Democrats Shutdown The Government

page: 1
20
<<   2 >>

log in

join
+4 more 
posted on Oct, 1 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   
After a little thought, I recalled that the Supreme Court upheld that corporations are people. And of course that was a great boon for campaign donations. But consider that under the 14th Amendment that no state may deny a person equal protection under the law.



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.


Now since the corporate mandate was delayed by Obama and corporations are people, then the mandate was also lifted on the individual due to equal protection. With the Senate tabling that specific wording of the amendment delaying the mandate in order to throw the CR back to the House, then either the corporate mandate (applied by Executive Order which the Senate cannot override with a simple majority vote) was also stripped or the mandate on individuals mentioned by the House remains intact despite a motion by the Senate to table.

In other words, Senate Democrats have either countermanded the President or they caused the Shutdown by invalid procedure. In either case, the House is correct to demand a final determination and clarification of the mandated portions of ACA before moving forward.




posted on Oct, 1 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


Good job.

Now how did you come by that realization?



posted on Oct, 1 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   
The Government should stay shut down. They do less harm when they are not working.

Shut it down, shut it ALL down! A LOT less government is ALWAYS a good thing. Keep the essentials funded and that's it. It cracks me up to hear the "man on the street" selected interviews for propaganda's sake, act like the sky is falling if the government shuts down! Ha! Just goes to show, to many people sucking on that teat for far too long.

Don't succumb to the teat of the government, citizen. Rise up and walk on your own two feet.

Cheers,

Bruce



posted on Oct, 1 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by BruceSleuth
 


Did you check the list of departments that are open and those that are not?

...

The government really isn't shut down in any significant way. A lot of people are not getting paid, but a lot of work is also not entirely necessary.



posted on Oct, 1 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


are you saying the dems inadvertently caused the closer because they tried to take away the protection under the law for individuals, and in so doing, effected the protection under the law for corporations, thus creating a paradox since the individual and the corporation are the same under the law?
edit on 1-10-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Corporate personhood is not the same as the 14th amendment.

Corporate personhood in the United States



As a matter of interpretation of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations. Opponents of corporate personhood seek to amend the U.S. Constitution to limit these rights to those provided by state law and state constitutions.

The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and the people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively. In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction which allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions which would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association.

Generally, corporations are not able to claim constitutional protections which would not otherwise be available to persons acting as a group. For example, the Supreme Court has not recognized a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for a corporation, since the right can be exercised only on an individual basis. In United States v. Sourapas and Crest Beverage Company, "[a]ppellants [suggested] the use of the word "taxpayer" several times in the regulations requires the fifth-amendment self-incrimination warning be given to a corporation." The Court did not agree.

Since the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, upholding the rights of corporations to make political expenditures under the First Amendment, there have been several calls for a U.S. Constitutional amendment to abolish Corporate Personhood, even though the Citizens United majority opinion makes no reference to corporate personhood or to the Fourteenth Amendment.



posted on Oct, 1 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


so where's the jump off? in other words, i don't understand what the op is saying entirely. is he saying the dems contradicted themselves ?



posted on Oct, 1 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


This case is not about self-incrimination.

What else can I say?



posted on Oct, 1 2013 @ 08:04 PM
link   

TarzanBeta
reply to post by buster2010
 


This case is not about self-incrimination.

What else can I say?


Self incrimination is the 5th amendment. Corporate personhood doesn't give companies individual rights like the 14th amendment.

The op is saying that corporations have the same rights as individuals that is wrong their rights are as a collective.



posted on Oct, 1 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


But if corporations are to have equal protection as a personhood for purposes of campaign contributions, then that equal protection must be a two way street. Otherwise it is the establishment of a noble class which is unconstitutional. There is no separate but equal clause.

Of course if the Federal Government doesn't want to acknowledge it, the States under the 14th sure as heck can and turn the individual mandate back on the Federal Government for reconsideration. But then again, the EO for the corporations didn't mention anything about waiving fines for non-compliance with ACA.



posted on Oct, 1 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


Corporations do not need 14 ammendment protection. The INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE who belong to that corporation already have that protection. They do not need to double down on it.



posted on Oct, 1 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


I read somewhere in the net from 2011, that the only way that Obama would try to undermine his own Obamacare in the case of no enough support for it and to save face for the Democratic party was to shut down the government and then blame it on the opposing party.

And this article I am talking about was back in 2011.

The way things are going it seems that Obamacare can very much fail within the first year.

I guess if this shut down comes to pass or Obamacare gets delayed, then that prediction from 2011 could become true.



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Ahabstar
reply to post by buster2010
 


But if corporations are to have equal protection as a personhood for purposes of campaign contributions, then that equal protection must be a two way street. Otherwise it is the establishment of a noble class which is unconstitutional. There is no separate but equal clause.

Of course if the Federal Government doesn't want to acknowledge it, the States under the 14th sure as heck can and turn the individual mandate back on the Federal Government for reconsideration. But then again, the EO for the corporations didn't mention anything about waiving fines for non-compliance with ACA.


They have collective rights not individual rights. As a collective they can donate to campaigns.



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Hold on..wait a minute..


Have the right contradicted themselves again.

They scream "Obama blames the right for everything..he should take responsibility..yada.yada"

Now that the right shut down the government..."it is Obama's fault" ..really I mean really, you guys are actually going there.

So Obama take responsibility for his actions..the right BLAME OBAMA..



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 09:14 AM
link   



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


LOL, such twisted and silly logic.

A CR is not the place to "correct" a perceived issue. And I don't hear any Republican making the ridiculous argument you are attempting to make. There are many issues with many different laws, a Continuing Resolution to continue to fund the government is NOT the place to address those issues. You only do that if you are using the American economy as a political hostage and don't give a damn about the harm you do to the entire country in order to get your one single issue addressed.

The government shutdown is happening because Republicans are demanding something in return for funding the government...end of story.

Polls show that the public knows exactly what is going on and who exactly is to blame.

Democrats have stood strong against this idiotic tactic by the Republicans. You don't negotiate with hostage takers or terrorists because you just encourage their behavior. The Republicans are dying over this and they know it, that is why some of them are starting to break ranks and wanting the madness to end.


But go ahead and keep trying to twist logic and reality in a desperate attempt to blame the Democrats who are just trying to pass a clean CR to FUND THE GOVERNMENT without any partisan politics attached to it.



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


One more point just to completely destroy your "argument".

There is no "corporate mandate", there is an "employer mandate". Not all employers are corporations. So that kind of destroys your whole "argument" right there.

Plus, the "employer mandate" and the "individual mandate" are not the same thing. Just because they have the word "mandate" in them does not equate them. There is no equality issue when you are talking about two completely different policies of the same legislation.

I'll give you credit though, you are really searching for a way to pin this on Democrats, it just shows how desperate those on the Right are to shift the blame. But it isn't working, because every argument just falls flat on their face.



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


Just another futile attempt to shift the blame for this fiasco off the republicans and some pretty bad logic on top of that. There's really no reason to go to such effort to convince right-wingers that this is the Democrats fault. All you have to do is to say that it is and they'll bite, hook, line & sinker. In reality, they're a pretty shallow crowd who are easily convinced with shallow arguments.

Only the american Tea Party could be so dysfunctional as to convert what was an actual win in the congressional budgetary process into their own epitaph and may God bless them for it.


The House & Senate Democrats had already compromised and agreed to the budget proposal offered by the Republicans, (continued sequester level spending) which was some 70+ billion less than what they had proposed in their own budget proposals.

This should have been a budget victory that Republicans could brag about, but no way they were going to let that happen. They had to go and throw this temper tantrum over the personal mandate, (which was originally a Republican idea to begin with, go figure?) and refuse to pass even this lousy 6 week budget extension called a C.R., unless they get to shut down/defund/repeal/delay the ACA. As if the President would sign anything like this when it came to his desk.


I have algae growing in my fish pond, (pond scum) that has more intelligence than the Tea Party and based on their support of these idiotic tactics, I'm beginning to wonder if it might not be smarter than the rest of the Republican party as well.

I know that John Boehner is smarter than this. Maybe he just finally decided the only way to get rid of this nuisance, ( the Tea Party) is to let them hang themselves until they are dead on the vine, so to speak. One can only hope.
edit on 2-10-2013 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Why do so many people still buy into the two party paridigm ?
Republicans and democrats have controled America for 150 years.
They prop each other up to maintain control.
America did not just fall into debt over night, it was guided there by a corrupt , failed two party system over years of planning.
The actors are setting the stage for the next election.
Blaming either party has gotten us nowhere but deeper into debt, stop playing this game , it never works, both partys get a free ride and we pay for it. Wake up .



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   
40 different times, House Republicans have tried to have discussion on the matter. Refusing to allow non-essential funding to continue until a dialogue takes place is not destroying the economy. 800,000 govt employees are consuming $1 billion in payroll a week and you all are okay with this?

All under the attempt to have fairness under the law by giving an exemption to people under the correct process of a bill to become law rather than presidential whim as was done with corporations...and the Dems have a problem with that.

Senate should have passed it and let Obama be the hero or the chump on his item merits rather than breaking Checks and Balances to protect his ego and image.

That is why we are in a shutdown and it is the Dems that hold the blame despite the shunt to the uninformed.





new topics

top topics



 
20
<<   2 >>

log in

join