'We The People' Amendment To Be Introduced To Reverse Corporate 'Personhood'

page: 2
58
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Tranny
With the legal requirements for contracts and the like, it is impossible for a group of people to carry out financial activities as a group to support their opinion unless they can form one financial entity to work with advertisers and other companies as a single point of contact.

You're completely missing the point -- what you're describing there is essentially what the original purpose of Corporate Personhood was. What it has become is nothing like that, and the proposed amendments are intended to put reasonable limits on the inherent rights of corporations, which are now, as per Citizens United, Constitutional, on a par with "real" human beings.

Read the proposed amendments -- it relegates the assignation of rights to the Federal, state and local governments, it doesn't prevent anything, it just says that the government has the right to constrain the actions of non-people, rather than just equating the two.

If you want to blame someone, blame those who have used this loophole to corrupt our political process. This bill isn't prompted by groups of people banding together to accomplish a goal, it is prompted by those who create sham corporations to circumvent campaign finance laws and to hide their true nature.




posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


This is a dangerous move. it opens the door to sweeping changes to the Constitution. All the government has to do, one corporation to another, is to write into law a definition (not even a law) that corporations are not natural people in a real sense and do not have the same rights as natural people. You have to remember that natural people are endowed with their rights by whatever Creator one subscribes to, be in God, Allah, a Cosmic Muffin, Big Bird or the Great Spaghetti Monster, etc. Corporations are a construct of created natural persons. To make a corporation into a person is like creating life where there is none and then claiming that the corporate entity/government in charge of this fallicy is the Creator. It's just lame on so many levels.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Its about time someone tried something like this. The SC's decision to legally treat Corporations like people was probably one of the worst decisions in the High Court's history.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Mr Tranny
reply to post by Tardacus
 


The people that own the cooperation (the share holders) do pay income taxes.

Not necessarily, and their income tax has nothing to do with the earnings of the corporation, unless they receive a divided or the price of their shares rises and they sell it, in which case they pay Capital Gains taxes, not income taxes on the gain.


I am an accounting professional so I'll try to help clear this matter up.


Corporations are imposed with (theoretically) what is called double taxation. Basically, the net income of the corporation will be taxed (less deductions, loopholes, black holes--GE, I'm looking at you--and the like) and any dividends dispersed to its shareholders will also be taxed. However, some corporations don't always do dividends (ie Hanes) and like to sit on their lovely nest eggs in off-shore tax shelters where they can just admire it from afar and not disperse it to their shareholders because, if they do, it will be taxed. Although many large corps should theoretically be taxed at the max marginal rate of 33%--well, after all the loopholes, foreign tax discounts, credits, and more, they usually have an effective tax rate (what they actually pay) of between 6-9%. Or in GE's case--0%. But the double taxation only comes in when dividends are dished out and well, not all of them dish out dividends much anymore. Kind of makes you wonder who the hell would even invest in corporations that don't dish out dividends, doesn't it? Wait a second...I know who gets a whole lot of stock in lieu of pay to avoid certain things (tax)--corporate executives. Yep, they tend to get stocks to cushion the blow on their tax bill due to their frequently very high salaries (and jets).

And if Grandma happens to have stock in a corporation that is qualified and gives a dividend, then she'll only be taxed at 15% for the dividend last I checked (may have changed) which is still lower than a lot of people's tax rates who don't own stocks (or at least ones that actually pay dividends).

Favorite corporate tax credit--The Orphan Drug Tax Credit. When I initially learned about this one, me being a kind of negative soul at times, thought in horror that our country would actually give a tax credit for researching drugs on orphans. Funny, huh? Tragically, god knows it probably is because most orphan diseases tend to be the ones that children suffer since it's actually rather rare to have a sick child and we've had kind of a bad history of testing drugs on orphans and foster children. I vote it the most inappropriately named corporate tax credit.

I just love my field of choice.
edit on 11/2/13 by WhiteAlice because: grammar oops



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Tranny
reply to post by Tardacus
 


The people that own the cooperation (the share holders) do pay income taxes. And they have a right to use the corporation (that they own) as a mouthpiece to speak.

So the corporation, as an extension of the owner, has a right to speak. Any restriction on that corporation, is a restriction on the owner’s right to use his property to voice his opinion.


Then I (and we) should have the same rights as corporations - i.e. be able to deduct the 'cost of doing business' from our income before taxes are assessed. The cost of education, the cost of transporatation to and fro, the cost of health care, the cost of clothing, the cost of food (have to keep the machine going), and on and on - just as our corporate brethen are able to do......



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Tranny
reply to post by Tardacus
 


The people that own the cooperation (the share holders) do pay income taxes. And they have a right to use the corporation (that they own) as a mouthpiece to speak.

So the corporation, as an extension of the owner, has a right to speak. Any restriction on that corporation, is a restriction on the owner’s right to use his property to voice his opinion.

Who authorized them to speak over the head of employees? Are there modern day princes or barons?



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 12:20 AM
link   
This is problem, reaction, solution and I think a lot of you are advocating the controlled reaction without realizing it. I'm not knocking anybody, all of the posts so far have heart in the right place. On top of that, it is not very obvious. Not obvious but obviously effective.

Who here believes that the supreme court granted corporate person-hood? If you believe this, you are incorrect.

In citizens united, the supreme court ruled that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that restricted expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. Why?

First we need a basic understanding of the roles of the 3 branches of government. Foremost being that the supreme court does not write legislation or pass laws.

Then we need to understand why corporations have first amendment rights. The supreme court did not give any rights to corporations. They upheld first amendment rights that the legislature and executive had themselves granted.

The mainstream media will tell you that the supreme court is bad, or that the constitution is bad, or that free speech is bad and we must change it. What they will not tell you is that the legislative and executive branches wrote and passed the law into US CODE that gives corporations 14th amendment rights of equal protection, and thus 1st amendment rights.



U.S. Code Title 1, Chapter 1, Subsection 1

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— the words "person" and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals


So how does that grant corporate person-hood and first amendment rights?



Amendment 14 to the United States Constitution: Section 1.

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.



All that has to be done is to remove united states code Title 1, Chap 1, SS 1. But this has not been the focus of the debate, has it? The focus has been to denounce the supreme court for not setting the precedent beyond their constitutional power by revoking free speech rights that the congress and the executive signed into law. Americans need to be weary of that kind of precedent.

All that has to be done to do away with this silliness is a presidential signature to nullify the code. It is that simple. Obama could get rid of corporate person-hood in the time it would take him to place his signature on a piece of paper.

That being said, has the debate actually been about renouncing corporate person-hood? Nope. It has been about weakening the very foundation of free speech and attacking the first amendment. The next play in this insipid game is to amend the first amendment in order to attack YOUR free speech.

This is actually a brilliant strategy. The legislature and the executive gave corporations 14th amendment rights using united states code knowing the people would eventually disapprove. Then they write and pass the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in conflict with the corporate personhood that they have already granted. When BCRA is challenged in the court, the debate is steered towards weakening the Constitution (which grants actual rights) and not united states code that grants color of law rights to corporations.

This is problem, reaction, solution. People's will is deliberately being steered down an increasingly narrowing road so that they might agree to their own destruction. Don't fall for it.
edit on 12-2-2013 by METACOMET because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhiteAlice
 

... corporation will be taxed (less deductions, loopholes, black holes--GE, I'm looking at you--and the like) ... they usually have an effective tax rate (what they actually pay) of between 6-9%. Or in GE's case--0%.

It sounds like this applies to big, nationwide corporations. Small businesses usually do not have the resources or experience to take advantage of tax shelters. Maybe GE should have 0% rights, but those which pay the full rate should have all their rights?



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 12:53 AM
link   
I wasn't familiar with the initiative in the OP's post, but it is high time that something was done about the status of corporations. There are real problems with the corporation as an entity in the world. To my mind the most dangerous attribute of corporations is their potential for immortality.

People have written science fiction stories about robots taking control of the world but less attention is paid to robotic financial entities like corporations, and they do have a mechanistic component to their modalities, taking over the world.

People everywhere need to be much more aware of the methods and actions and the results of those methods and actions, of corporations.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by METACOMET
This is problem, reaction, solution. People's will is deliberately being steered down an increasingly narrowing road so that they might agree to their own destruction. Don't fall for it.

They make it APPEAR like it increases/improves the democratic process by including prases like
"privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law"
"to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process".

Why does it have to be all or nothing? Corporations should have some rights (not "no rights"). But they should not be equal to We the People. IMO, people should be able to contribute as much they choose. Corporations, Unions, foreign entities should be limited.

How come the authors of the amendment did not mention "lobbying contributions"? Because lawmakers want to keep those coming?



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kokatsi
Who authorized them to speak over the head of employees? Are there modern day princes or barons?


When they are on YOUR dime, then they do what YOU tell them to, unless you tell them different.

If you tell them they are free to express their own opinion while on company time, and even use company resources to do it, then they are free to do so. But if you tell them not to, then they should not while on company time. If you and them agree and have the same beliefs, to the point that you both want to express the same opinion to the public, then even better.

What they do with the money you pay them, is totally up to them when they are off the clock.

Originally posted by METACOMET


U.S. Code Title 1, Chapter 1, Subsection 1

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— the words "person" and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals


So how does that grant corporate person-hood and first amendment rights?

Look at my previous post. That just recognizes the simple logical fact that if there was not people behind those entities, then, by default, there would be no entity. So, the presence of that entity indicates that there is people behind that entity, and those people have rights even when working within pre stated entity.

Remember, it states “(such and such entities) and as well as individuals”. That would imply that the pre stated entities are not individuals. What is the opposite of and individual? That would be a group of people.

People retain their rights, even when working as a group.

So the statement just clarifies the fact that people could come as individuals, or legally organized groups. If you are not in a legally organized group, then by all legal standpoints, you are classified as an individual.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
 

There are real problems with the corporation as an entity in the world. To my mind the most dangerous attribute of corporations is their potential for immortality.

And who is giving them the power or potential? Our "democratic" government.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Tranny
Look at it this way.

You have a group of 500 like minded people.
Your group wants to buy advertising space on specified billboards around the city.
You can not take out an advertising contract with specified billboard company, and have all 500 people sign the contract.
With the corresponding 500 checks that would accompany it.
It’s not logical, it’s not workable, and it’s a legal nightmare.

What you do is form an entity that signifies your 500 members. That allows you to form a bank account for your collective that all 500 members can funnel money into. And when the group decides to buy advertising space, the group can sign as one(the collective) and send one check from the bank account that the collective created to pay for the activities the collective wanted to perform as a group. That allows the group to speak as one (the collective).


With the legal requirements for contracts and the like, it is impossible for a group of people to carry out financial activities as a group to support their opinion unless they can form one financial entity to work with advertisers and other companies as a single point of contact.
edit on 11-2-2013 by Mr Tranny because: (no reason given)


With a corporation however, the employees making that corporation money may not agree with the stance that corporation is taking on an issue. Just to be able to pay the bills they have to earn money for the corporation to oppose their interests and that's not right. We just went over this same issue with the right being mad that churches need to provide birth control to employees as part of their health coverage. If 500 people want to form a group to push an agenda they're allowed to. It's also been in the news around election time with unions. Union members rightfully get upset that their dues goto Obama's campaign when the union members themselves don't want to support him. They're all the same issue. To continue the 500 person example, what happens if 5 people employ 500 people to earn money to push the agenda of those 5? The 500 end up representing ideas they don't agree with.

If individuals want to form collectives to make their voice heard, that's great. The revenue to fund that speech however shouldn't be supported by employees who are just trying to earn a paycheck though.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Tranny
 

People retain their rights, even when working as a group.

Not necessarily, and neither should they, IMO. Corporation represent the interests of their shareholders but therew are other ligitimate stakeholders, whose interest should not be nullified (environment, consumers, employees, etc). Even shareholders are not represented perfectly (are hundreds of millions in bonuses increasing shareholder wealth?). What can a prospective shareholder do if he disagrees with the process in which Board of Directors make decisions (and all Boards work on the same principle)?

If I invest in a company it is not whith the goal of making a political statement, so I do not want them to spend money from my ownership share on a political activity. Business only.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Aazadan
 


Uh……. We are not in a communist country where work details are assigned to you. (yet….) If you don’t like what a company is doing that badly, then you don’t have to work there. If no one will work there, then they make no money.

Remember, the corporation is property of the owner/s. The owner has last say as to what is done with his/their property.

Like that example of 500. They may hire a couple people to do accounting, graphics design, and PR. for the 500 owners. Those people will work for a paycheck to help craft the message that those 500 owners of the corp want to push. If a graphics designer disagrees what they are trying to push, then that graphics designer does not have to work there.

That freedom to decide to work someplace is your freedom to associate with other people, and to determine your own destiny.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman

Originally posted by Mr Tranny
 

People retain their rights, even when working as a group.

Not necessarily, and neither should they, IMO. Corporation represent the interests of their shareholders but therew are other ligitimate stakeholders, whose interest should not be nullified (environment, consumers, employees, etc).


Environment? What?
Consumers? They don’t have to buy the product. Freedom of the marketplace.
Employees? They don’t have to work there. We don’t have forced work details.


Even shareholders are not represented perfectly (are hundreds of millions in bonuses increasing shareholder wealth?). What can a prospective shareholder do if he disagrees with the process in which Board of Directors make decisions (and all Boards work on the same principle)?



Then don’t buy stock in the company if you don’t agree with what they do. Or the other owners of it. You are not forced to own something. Or associate with the other owners.

If you are buying the stock for money, and they are making money, then buy it and don’t worry about what they do as long as they make money.

If you are buying stock in it to gain control of a company so you can support an idea, and join the group, but the company and all the rest of the share holders are pushing the opposite argument, then don’t. You have a right to choose who you associate with, and who you share property with. If you don’t like who else owns that property, then it is a bad idea to become a co-owner.

We, as free citizens, are free to peacefully associate with what ever group we chose to.

All those arguments are just straw man arguments.
edit on 12-2-2013 by Mr Tranny because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Tranny
 
Environment? What?
Consumers? They don’t have to buy the product. Freedom of the marketplace.
Employees? They don’t have to work there. We don’t have forced work details.
You are correct, I don't have to buy shares of any company. With all companies offering unsafe work places, I don't have to work anywhere. And with the environment destroyed by pollution I don't have to live anywhere, right? And I may consume goods that one day may kill me (say, lead poisining). Then what quality of life can the money buy me?

IMO, capitalism requires choice. Choice requires transparency. A person may keep secrets. But a corporation must be transparent. That requires regulation. (Not just "don't work/shop/invest there")

Can a corporation claim the 5th? Should it be able to?

According to your argument, local and federal governments are also "groups of people". Then they should be able to make any regulation they may choose to impose. You just defeated your own argument.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Tardacus
 


Folks ... legal person =/= natural person. Without even attempting a 'legal analysis', a corporate body (whether that be Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, or a charity) can clearly have no right to life because 1) no such right exists in the text of the U.S. Constitution; 2) Corporate laws are actually almost entirely regulated at the State level, and I am not aware of a 'right to life' provision existing in any State's constitution; and 3) as a non-natural person which is not 'alive', it is a semantic and physical impossibility to grant a corporate body a 'right to life'.

Incorporation and limited liability are simply two means of facilitating trade, commercial activity, and investment.

Similarly, solely because a body is 'incorporated' does not mean that it must necessarily have thousands and thousands of shareholders like Kraft or Procter and Gamble would do - it can be (and often is) just a small group of individuals, a family, or a single shareholder/manager/director. Would you deny these people the right to avail themselves of limited liability? In the smaller case, it is quite arguable (I think, as does the Supreme Court, apparently) that by denying the 'corporate body' the right to free speech, you can fetter the free speech rights of its shareholders.

This can of course lead to some difficult political consequences, but that is the price Americans pay for a federal jurisprudence which is very, very protective of 1A rights.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
According to your argument, local and federal governments are also "groups of people". Then they should be able to make any regulation they may choose to impose. You just defeated your own argument.


No, it reinforces it. They are groups of people. People that work for us, the people as a whole. They only do stuff we allow them to do. We, the entire people, are the owner. If they say something the majority of us don’t like, then we can fire them(vote them out). Just like a majority of shareholders can vote out the CEO of a company if the majority doesn’t like what he is doing.


That is the irony of it all. The elected government is in many ways, closely resembles a corporation.

The problem is the people that work for that corporation have forgotten that they work for us, not the other way around.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 





via organized and recognized groups.



Not exactly correct. These are people who are paid to gather. This is a workplace owned and run by someone who pays them. This is a vested interest from a corporation to affect policy and change what is in the companies best interest. This often runs counter to interests of "the people" as people. For example: Fracking - busting shale mountains apart to extract oil in the rock. (Often found in National Park type areas) would not have been pushed through if Cheney wasn't VP and opened up Federal Lands to Halliburton. There's one example of organized and recognized groups getting their way.





top topics
 
58
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join