It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jam321
The SC did their job. Was it a correct decision? Maybe not, but their job is to decide what is constitutional and what is not.
In this case, by a narrow decision, they decided it wasn't.
Now the ball is in Congresses court. They can either give up or use many of the government resources(LAWYERS) to figure out how they can pass a bill that will stand up to the SC scrutiny.
DC and Congress is full of lawyers. IMO, this isn't a daunting task.
As far as the poll, I have to ask how many of those polled truly know what the hell they are talking about.
Did they really do research into the subject to arrive at their decision or are they merely basing their opinion on what they have heard?
Originally posted by Fangula
As if corporate power isn't already ridiculous enough. At least now they won't be getting more. Time to wipe the sweat off my forehead.
Originally posted by Aoxoa
As for a Public outcry... The only time one is heard is when 'they' want it to be heard. On gaming forums the best way to calm things down is to simply ignore them.
Originally posted by burdman30ott6
The only problem I have with this is that it does set a dangerous precident if we have judgement via popular opinion in this country.
Originally posted by crusaderiam
The Rep and Dem thing is a fake show for suckers who buy into it.
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.
Originally posted by marg6043
Originally posted by burdman30ott6
The only problem I have with this is that it does set a dangerous precident if we have judgement via popular opinion in this country.
Popular opinion? I always believe that in America the government is for the people and by the people, no for the corporation and by the corporations.
Did I miss something here?
The constitution can be twisted and interpreted to favor those that pay the most under the table to corrupted entities sitting behind and hiding behind the law.
Its human nature, money talks BS walk, our supreme court is not exempt for corporate manipulation and corruption.
Just look what is happening to our government this days.
Originally posted by SaturnFX
...I still see no valid reason why we are seeing a corporation as a person to begin with...they should have no political voice unless they are the press.
In the United States, corporations were recognized as having rights to contract, and to have those contracts honored the same as contracts entered into by natural persons, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward. Some mistakenly believe, based upon an Obiter dictum statement in the headnote to the case that corporations were recognized as persons for purposes of the 14th Amendment in an 1886 Supreme Court Case, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 when in fact, the case did not take up the question as to whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to corporations. Some critics of corporate personhood, such as author Thom Hartmann in his book "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," claim that this was an intentional misinterpretation of the case inserted into the Court record by reporter J.C. Bancroft Davis. [1] Bancroft Davis had previously served as president of Newburgh and New York Railway Co.
**
As a matter of interpretations of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations.[citation needed] Opponents of corporate personhood wish to limit these rights to those provided by state constitutions through constitutional amendment.[4] Others argue that corporations should have the protection of the U.S. Constitution, pointing out that they are just organizations of people, and that these people shouldn't be deprived of their human rights when they join with others to act collectively.[5] Though it is argued this is a form of double-representation. People may join together to act collectively while they are simultaneously able to act individually, giving them a greater presence than just individuals. In other words, some argue that a corporation's interests are already covered by all individuals who hold an interest in a corporation, for example, shareholders, employees and customers.
Corporate Personhood Debate