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

page: 4
58
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Good.

Let's see if that amendment will actually get through.
edit on 12-2-2013 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Tranny


I own a company 100% lock stock and barrel. A politician is badmouthing my company. I have a right to use what ever money my company has to put up signs and advertisements to retaliate against his attack on my property and my livelihood.



Sole Propriatorship, LLC, S-Corp, C-Corp??? Saying you own a company is great - but without knowing what kind of 'legal entity' it is has bearing on the discussion.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Tardacus
 


You are forgetting one thing.. Corporations cannot die, they can only be dissolved by the owners. Therefore, in no reality should a corporation ever be treated as a person because immortality is an unfair advantage over a natural person.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Well whether it passes or not at least we'll have a list of the traitors and sellouts after they vote. With most them bought and paid for by the very people the bill is against I'm not holding my breath waiting for anything to come of it.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 

If every share/stakeholder is a US citizen, then the company/LLC might be allowed to speak as a citizen possibly. I personally oppose the citizens united / corporate person idea. Is a company a person? If it is down on its luck will it qualify for public housing or food stamps? Bailouts say yes. But if a company breaks the law do all the shareholders/ stakeholders go to jail? What really worries me is that a foreign owned company can influence our elections. Does a corporate person have the protection of the Bill of Rights? Can a corporate person have a freedom to worship God? Can it speak freely of its opinions, as Chick-fil-A did? Can criticism of Chick-fil-A be considered hate speech? If you spit on the parking lot of Chick-fil-A can you be charged with assault, as a police officer who is spat on will charge you with assault? When a company dies, does it have a funeral? Since all the shareholders in a company may have different religious beliefs, and other beliefs and preferences, including liberals and conservatives, libertarians, progressives, gays, straights, etc, etc., can we not assume that most companies are mentally ill? Split personality hell !!! Should they not be prevented from having firearms and security gaurds? Should they not be on a no fly list. Should they be targeted with drone strikes? I wanna know.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 


"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"

does your car speak for you? do you send you fridge to vote for you?

i have no problem with people using the company as a voice, but when that voice $%^&s up, and breaks the law, the voice should ALL go to jail. not pay a fine. so i have no problem with a person using the 500 thousand employees as a mouth piece, so long as the "voice of the company" means that eveyone in the company goes to jail for breaking the law.

companies are not people, never has been, the argument you have put forth is the corruption that started it in the first place. the companies are made up of people. those people have a say. its called VOTING by allowing people to have TWO voices one through company and one through "self" you are cheating the system.

making a company didnt create a child, it created a group of people who ALREADY HAVE THOSE RIGHTS, why should companies get multiple choices/voices. if the companies big enough , and the people in the company care enough, they can sway laws using their personal vote just like anyone can round up neighborhoods and encourage people to vote a certain way.

this company is a persona BS is whats $%^&ing the system up with all this lobbying BS. get rid of the lobbyist, it should be illegal. i dont have the abilty to hand 350k to someone and say go sway a vote for us, wtf should they?

its corrupt and should be abolished.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 01:10 AM
link   
so basically, the government could in theory come in and assume control over any corporation under the guise of "the company's past interests were not in tangent with the needs/views/wants of the government?"

Since, you know, companies no longer have the same rights as citizens...



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


hey thanks for the info..



makes perfect sense.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by nownow
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 

If every share/stakeholder is a US citizen, then the company/LLC might be allowed to speak as a citizen possibly. I personally oppose the citizens united / corporate person idea. Is a company a person? If it is down on its luck will it qualify for public housing or food stamps? Bailouts say yes. But if a company breaks the law do all the shareholders/ stakeholders go to jail? What really worries me is that a foreign owned company can influence our elections. Does a corporate person have the protection of the Bill of Rights? Can a corporate person have a freedom to worship God? Can it speak freely of its opinions, as Chick-fil-A did? Can criticism of Chick-fil-A be considered hate speech? If you spit on the parking lot of Chick-fil-A can you be charged with assault, as a police officer who is spat on will charge you with assault? When a company dies, does it have a funeral? Since all the shareholders in a company may have different religious beliefs, and other beliefs and preferences, including liberals and conservatives, libertarians, progressives, gays, straights, etc, etc., can we not assume that most companies are mentally ill? Split personality hell !!! Should they not be prevented from having firearms and security gaurds? Should they not be on a no fly list. Should they be targeted with drone strikes? I wanna know.


Well interestingly enough if the corporation is convicted of a felony then no, they cannot possess firearms. Since i realize this is almost laughable i will post a quote below from vpc.org although any google search will bring it up. Bear in mind a corporation currently serves as its own legal entity, or as a person if you will. It is recognized by legal system as a person. So if i sue walmart, walmart corp will take a dump and be bankrupt (yea right but just and example) yet Sam Walton will still be rolling in his personal bank account and pool filled with money. However since a corporation doesn't actually possess conscience intelligence, provisions were written in for the things it couldn't do on its own that directly related to its pupper masters ie board.

aaand now for the quote

Under federal law, those convicted of a felony are forbidden from purchasing or possessing firearms and explosives. Yet as the result of a 1965 amendment to the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, convicted felons were allowed to apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) for "relief" from the "disability" of not being able to buy and possess guns. The "relief from disability" program was established as a favor to firearms manufacturer Winchester, then a division of Olin Mathieson Corporation.1 In 1962 Olin Mathieson pleaded guilty to felony counts stemming from a kickback scheme involving Vietnamese and Cambodian pharmaceutical importers. Under the law as it existed at the time, Winchester could no longer be licensed as a firearm manufacturer. The "relief from disability" program allowed Winchester to stay in business.

for those interested felons, NO you cannot apply to this program. they have since pulled funding. so while many actual people felons got relief at some point rather than remove the law a certain faction pulled funding from that division of the ATF which handles applications. so while in theory you can send in an application, you will be sent an official letter basically saying thanks for trying but we don't have money to pay anyone to process your application and do a background check.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   
The system is rooted in humans who believe they are THE PEOPLE.

Get rid of them and they throw fits that involve assasinations.

I call BS



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


The fact that these amendments are even needed is very telling..



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SoulVisions
so basically, the government could in theory come in and assume control over any corporation under the guise of "the company's past interests were not in tangent with the needs/views/wants of the government?"

Since, you know, companies no longer have the same rights as citizens...


Yes and no. That's a complex question.

The gov't should not assume control just because "the company's past interests were not in tangent with the needs/views/wants of the government". But if that company/corporation (piece of property) posed a serious danger to the public (proven in court), then it should be dissolved, dismantled, impounded, etc. If that company/corporation (piece of property) was operating illegally (proven in court) but who's services were a necessary function to the public or gov't (ie-utillity company), then temporary commandeering should be allowed until new ownership is established. Eminent domain.

Consider, if you drove your vehicle (piece of property) recklessly over the sidewalk almost every weekday to avoid having to stop for a school bus unloading children then you would be penalized if you were caught, which most likely would include the impounding of your vehicle. Would you say to the officer or judge "My car was the one who broke the law. It ran over the sidewalk without stopping. I tried to reason with it but it wouldn't take no for an answer. You should punish the car, not me."?



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 


Ok, then...turnabout is fair play....If your company used fraud and insider knowledge to purposely wreck a global economy...for your own enrichment...and then has been brought to court to "face charges"...then, when you "fall on your sword and "accept" a fine and plead guilty...then YOU should go to jail as would any citizen who has been found guilty/or pleads guilty to fraud, misappropriation of funds etc. And... you should be whacked by the RICO Laws and all of your belongings should be confiscated. Fair?....





new topics
top topics
 
58
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join