” declares that the Constitution protects only the rights of “natural persons,” not such persons organized in corporations, and that Congress can impose on corporations whatever restrictions Congress deems “reasonable.” His amendment says it shall not be construed “to limit the people’s rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, freedom of association and all such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.” But the amendment is designed to deny such rights to natural persons who, exercising their First Amendment right to freedom of association, come together in corporate entities to speak in concert.

    McGovern stresses that his amendment decrees that “all corporate entities — for-profit and nonprofit alike” — have no constitutional rights. So Congress — and state legislatures and local governments — could regulate to the point of proscription political speech, or any other speech, by the Sierra Club, the National Rifle Association, NARAL Pro-Choice America, or any of the other tens of thousands of nonprofit advocacy groups, including political parties and campaign committees.

    Newspapers, magazines, broadcasters, online journalism — and most religious institutions — are corporate entities. McGovern’s amendment would strip them of all constitutional rights. By doing so, the amendment would empower the government to do much more than proscribe speech.

    Ilya Somin, of George Mason University Law School, writing for the Volokh Conspiracy blog, notes that government, unleashed by McGovern’s amendment, could regulate religious practices at most houses of worship, conduct whatever searches it wants, reasonable or not, of corporate entities, and seize corporate property for whatever it deems public uses — without paying compensation. Yes, McGovern’s scythe would mow down the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, as well as the First.

    The proposed amendment is intended to reverse the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which affirmed the right of persons to associate in corporate entities for the purpose of unrestricted collective speech independent of candidates’ campaigns. The decision was foreshadowed when, in oral argument, the government’s lawyer insisted the government could ban a 500-page book that contained one sentence that said “vote for” a particular candidate.

    McGovern’s amendment would confer upon Congress the power to ban publishing corporations from producing books containing political advocacy, when Congress considers a ban reasonable — never mind the amendment’s rhetoric about the “inalienable” rights people enjoy until they band together to act in corporate entities.

    A decade ago, then-Rep. Dick Gephardt said of George Soros’ spending on liberal causes: “It is not consistent with campaign reform, but it is consistent with what the Constitution says about freedom of speech.”

    Liberals control unions and most of academia and the media. Yet such is their evident lack of confidence in their powers of persuasion that they’re desperate to control the speech of others.

    By proposing his amendment, McGovern helpfully illuminates the lengths to which some liberals want to go. So when next you hear warnings about Tea Party or other conservative “extremism,” try to think of anything on the right comparable to McGovern’s proposed vandalism of the Bill of Rights.

  2. #2
    I prefer a far more simple Amendment.

    "Money is not Speech".

    Done, and done.

  3. #3
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,245
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
    -- Thomas Jefferson

  4. #4
    It's what I keep saying to these self proclaimed conservatives who say they won't vote for Romney: Do you like the bill of rights, or not?

    If you want to be a petulant ass and not vote, terrific, say goodbye to your gun rights. And everything else.

    I really don't think people take Obuttocks serious enough. The guy is a commie.

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4461711]I prefer a far more simple Amendment.

    "Money is not Speech".

    Done, and done.[/QUOTE]

    electricity isn't speech either.. does that means we can attack freedom of speech when someone is holding a microphone?

    Money is the all to necessary instrument that allows speech to travel throughout modern society.

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,941
    Is it really so "extreme" to remove personhood status from corporations and other non-living entities?

    In general, I would support such measure because the Citizens United ruling is a disaster.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=Axil;4461727]electricity isn't speech either.. does that means we can attack freedom of speech when someone is holding a microphone?

    Money is the all to necessary instrument that allows speech to travel throughout modern society.[/QUOTE]

    I disagree completely with your assertion.

    Money is not required to speak.

    Money makes your speech vastly more powerful than the speech of others.

    On this, I am in full agreement with my liberal friends. Individuals have freedom of speech, organizations (including Unions and Liberal Issue Promotion Groups and so-called Media Groups like Media Matters) do NOT.

    One of the surest ways to break the deathgrip the two-party system has built for itself over us, is to remove the money/corruption factor from our political process.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=parafly;4461730]Is it really so "extreme" to remove personhood status from corporations and other non-living entities?

    In general, I would support such measure because the Citizens United ruling is a disaster.[/QUOTE]


    The last time I checked, corporations are manned by PEOPLE.
    Congress is ALSO an organization manned by people. Perhaps they should be gagged?

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4461748]The last time I checked, corporations are manned by PEOPLE.
    Congress is ALSO an organization manned by people. Perhaps they should be gagged?[/QUOTE]

    Gag the NEA and all other unions, too.

  10. #10
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,523
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4461748]The last time I checked, corporations are manned by PEOPLE.
    Congress is ALSO an organization manned by people. Perhaps they should be gagged?[/QUOTE]

    Is everything 'manned' or staffed by people, considered people?

    Are The New York Jets a person?

    Does a John Deere tractor become a person once someone starts 'manning' it?

    And do you think it's good for the United States that the next Presidential race will likely see both candidates spending about a billion dollars each to get elected?

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=parafly;4461730]Is it really so "extreme" to remove personhood status from corporations and other non-living entities?

    In general, I would support such measure because the Citizens United ruling is a disaster.[/QUOTE]

    Para - yes. Absent "personhood" status, businesses can't contract, can't own property, can't be free from warantless searches and seizures, etc.

    Do any of those sound like good outcomes?

    Do any of those - let alone all of those - sound like a fair tradeoff for eliminating corporate campaign contributions?

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4461747]I disagree completely with your assertion.

    Money is not required to speak.

    Money makes your speech vastly more powerful than the speech of others.
    [/quote]
    Again.. electricity makes your speech vastly more powerful than others. Charisma makes your speech vastly more powerful than others. Why is money different?

    [QUOTE=Warfish;4461747]
    One of the surest ways to break the deathgrip the two-party system has built for itself over us, is to remove the money/corruption factor from our political process.[/QUOTE]

    The only way the two party system dies/changes is for average voter to wisen up. Money isn't the problem, people are the problem.

    "Every country has the government it deserves" ~Maistre

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,941
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4461774]Para - yes. Absent "personhood" status, businesses can't contract, can't own property, can't be free from warantless searches and seizures, etc.

    Do any of those sound like good outcomes?

    Do any of those - let alone all of those - sound like a fair tradeoff for eliminating corporate campaign contributions?[/QUOTE]

    Why does Microsoft need personhood status to establish business contracts, own property, and have rights from warantless searches and seizures? Wouldn't these issues be covered by the individual rights of Bills Gates, its other executives, and/or shareholders?

    Can a corporation commit a crime? Or is the crime and its subsequent prosecution targeted toward the individual(s) committing it?

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=parafly;4461790]Why does Microsoft need personhood status to establish business contracts, own property, and have rights from warantless searches and seizures? Wouldn't these issues be covered by the individual rights of Bills Gates, its other executives, and/or shareholders?

    Can a corporation commit a crime? Or is the crime and its subsequent prosecution targeted toward the individual(s) committing it?[/QUOTE]

    Er... the reason corporations incorporate is to try a line of separation between the owner/executives and the corporation.

    But if we followed your line of thinking.. Microsoft would have the right to own assets via gates "personhood". Microsoft would be able to negotiate in legally binding contracts via gates "personhood" Why the hell would Microsoft not have the right to speak about politics, as an extension of Gates "personhood"

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=parafly;4461790]Why does Microsoft need personhood status to establish business contracts, own property, and have rights from warantless searches and seizures? Wouldn't these issues be covered by the individual rights of Bills Gates, its other executives, and/or shareholders?

    Can a corporation commit a crime? Or is the crime and its subsequent prosecution targeted toward the individual(s) committing it?[/QUOTE]

    Because a corporation has a separate legal status from its shareholders and executives. Contracts with a corporation are with the [B]corporation[/B], not with the individual shareholders. If Microsoft has no corporate right to property, then that property can be seized without any constitutional violation; no shareholder's property would have been touched, though their shares would no doubt decline in value. No shareholder's right would be violated by a warrantless search; individual shareholders can't challenge the validity of a corporate warrant - they lack standing. And yes, corporations can commit crimes. In fact, [URL="http://www.med.uscourts.gov/pdf/dbhscriptcorpguiltyplea.02nov.pdf"]here's one federal document[/URL] setting out the way in which a corporation's guilty plea should be handled.

    "Corporations are not persons and don't have the rights of people" is a [B]stupid, dangerous[/B] approach to an issue that can be resolved by amendments far less sweeping.

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,941
    [QUOTE=Axil;4461795]But if we followed your line of thinking.. Microsoft would have the right to own assets via gates "personhood". Microsoft would be able to negotiate in legally binding contracts via gates "personhood" Why the hell would Microsoft not have the right to speak about politics, as an extension of Gates "personhood"[/QUOTE]

    My entire point is there is no need to extend personhood to a non-living entity run by a living person or persons.

    Microsoft can't sign business contracts, buy land, or commit a crime, but the living and breathing individuals running it sure can.

  17. #17
    The last time I checked people work for corporations. What about unions they tell the members who to vote for.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=Axil;4461789]Again.. electricity makes your speech vastly more powerful than others. Charisma makes your speech vastly more powerful than others. Why is money different?[/quote]

    Giving money to a party or candidate is not speaking. It's a rather basic position I take, non-individuals providing non-tracked money in exchange for political power is corruption, not speech. Speaking is speech. Volunteering your own personal time is speech.

    Handing a large check to the player of your choice is not, IMO, speech. If it were (as you claim), I could legally hand a Judge a few tens of thousands of dolalrs at a court proceeding, and call that simply "speaking" to the judge to make my "speech" on my charges more powerful, right? Of course not.

    Because money is inherantly differeant than speaking.

    [quote]The only way the two party system dies/changes is for average voter to wisen up. Money isn't the problem, people are the problem.

    "Every country has the government it deserves" ~Maistre[/QUOTE]

    I don't disagree, but it's naive to claim the system in place was not put there specificly by the two parties in power the past few hundreds years, to keep the two parties in power.

    One only need ask, why is there no third option in the UNited States, the single most diverse Country, in population and ideology, in the World? Are you telling me it's all on us, that the entire U.S. wants a/b only? And that the rules, the system, the laws, have no place in why the two-party system retains it's hold?

    As I said, that seems quite naive to me, and you've never struck me as naive Axil.

    [QUOTE=parafly;4461821]Microsoft can't sign business contracts, buy land, or commit a crime, but the living and breathing individuals running it sure can.[/QUOTE]

    Hate to say this Para, but I think you need to go back to school and take a Business 101 class and rehash the benefits/restrictions/legallity of Corporations and Individuals and how they operate in businesss. TLDR: Yes, Microsoft can and does sign contracts, own land and commit crimes. All rather basic in the ways a Corporation operates, and why they're so common, partly due to the protections it offers it's owners and employees in terms of liabillity.
    Last edited by Warfish; 05-07-2012 at 12:11 PM.

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=parafly;4461821]My entire point is there is no need to extend personhood to a non-living entity run by a living person or persons.

    Microsoft can't sign business contracts, buy land, or commit a crime, but the living and breathing individuals running it sure can.[/QUOTE]

    What you are suggesting, Para, is simply the eradication of the term "corporation" from the legal lexicon. Do you understand that?

    If so, what do you take to be the consequences of that move?

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,941
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4461827]What you are suggesting, Para, is simply the eradication of the term "corporation" from the legal lexicon. Do you understand that?

    If so, what do you take to be the consequences of that move?[/QUOTE]

    I acknowledge that my understanding of the legal implications is far inferior to your understanding. It is, after all, your expertise.

    In general, I think a corporation and any other non-living entity should be treated as the property of an individual(s), not a person itself.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us