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.

 

Bernie Sanders Senate Speech: "A Corporation Is NOT A Person" : Constitutional Amendment

page: 2
25
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


If he's so ill-informed & not a genuinely good politician as you've asserted, then here's some advice. Call him. Or write to him. Inquire him on the things you've addressed & do something useful with all that knowledge. Even if he's [partly] wrong on this issue, he's still a better man than the majority of narcissistic greed-singularities plaguing the political system today.

Good-day.




posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Raelsatu
 





In any case, what's your solution? Other than sarcastic mocking of the lemming masses? Let the special interest dominate everyone? I'm pretty sure their tyranny is exponentially worse than your supposition that it's repealing free speech to say get the money out of politics.


First, let's be clear here. I am not sarcastically mocking the "lemming masses", I am sarcastically mocking this imprudent strategy of creating an Amendment to overturn a sound ruling in Citizens United. The SCOTUS did not make corporations a "person" by that ruling and instead used the First Amendment to inform their decision, which was that Congress does not have the lawful authority to abridge speech in way, shape, or form.

Further, your strawman argument that I am "mocking of the lemming masses" ignores my own chastisement of Jason for selling the masses so short.

What is my solution? I suppose it begins with informing individuals and making sure they clear up their ignorance of the law. How do you expect to fight government corruption if you don't understand how this corruption has managed to spread as it has?

How has this corruption spread as it has? By the willing acquiescence of We the People. In truth, it really doesn't matter that Congress has defined individuals as a "person" as long as individuals understand they do not have to acquiesce to such legal shenanigans. Further, while the main stream media has worked tirelessly at angering people over the Citizens United ruling, this very same main stream media does not want you to know that a more recent ruling by the Supreme Court - Bond v United States - even exists.

In Bond v United States, in a stunning 9-0 ruling - made it perfectly clear to We the People that we not only have the right and lawful authority to challenge unlawful legislation, we have a duty to do so!

Even more surprising is that Supreme Court, indeed most courts, rarely overlook mistakes of facts and legal misinterpretations in order to correct the plaintiff and point out what the proper legal strategy is, but in Bond v. U.S. this is precisely what the SCOTUS did. Bond argued a 10th Amendment strategy and the Supreme Court dismissed this argument but instead of ruling in favor of the U.S. because of this mistake of fact, they took up the issue of the 9th Amendment and informed Bond, as well as you and all other Americans, that this would be the proper strategy to challenging unlawful legislation...The 9th Amendment.

The Supreme Court was undeniably informing the People on how to reign in corrupt government and the People largely ignored the Supreme Court because too many of them were too busy imbedding videos of idiot Senators whose agenda is something else altogether.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raelsatu
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


If he's so ill-informed & not a genuinely good politician as you've asserted, then here's some advice. Call him. Or write to him. Inquire him on the things you've addressed & do something useful with all that knowledge. Even if he's [partly] wrong on this issue, he's still a better man than the majority of narcissistic greed-singularities plaguing the political system today.

Good-day.


What makes you think calling or writing that Senator would be useful? Clearly my efforts in this thread have done little to convince you of the problem.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

What makes you think calling or writing that Senator would be useful? Clearly my efforts in this thread have done little to convince you of the problem.



On the contrary, I'm very interested in what you have to say and I'm appreciative of you informing me (us) on some things. Likewise, if you could re-assemble this information and contact Sen. Sanders --- & possibly post the response here --- that would be wonderful.

With that said, I still stand by good politicians such as Sanders & although his disdain for corruption may be displaced in this case; I sympathize with him and the cause against corporate tyranny.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Raelsatu
 





On the contrary, I'm very interested in what you have to say and I'm appreciative of you informing me (us) on some things. Likewise, if you could re-assemble this information and contact Sen. Sanders --- & possibly post the response here --- that would be wonderful.


Oh all right, fine. I will do what you've asked of me. I cannot do this tonight, but will begin the process tomorrow of contacting Sanders and informing him that Congress is responsible for defining corporations as a "person" and a simple repeal of this, and most importantly, a repeal of individuals defined the same way would be the best strategy in ensuring corporations are not granted the same rights as individuals with unalienable rights.

I am not buying that this Senator is what you claim he is, but we will find out and I will keep you and other members posted in this thread as to the outcome.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Bernie Sanders is one of the few good guys in Congress. He's one of the very few trying to hold the government fiscally accountable, and he is sadly outnumbered by the corrupt.

BTW here's an interesting topic on the history of 'corporate personhood':

The Real History of 'Corporate Personhood': Meet the Man to Blame for Corporations Having More Rights Than You


The real history of today's excessive corporate power starts with a tobacco lawyer appointed to the Supreme Court.

In 1971, Lewis Powell, a mild-mannered, courtly, and shrewd corporate lawyer in Richmond, Virginia, soon to be appointed to the United States Supreme Court, wrote a memorandum to his client, the United States Chamber of Commerce. He outlined a critique and a plan that changed America.

[...]

Powell titled his 1971 memo to the Chamber of Commerce “Attack on American Free Enterprise System.” He explained, “No thoughtful person can question that the American economic system is under broad attack.” In response, corporations must organize and fund a drive to achieve political power through “united action.” Powell emphasized the need for a sustained, multiyear corporate campaign to use an “activist-minded Supreme Court” to shape “social, economic and political change” to the advantage of corporations.


It's a lengthy article, well worth the read.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You are right, I am for empowering people but we disagree on a serious point. You have faith people will do something and stand up for their rights as the recent Supreme Court ruling Bond vs. United States declares, but I think people will not do a thing to help themselves until it's too late.

I see the numbers of who is leading the cable news race, which books are selling, and which TV shows get the highest rating - all the numbers point to people being shovel fed bull# by the media elite. And the sad part is, they're eating it up. Spending their hard earned paychecks to buy goods from the very people who are screwing them. So no, I do not have faith in the masses - and ATS does not represent the masses, whatsoever.

On the flip side, I do appreciate your input and thank you for the education provided. As Blackmarketeer has provided more information on this "personhood" ruling (above), I will be reading it up on it. And thank you for agreeing to write Senator Sanders, as member Raelsatu asked, your voice and stances are quite clear and concise.
edit on 8-12-2011 by Jason88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Jason88
 


Agree or disagree, it is always a pleasure debating you, Brother. I will have to continue to disagree with you regarding We the People, for surely to agree with you would mean my efforts in this site and elsewhere are just a big waste of time. They may be, but at this point I remain unwilling to accept that.

I will do what has been asked of me regarding Sanders, and I will keep you posted.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   
if a corporation is a person then they should be treated as one.

for one tax it like a person in that tax bracket. most corporations would be in the 35% range. instead these multi billion entities are taxed less than someone making $10,000 year.

second, when they commit a crime, prosecute them as a whole. that means all senior management is held accountable.

at the very least, if found guilty, it goes into regulators hands while they clean up the mess.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by crankyoldman
Sadly Bernie is wrong. What he does not understand, and most people don't is that "persons" are corporations. "Persons" are the only body that can vote, humans cannot vote. In order to be a voter you have to be a corporation - person, and this is established by your birth certificate and a very convoluted process I won't go into. But, the CRANKY OLD MAN is a company. What the justices ruled is that all companies are to be treated the same - they were right.

What Bernie should be sponsoring is a bill that says "humans, occupying a body, are not corporations." I'll leave you to discover what that would mean for the human population.



I guess it makes sense, TPTB know most people don't watch the news, and most of the informed people come to sites like this. So disinfo trolls should be expected...

CORPORATIONS ARE ASSETS! The only time when the corporate and person-hood was mixed was during the era of slavery.


US Constitution, 14th Amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.






merriam-webster
Person
: human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes


The reason why Corporations are ruled as "Person" is because corporations are COMPOSED OF PERSON'S AKA HUMAN EMPLOYEES!

The gist of it is, if the Persons within the corporation(have control/power of attorney over the asset), can use it for financing political messages that are in the best interest of said asset.

Fudge sickle........I think I proved corporations as person's is wrong, but also proved their practices are perfectly constitutional..... As those acting on behalf of the asset have Constitutional rights. Just like organizations like the NRA/ACLU are non-profit's, but are still asset's. With people given power of attorney over said assets. Because to deny corporations from campaign ad's, would also deny corporations from basic advertisement.


US Constitution, First Amendment
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.



Pay very close attention


US Constitution, First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting.....abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;



What does the word "abridging" mean?


merriam-webster
a archaic : deprive b : to reduce in scope : diminish



In order to ban corporations, you would need an amendment(as the constitution expressly prohibits limiting the the right of speech[makes me wonder how constitutional the FCC is?]) that limits the freedom of speech of individuals acting on behalf of corporate entities. Now doesn't that sound appealing? And how easy would such an amendment be used to curtail everyone's freedom of speech?



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Sanders kicking it out of the park once again.

Sanders is among the little group of senators/congressman telling the truth again and again and protecting the people. Rand Paul, Ron Paul and Kucinich are in this group. There ain't much anyone else.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   


I love when Bernie and ATS meet. No one ever has anything to bash him on. He has been voted back into office more times than I can count and freedom loving Americans on ATS always love the thigns he has to say.

And he is a socialist.




posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by korathin

The reason why Corporations are ruled as "Person" is because corporations are COMPOSED OF PERSON'S AKA HUMAN EMPLOYEES!


Who already have all those rights as "persons." Do you people believe that the persons working for corporations do not already have rights as people?

If I own a corporation and it is a "person."
I get to excercise my rights as a person.
Then I get to again, excercise my rights as a corporation.
You want me to get two votes on everything since I am incorporated?



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Bernie is the only politician I respect and trust. Period.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Just thinking out side of the box here, a corporation is a person then like someone previously posted they should be taxed/held accountable as a person. That being said, when the Senator stated that "in the back of their minds they will think about the reprocussions of a vote", wouldn't that work both ways for a corporation too? I mean if a corporation is a person then with the induction of the new bill S. 1867, the corporations would now be governed by TPTB. If you don't give us money for said campaign, etc, we will think you are a terrorist supporter and confiscate your assets, hold your board members and take your money...hmmm interesting?



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Raelsatu
 


Whats the deal with Mods editing the posts heavily as they did? If i don't like some info ill skip past it i dont need an mod to filter stuff for me.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Jason88
 


You are correct, people are sheeple and need to have leaders to bring them to the place they desire to be.

So where is the leadership for this?



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Definitions in common dictionaries such as Webster/Oxford and the like are not the same as definitions in legalese. Legalese is like an entirely different language. It's beyond insane to afford the rights given to an individual (defined as a "person", not human being) and apply it also to corporation, union, government or any non-biological entity.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by EspyderMan
reply to post by Raelsatu
 


Whats the deal with Mods editing the posts heavily as they did? If i don't like some info ill skip past it i dont need an mod to filter stuff for me.


Agreed, I was surprised to see the edit as well but then again I didn't know we weren't allowed to post links to a senators website. I simply had a link to Sanders' homepage, where you yourself could navigate to the petition he had up. Beneath that I had links to Ratigans proposed amendment to get the money out of politics.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raelsatu
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


If he's so ill-informed & not a genuinely good politician as you've asserted, then here's some advice. Call him. Or write to him. Inquire him on the things you've addressed & do something useful with all that knowledge.


Better still - maybe JPZ should put his words into action and run for office himself as, apparently, he has such contempt for those who are actually trying to do something such as Congressman Sanders and such exasperation for those of us who clearly don't get it.

Maybe his talents are wasted on the intarwebz...

reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Agreed. Even if I don't subscribe to their Objectivist ideology, at least the Pauls are honest, consistent and have not, to my knowledge, sold out their principles. Few in DC can say the same.
edit on 9/12/2011 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
25
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join