It's official: A Corporation is running for Congress!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


And we may wonder where in hell they came up with the word like democracy.

Oh yeah, it was intended to be the opposite of monarchy.

I don't think Star Trek is the right series to quote, maybe I'll go watch Caprica to see if something more appropriate comes up.

Originally posted by dzonatas
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

And we may wonder where in hell they came up with the word like democracy.

Oh yeah, it was intended to be the opposite of monarchy.

I don't think Star Trek is the right series to quote, maybe I'll go watch Caprica to see if something more appropriate comes up.

I have avoided responding to your most compelling and very interesting posts because I have been unsure how to respond. I was confused by your distinction between individual and "entitist". Just what exactly is an entitist? I thought maybe you made that word up, so I Googled it but could find no definition for it. Google results are 23 articles for "entitist definiton" and it is clear you have not made up that word, but I am still reading these articles, to get a better clue as to how entity would be different from individual.

I suspected you might just be avoiding the word collectivist but can't be sure at this point, and certainly did not want to impose my silly little suspicions upon you. That said, I have enjoyed reading your posts immensely and appreciated the sort of de facto moderator you functioned as during that heated flurry of a debate.

I will continue to read more up on this "entitist" idea so I might be able to intelligently respond. As to the Star Trek non sense, I thought a bit of levity between EU and myself might cool things down a bit. Caprica looks cool, I will check that out too. Thank God for Hulu.

Originally posted by soficrow
Seems these guys are arguing for the Constitutional Rights of Corporate "Persons" - to be extended at the expense of individual rights and freedoms.

Not my idea of a good time.

It does seem as if that is the case.

However, if taxes are applied recursively, then there are no additional expenditures.

I assure you! The worry is not in the minority to be involved, the worry is of the ability of the majority to proceed with audits of such processes in a deficit neutral manner.

For this case, unfortunately, we expect mistakes.

Originally posted by dzonatas
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

I don't think Star Trek is the right series to quote, maybe I'll go watch Caprica to see if something more appropriate comes up.

Is it because Chakotay told a parable in the 1997 Star Trek:Voyager episode Scorpion.

A scorpion was wandering along the bank of the river, wondering how to get to the other side. Suddenly he saw a fox. He asked the fox to take him on his back across the river.
The fox said, "No. If I do that, you'll sting me and I'll drown."
The scorpion assured him, "If I did that, we'd both drown."
So the fox thought about it and finally agreed. So the scorpion climbed up on his back and the fox began to swim. But halfway across the river, the scorpion stung him.
As the poison filled his veins, the fox turned to the scorpion and said, "Why did you do that? Now you'll drown too."
"I couldn't help it," said the scorpion. "It's my nature."

[edit on 2/16/2010 by EnlightenUp]

[edit on 2/16/2010 by EnlightenUp]

Originally posted by soficrow
Seems these guys are arguing for the Constitutional Rights of Corporate "Persons" - to be extended at the expense of individual rights and freedoms.

Not my idea of a good time.

It is unclear who you mean by "these guys", but the idea of "expansion" of, or "extended" rights are wholly abhorrent with the Constitution. In order for rights to be expanded or extended then they would have to be granted by some human entity or government. Rights are inalienable and can not be granted. They simply are.

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
Is it because Chakotay told a parable in the 1997 Star Trek:Voyager episode

At least the writers of Star Trek decided that Voyager, the so-called scientific experiment, was a bad idea and even caused much nightmares, such as written in their scripts.

Guess it was their nature.

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

Originally posted by dzonatas
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

I don't think Star Trek is the right series to quote, maybe I'll go watch Caprica to see if something more appropriate comes up.

Is it because Chakotay told a parable in the 1997 Star Trek:Voyager episode Scorpion.

A scorpion was wandering along the bank of the river, wondering how to get to the other side. Suddenly he saw a fox. He asked the fox to take him on his back across the river.
The fox said, "No. If I do that, you'll sting me and I'll drown."
The scorpion assured him, "If I did that, we'd both drown."
So the fox thought about it and finally agreed. So the scorpion climbed up on his back and the fox began to swim. But halfway across the river, the scorpion stung him.
As the poison filled his veins, the fox turned to the scorpion and said, "Why did you do that? Now you'll drown too."
"I couldn't help it," said the scorpion. "It's my nature."

[edit on 2/16/2010 by EnlightenUp]

[edit on 2/16/2010 by EnlightenUp]

That is the fable, I was referring to. Only difference was when I had read the fable it was a frog that foolishly gave the scorpion a ride on his back. It is foolish of us all, to allow government to ride upon our backs.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
It is foolish of us all, to allow government to ride upon our backs.

I consider that way.

Then, it was obviously more directed to question what was on the back of Voyager.

Maybe a minority have actually questioned it, and those who have probably want to hold accountable those scientists that conducted such experiment. You may think some of the banned documents about the Holocaust were evil....

EDIT: ... back on topic, shall we

[edit on 16-2-2010 by dzonatas]

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

It is foolish of us all, to allow government to ride upon our backs.

I agree. I also think it's the height of idiocy to hand over governmental powers along with the Rights of "personhood" to global mega-corporations.

Our government today is a "Corporatist" one, and Big Brother is corporate too. ...Wake up.

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

It is foolish of us all, to allow government to ride upon our backs.

I agree. I also think it's the height of idiocy to hand over governmental powers along with the Rights of "personhood" to global mega-corporations.

Our government today is a "Corporatist" one, and Big Brother is corporate too. ...Wake up.

It's as if you don't bother to read what has been posted and if that is the case then you need to wake up!

I have long railed against corporatism, and have spoken against it in this very thread, of which you are conveniently ignoring. Another thing you are conveniently ignoring is the actual text of the SCOTUS ruling you have entered this thread to bash in order to appease your own emotions.

Wake up indeed!

Those concerned about Corporate Big Brother and the almost-secured global corporatist government might find this thread interesting:


Cyberattack Drill Shows U.S. Unprepared

reply to post by soficrow


I think I'm more concerned about being able to define "person" in a concrete fashion, or somehow to put it in stone for the sake of law.


[Rest of the post directed at everybody:]

Let's consider some traits:

Personality
Individuality

Do we need to add more?

To think of "a person" as a "single unit" then I would say there is a single personality exclusively of a single individual that constitutes a single person.

With spirituality, psychology, etc, etc mentioned earlier, we know enough truths that may not be self-evident that to claim everybody will always be a single person is an absolute truth when in fact we found that not to be true. From here, we can make a distinction about being "corporal" away from those being "incorporated."

If that sounds to not be the same language you know to handle this very topic, then that is evidence of what you don't find self-evident. To go about and say that such possibility doesn't exist only denies life itself of it's freedom to exist. Isn't the foundation of the U.S. of A. based upon that freedom (or that dilemma of being free)? What kind of master are you to dictate who doesn't have freedom? And, who thought being that master comes without cost?

I'd be worried if an "incorporated" businesses run for a federal office, but I'm not worried if a "corporated" business runs for a federal office. An "incorporated" business would be one with the States, and don't you think there are already too many States in our Federal offices?

Something like this will create the distinction and further drive separation between federal and state. Separation of powers like this is a good thing.

[edit on 18-2-2010 by dzonatas]

There has been a concerted, sneaky strategy to establish corporations legally as "persons." The legality is questionable, and the implications are horrific.

In it's decision on January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court acted beyond it's jurisdiction.

"...with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.

In ruling that corporations are "persons," the SCOTUS gave corporations ALL the Rights of Persons established in the Constitution - including the Right to run for office. ...Pretty ridiculous, isn't it?

Again, the SCOTUS stepped beyond its mandate and jurisdiction. That's illegal.


Also see:

Americans: Supreme Court got it wrong! 80 Percent oppose ruling!

We Move to Amend.

Originally posted by soficrow
Americans: Supreme Court got it wrong! 80 Percent oppose ruling!

If we let 80 percent of the people control what 20 percent do, then that is not democracy.

Those 80 percent in essence have acted as a corporation against the 20 percent.

That is ridiculous when they ignore the mirror.

It's mercurial.

[edit on 18-2-2010 by dzonatas]

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by soficrow
Americans: Supreme Court got it wrong! 80 Percent oppose ruling!

If we let 80 percent of the people control what 20 percent do, then that is not democracy.

No?

Can you explain your thinking here? ...I thought that's exactly what democracy is meant to be - control of the minority by the majority.


The point here is that the Supreme Court applied a definition from the US Code to Constitutional Law - such application is questionable, and likely, illegal.

Originally posted by soficrow
The point here is that the Supreme Court applied a definition from the US Code to Constitutional Law - such application is questionable, and likely, illegal.

The Supreme Court is justice, not a judgment, so they didn't actually apply it. The justices aren't legislative, judges are.

The reaction of justice did exactly what they expected. For every reaction there is a equal and opposite reaction, or someone said something like that.

Those who opposed justice, in that case, became those acted illegally as they have described themselves.

What goes around comes around.

"As I am not a master, as I am not a slave. That is my idea of Democracy." -- Lincoln

It's takes 3 to make the world go around... separation of powers. They 80% seemed to have forgot that.

Quick, what's 1/3 of 100%...

Originally posted by soficrow
There has been a concerted, sneaky strategy to establish corporations legally as "persons." The legality is questionable, and the implications are horrific.

In it's decision on January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court acted beyond it's jurisdiction.

"...with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.

In ruling that corporations are "persons," the SCOTUS gave corporations ALL the Rights of Persons established in the Constitution - including the Right to run for office. ...Pretty ridiculous, isn't it?

Again, the SCOTUS stepped beyond its mandate and jurisdiction. That's illegal.


Also see:

Americans: Supreme Court got it wrong! 80 Percent oppose ruling!

We Move to Amend.

The concerted sneaky strategy is the one coming from all the disingenuous people who are pretending that a corporation wasn't all ready legally defined as a person prior to the Citizens United ruling. Take these legal definitions of a corporation for example:

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

duhaime.org...

www.yourdictionary.com...

www.nolo.com...

dictionary.reference.com...

www.whatisacorporation.com...

www.statelawyers.com...:27

www.merriam-webster.com...

The list just goes on and on and on regarding long standing definitions of what a corporation is, but those who are anti-free speech, (usually the ones who like to scream "wake up"), know full well they can't just openly and blatantly speak out against free speech, so they have employed a concerted sneaky strategy to misrepresent the actual ruling of Citizens United and present it as being about something it is not. This is why they are constantly self referencing each other, only citing articles, (usually op-ed pieces) that agree with them, never once citing the ruling itself and what was held.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

The list just goes on and on and on regarding long standing definitions of what a corporation is, but those who are anti-free speech, (usually the ones who like to scream "wake up"), know full well they can't just openly and blatantly speak out against free speech, so they have employed a concerted sneaky strategy to misrepresent the actual ruling of Citizens United and present it as being about something it is not. This is why they are constantly self referencing each other, only citing articles, (usually op-ed pieces) that agree with them, never once citing the ruling itself and what was held.

The only legal document that defines corporations as "persons" is the US Code, written for the express and limited purpose of "determining the meaning of any Act of Congress."

The US Constitution is NOT an "Act of Congress," nor does the Constitution define corporations as "persons," or give Constitutional Rights to corporations.

It is inappropriate - and arguably illegal - for the Supreme Court to extend a congressional definition written for congressional purposes to the Constitution. ...A Constitutional Amendment is required to extend Constitutional Rights as "persons" to corporations.

The founding fathers categorically did NOT wish corporations to be considered "persons" under law.

The founding fathers of the United States were not interested in giving constitutional rights to corporations. In fact, they wanted to regulate corporations very tightly because they had had bad experiences with corporations during colonial times. The crown charter corporations like the East India Company and the Hudson Bay Company had been the rulers of America. So when the constitution was written, corporations were left out of the Constitution. Responsibility for corporate chartering was given to the states. State governance was closer to the people and would enable them to keep an eye on corporations.

In the eighteenth century, corporations had very few of the powers that we now associate with them. They did not have limited liability. They did not have an unlimited life span. They were chartered for a limited period of time, say 10 or 20 years, and for a specific public purpose, such as building a bridge. Often a charter would require that, after a certain amount of time, the bridge or road be turned over to the state or the town in which it was built. Corporations were viewed differently in early America. They were required to serve the public good.

But over time people forgot that corporations ad been so powerful and that they needed to be strongly controlled. Also, corporations began to gain more power than the wealthy elite.

Corporations, the U.S. Constitution, and Democracy

Your argument depends on reference to common corporate usage and has nothing to do with the wishes of the American peoples' majority; it dismisses the US Constitution outright, and disrespects the history and intent of Constitutional Law.







[edit on 18-2-2010 by soficrow]

Originally posted by soficrow
Your argument depends on reference to common corporate usage and has nothing to do with the wishes of the American peoples' majority; it dismisses the US Constitution outright, and disrespects the history and intent of Constitutional Law.

Let's get down to Earth about something here that surrounds "majority" and what it could possibly mean.

What if there are 3 "persons" in your neighborhood. Let's count them, you, your spouse, and your neighbors.

We can number your neighbors, put addresses on each door, run a consensus, and show you that total population equals hundreds of human bodies.

Suddenly, your neighbors 'vote you out' of the neighborhood. You bought your home for you and your spouse, so it seems like you have the right to be there.

Does the majority win just like that? If you, your spouse, and your neighbors voted (100 votes total), then to number the vote would come up like 2% (you and your spouse) and 98% neighborhood vote -- you leave.

Let's count this in "corporal" terms: 1 vote for you, 1 vote for your spouse, and 1 corporated vote for your neighborhood. That would be 2/3 -- you stay.

Which way do you want to see this happen?

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by soficrow
Your argument depends on reference to common corporate usage and has nothing to do with the wishes of the American peoples' majority; it dismisses the US Constitution outright, and disrespects the history and intent of Constitutional Law.

Let's get down to Earth about something here that surrounds "majority" and what it could possibly mean. ...

Suddenly, your neighbors 'vote you out' of the neighborhood. You bought your home for you and your spouse, so it seems like you have the right to be there.

Does the majority win just like that?

Yep. That's democracy. Not perfect but the best government model we've got - by far.

...Noticed you skipped right over these bits:

(The) argument ...dismisses the US Constitution outright, and disrespects the history and intent of Constitutional Law.