Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Corporations are not held back by the constitution.

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 01:08 AM
link   
That's right - a corporation is not held back by laws that do not give constitutional protection to the individuals in question. That means that they can take away our unalienable rights (thank you Tenth, I believe?) under the condition that they keep the government in check.

What really matters now are the EULA's or T.O.S. agreements. Think about this. The only housing that you are able to afford in a big city is owned by a mega-corporation that requires biannual inspections in order for you to live there. I already live in an apartment like this - this takes away your second amendment rights.

Or think about this - Facebook collects everything you say or do even though that is a main source of communication between consumers - and in their T.O.S. they slip in that they can sell your conversations to the government, other corporations, or mercenary groups. Let's say, for example, that your health care provider or life insurance agent finds out through Facebook that you are not as healthy as you said prior to signing up - that is a fourth amendment violation, but not so in the hands of corporations.

I am sure that there are many other examples that could affect your work-place, and your home, and your social life.

The thing is, I don't think the writers of the constitution expected corporations to be more powerful than the government - which they really were not until after both the government bail-outs in 2008 and Supreme Court rulings such as Citizens United.

Who holds the power is who provides the services, and apparently these days, who can with-hold services for extortion purposes. That prize could very well go to the corporations. I believe they are in a position to implement a corporate first policy / culture where one's primary affiliation is to their assigned corporation, and not to their family.

Someone can definitely correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that there may be some services that people are required to sign up for in order to function in our society that have binding T.O.S. agreements in which unalienable rights are taken away, at least it is a possibility.
edit on 29amTue, 29 Apr 2014 01:10:09 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)
edit on 29amTue, 29 Apr 2014 01:29:09 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 01:32 AM
link   
There's been bigger examples of what you are talking about.

And may still be ....

List of company towns in the United States




posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 02:13 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Thank you Xuenchen! I was thinking about that earlier today before posting this, thanks for the link.




posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 04:16 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Many corporations are multi-nationals and are simply bigger than any Government.

B eing multi-nationals they simply 'flow' into another country when profits and bonuses are challenged - or indeed illegal or blatant profiteering are exposed.

The only way to deal with them is for radical law making which prohibits the outflow of profits earned in a country and breaks these mammoths down into bite sized pieces answerable to legal challenge from individuals as well as governments.

The root of this problem is, as in the UK, is the two party system, which cuts the bribery money down to only two parties, imagine some 15 parties and the extra money as in many other governments that would cost. These companies often put funds into a candidate's election costs which needs to be stopped. State funding is really a necessary thing to bring in to keep the running clean and fair for everyone.

Also having such huge numbers of lobbyists and people funded for their political campaigns



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 05:38 AM
link   
the founders both feared and despised large corps.

in their day the east india company was the walmart of the day, and one of the reasons for the revolution.

the founders had very strict laws about corps. for example, they could only exist for a limited time, the max was around 30 years. a corp was confined to its own area of expertise, for example walmart could only do goods, or food, but not both. corps were not people, they were tools.

with all the teabaggers and reps shouting about "the founders" this and that, they seem to overlook the part about the corps.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 05:41 AM
link   
a reply to: stormson

Thats a good point.

Your founding fathers were not too keen on the East India company the original international mega corp.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   

At next week’s arguments, the Supreme Court will debate whether business corporations have religious liberty. Hobby Lobby, a chain of craft stores with 13,000 employees, along with a small Mennonite furniture maker, seek exemptions from the Obamacare requirement that employer health insurance plans cover certain forms of birth control. The case raises anew the question that sparked so much controversy after the Citizens United case: Are corporations “people” with the same rights as citizens?

Corporations are People

How short our memory is... Wasn't this a few years ago that it was established that "Corporations are People"?



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: DaMod


In the Hobby Lobby case, the owners of the craft store chain make the same mistake. The owners claim that their personal religious beliefs would be offended if they have to provide certain forms of birth control coverage to employees. Yet Hobby Lobby’s owners aren’t required by the law to do anything. The legal duty falls on Hobby Lobby, the company, not its owners.


And Hobby Lobby is probably an atheist, not a Christian ha ha. Unless it got baptized. Strange.

I'm starting to understand this corporate person-hood stuff a bit more, thanks for the link.
edit on 29pmTue, 29 Apr 2014 21:40:47 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)
edit on 29pmTue, 29 Apr 2014 21:41:08 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: stormson

Thats a good point.

Your founding fathers were not too keen on the East India company the original international mega corp.


That is a really interesting piece of history I was not aware of guys.
edit on 29pmTue, 29 Apr 2014 21:42:39 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

The problem from the get go is this:

Corporate Person hood.

There is NO viable reason that a corporation should entertain the same rights as individuals.

Period.

If you'd like some history, the case law I mean regarding how this came about, the Wiki Page actually has some good info.

~Tenth
edit on 4/29/2014 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 09:49 PM
link   
I'll remind you that Citizens United was decided over the argument that the government was making that they ought to be able to ban books. If you are upset with that ruling, then take it up with the lawyer who made that brilliant piece of work. Also understand that "corporation" is very loosely defined.

All everyone thinks about here are big businesses, but everything from small groups of people banding together for nonprofit causes to tiny townships to all manner of other groups "incorporate" and are thus corporations.

It's very easy to look at this from the perspective of corporations = just big evil business when corporations also the tiny county municipality, the local nonprofit group and just about everything else in between. And the CU ruling was targeting political action groups not big, evil corporations on your behalf.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
That's right - a corporation is not held back by laws that do not give constitutional protection to the individuals in question. That means that they can take away our unalienable rights (thank you Tenth, I believe?) under the condition that they keep the government in check.


Private entities are not beholden to the Constitution of the United States; that governing document pertains to Government -- regardless if they are an individual, association or corporation. While some interpretations have bled into the private lives of Americans, the document itself is a limiting one upon the structure and power of the United States -- not the People.


What really matters now are the EULA's or T.O.S. agreements. Think about this. The only housing that you are able to afford in a big city is owned by a mega-corporation that requires biannual inspections in order for you to live there. I already live in an apartment like this - this takes away your second amendment rights.


Then move. Not all housing is owned by large corporations and some housing complexes actually derive their rules from private associations within that community that impose such rules; such as Homeowners' Associations. They are well within their limits to restrict certain aspects of what we deem to be "rights" upon their private properties.


Or think about this - Facebook collects everything you say or do even though that is a main source of communication between consumers - and in their T.O.S. they slip in that they can sell your conversations to the government, other corporations, or mercenary groups. Let's say, for example, that your health care provider or life insurance agent finds out through Facebook that you are not as healthy as you said prior to signing up - that is a fourth amendment violation, but not so in the hands of corporations.


Again, private companies and you agree to allow such intrusion.


The thing is, I don't think the writers of the constitution expected corporations to be more powerful than the government - which they really were not until after both the government bail-outs in 2008 and Supreme Court rulings such as Citizens United.


You attributed this to Citizen United and you are wrong. Learn what that ruling was about first. Bailouts are a different story. Still nothing aiming towards giving corporations more power. Look to your States for that and how they charter corporations. You have the power to change such powers...just might be hard.

You are mixing contracts with private entities with that which we renew every year via ballot boxes.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Than any association, regardless of their legal makeup would fall under your ire no? I mean, if I was in association with Mr. Jones and we both decided to pool our money together and campaign for X candidate; that is no different than a corporation -- or union....






top topics



 
4

log in

join