OWS lists of Demands

222 posts / 0 new

Being a fragmented, leaderless movement is going to cause many problems in thier unfocused anger. The list form varing groups is going to one of those problems.

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr. /

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors. Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment. Demand four: Free college education. Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand. Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now. Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants. Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment. Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live. Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system. Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period. Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies. Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.
Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Comments

"unfocused anger"

Nice frame job.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

Have you been to one?

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Some of the ideas are good some not. For starters $20 an hour ain't never gonna happen. The 1% are not going to allow much change from the current system since they've spents years and millions of dollars getting this country the way they want it and profit from it. I do agree on driving the insurance companies out of the health care market since they provide nothing in the way of actual health care but do drive the costs way up with their own version of greed. I don't agree with open borders either. Just look at what it has given us since reagan gave them amenesty years ago. That was the start because once you open that door it's hard to close. If we don't clean wall street up and washington it isn't going to matter anyway. Greed and the scams that come and go with it have just about ruined this country for the working class. My late grandfather told me many years ago in the mid sixties that I would probably live long enough to see greed take this country down and it damn near did a few years ago and so far no one is in jail for what I think is the crime of the century. Trillions of dollars were stolen from investors from all over the world and they have gotten away with it. Deregulation is another thing he told me about and when you don't enforce it or try to do away with it like one party has nothing good can come from that and there are many examples. Trying to elect people you think might do a decent job has proven not to make much of a difference since it they ain't corrupt with money before they get to washington they damn sure will be before they leave. Asking the same bunch of worthless idiots to fix a system they are responsible for breaking I guess would be like asking the fox to guard the hen house. Like I said before there's some good ideas there but goodluck in finding honest politicians to push them forward.

Sprinklerfitter's picture
Sprinklerfitter
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2011 6:49 am

How Occupy Wall Street Movement Can Succeed

Work on electing State Legislators sympathetic to their cause and then call for a Constittional Convention. The 1% own the media and OWS will never change Federal law by trying to work through the Federal Election process. However it will be impossible for the 1% to control the outcome of local elections and the OWS 12 demands can then be made into Constitutional Amendments that make them the law of the land.

AlSurfer's picture
AlSurfer
Joined:
Oct. 12, 2011 5:27 pm

Once there is some focus on what is wanted, and once the consensus is established, how to get it will not be that hard. The issue is democracy and the feeling of not participating in power is the motivation. You can spell that out in many ways, but the point is that they are fed up and not going to take it any more. Had the stupid banksters shown an ounce of humility and cut back on the excesses--not really ending them, just cutting back--they might have been able to provide jobs for the OWS college grads living at home and avoided this.

What ought to worry WS is the faces of the crowd. This is not the Third world slave work force rising up. These are the people who got through college. They are not worried about being drafted, but they are questioning the loyalty they showed to the "system" and those who acted as if they were the wise adults. They don't have to understand what is going wrong to know that those in charge have no clue other than predatory desires. The system is not only broken, it is bought and sold. Reform means real change, not just trying to make this clunker work.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The New Deal came about so as to prevent this sort of mass protest. But propaganda, a key component of inverted totalitarianism, is effective. And there probably aren't enough people Occupying. At least not yet. Maybe we'll see New Deal Part II. Maybe we'll see a police state slaughter protesters with a good portion of the (Fox-viewing, authoritarian-minded) population taking no issue with it. Or neither. One way or another, we'll see history repeat itself until enough people understand that rebellion - not revolution - is sorely needed.

Garrett78's picture
Garrett78
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 9:20 am
Quote Garrett78:

The New Deal came about so as to prevent this sort of mass protest. But propaganda, a key component of inverted totalitarianism, is effective. And there probably aren't enough people Occupying. At least not yet. Maybe we'll see New Deal Part II. Maybe we'll see a police state slaughter protesters with a good portion of the (Fox-viewing, authoritarian-minded) population taking no issue with it. Or neither. One way or another, we'll see history repeat itself until enough people understand that rebellion - not revolution - is sorely needed.

How is it that a sub group of people, such as the Tea Party, have a measureable impact on National politics in really short order and the OWS hasn't? Maybe I haven't given them enough time. Or the abstract message they are sending isn't resonating.

I agree, had they framed the protest in terms like the Tent cities of hoovervilles. Perhaps they might get somewhere.

I think they are going to have trouble getting past the "boy who cry wolf" perception.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

As I posted on the 'If corporations are people....' thread on Thom's nationally syndicated radio program section:

Here's an interesting article that recently came out in the Huffington Post by Ryan Grim:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/12/corporate-citizenship-corporate-personhood-paris-commune_n_1005244.html

Thom Hartmann brought this concept to the public forum years ago in his book, Unequal Protection--and it is gaining air time. In my opinion, if the Occupiers wanted one single issue to consolidate behind, it would be 'eliminate corporate personhood'. If you reduce the personhood of corporations, I think you will automatically improve the personhood of real people and their real individual rights supposedly to be secured and protected by a government 'of the people'....

Of course, it may be hard to get an 'eliminate corporate personhood' position out on the corporate-controlled media....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Official Statement from Occupy Wall Street - this statement was voted on and approved by the general assembly of protesters at Liberty Square: Declaration of the Occupation of New York City

"As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.

As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.

They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.

They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.

They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.

They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless nonhuman animals, and actively hide these practices.

They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.

They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.

They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.

They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.

They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.

They have sold our privacy as a commodity.

They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press.

They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.

They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.

They have donated large sums of money to politicians supposed to be regulating them.

They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.

They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantive profit.

They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.

They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.

They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.

They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.

They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.

They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.*

To the people of the world,

We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.

Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.

Join us and make your voices heard!
*These grievances are not all-inclusive."

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

The Tea Party is backed by the very people who have been driving national politics in this country for decades now. The Tea Party is nothing new. It's an old group with a new name. They're the folks who actually fall for the wedge issue, divide and conquer tactics (whether it's the old Southern Strategy, or heterosexism, or Christian Supremacy, or a twisted idea of what constitutes "personal responsibility," or jingoism, or anti-immigrant hysteria, or Islamophobia). It's that subset of the population that the plutocrats use and abuse in order to stem the tide brought on by people who at least have an inkling of who's really screwing them with their pants on.

Hatred of a specific group of people is easily exploited. Disgust with a corrupt system is something else entirely, and poses a real threat to the plutocracy. Thus the strong urge to demand specifics, such as replacing the head of Goldman Sachs with his right-hand man (and don't forget the multi-million dollar compensation package). There you go, protesters. You've had your fun and we gave you what you wanted. Now, please go back to being a cog in the neoliberal machine.

Garrett78's picture
Garrett78
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 9:20 am

On his program right now, Hartmann is reiterating my point above. As Thom put it, address the lawmakers with two questions: 'When are you going to support a constitutional amendment against corporate personhood and money as speech?'

Again, if the Occupiers are being castigated over being 'too scattered', I agree with Thom--these are the points to emphasize--over and over....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Because they will never get a constitutional amendment on such a narrow political issue passed by 2/3 of congress, by the majority in 38 States, in seven years.

The idea that you want government to constrain free speach even further than Time, Place, Manner is disturbing.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Well, then, as ones that have been maneuvered out of any productive position in such a corporate government collusion that grants such 'corporate personhood' against real individual rights, keep up that point unto they do listen (and do something about it even if you think they can't pass a constitutional amendment)--or something gives....and I am beginning to believe that a police state imposition isn't going to be as easy as, perhaps, some of the colluders may have thought....maybe there is hope....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Maybe Abraham Lincoln was right--you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:Again, if the Occupiers are being castigated...

*@#! the castigators.

Garrett78's picture
Garrett78
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 9:20 am
this statement was voted on and approved by the general assembly of protesters at Liberty Square:

I'm really sorry the OWS people felt the need to go even this far to distill their demands. Now the radical righties not only have some clear objects on which to work their Faux News magic. Now they can talk about how vague and primitive our thinking is. I'm hoping that the movement has the gravity to continue on, and that's all that is necessary. The message is that "We are the 99%, we are getting screwed and Wall Street exemplifies the problem. We're doing our part. What are you going to do about it? Pick a side". There's plenty of room for anybody who identifies with that credo.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Excerpts from the above Huffington Post connection:

................................

.....Cyrus Field's transcontinental telegraph cable, which allowed the elites of America to focus intently on the two-month uprising and ultimate slaughter of thousands of Parisians. Cyrus Field's brother and his family were in Paris at the time, and a third brother, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field, obsessively tracked the news back in the states. It was the Paris uprising that transformed Stephen Field from a mundanely corrupt judge in the paid service of the railroads to a zealous crusader for all corporations, with the aim of suppressing what he and other leaders saw as the threat of democracy from below.

For much of the first U.S. century, it was an accepted fact that the people, through their legislators, had the power to pass laws that businesses were required to obey. After the Civil War, Reconstruction-era statutes and constitutional amendments -- particularly the 14th Amendment -- strictly limited the ability of legislators to restrict the rights of the recently freed African Americans.

In a historic irony, it was the protections contained in those Reconstruction laws that corporations sought to grab for their own. Justice (Stephen) Field was the hand they used.

.....................................

The idea of corporate personhood was once viewed as nonsense. A corporation was formed to limit the financial liability of its owners in pursuing their business: If the corporation went broke, debtors couldn't come after its owners. That such a company might also have all the rights of citizens was a concept on the fringes. Yet by force of judicial will, Field pulled it right into the mainstream

He began with his dissenting opinion in the 1873 Slaughter-House cases, decided by the Supreme Court on a 5-4 vote. Writing for the minority, Field asserted that the freedom of a corporation to pursue its business interests was "the distinguishing privilege of all citizens of the United States."

...........................................

Field was as much concerned with protecting business investments as he was with working the Lord's will. He was heavily invested in railroads and other industries that came before the Court, so much so that the chief justice at the time pressed him not to weigh in on certain cases.......

.......Congress allowed justices to continue to sit occasionally on the circuit courts. When sitting on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in California, Field repeatedly wrote into his decisions that corporations were persons. Those decisions became precedents in the 9th Circuit, but nowhere else.

.............

.........In 1886, Santa Clara County sued Southern Pacific Railroad in a similar case, and the company again asserted its personhood. In fact, whether Southern Pacific was a citizen was irrelevant to the particular dispute, which was decided on technical issues of tax law that applied equally to a business or a person. But the Court reporter, John Chandler Bancroft Davis, who was himself financially intertwined with the railroads, wrote the following in his summary of the decision: "The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section I of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a state to deny to any person equal protection of the laws."

Nothing like that was contained in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. itself, so where did Davis get such language? The most likely answer lies with Field, who made a habit of micromanaging Davis' summaries. And Davis himself had plenty of reason to play along: In an earlier case that came before the Court, Davis had been accused of acting as an attorney and trustee of a railroad company, only to wind up with much of that company's assets in his own hands

As merely part of a reporter's summary, Davis' statement of corporate personhood carried no legal weight. But in a 1888 decision, Field enshrined the error. Citing the Santa Clara case, he wrote, completely out of the blue and not in reaction to any facts in the new case, that a "private corporation is included under the designation of 'person' in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Section I." That a corporation was a person had -- presto -- become settled law.

More than a century later, in the 5-4 decision of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Chief Justice John Roberts would rely on this nonsensical and corrupt ruling to enshrine into law the equally perverse notion that a corporation is a person entitled to all the liberties of the First Amendment and therefore, in another leap of logic, free to spend as much of its money as it pleases to influence elections, regardless of any laws passed to the contrary.

..................................................

And, the rest is, as they say, 'history'....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

And, the rest is, as they say, 'history'....

Don't you find it sort of strange "More than a century later, in the 5-4 decision of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Chief Justice John Roberts would rely on this nonsensical and corrupt ruling" Isn't IN the actual 183 page ruling ANYWHERE.

I wonder what they are trying to sell. I wonder what you are selling.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Well, Capital, while I haven't read the court ruling itself (have you?), I think that utilizing the First Amendment for the purposes of FREEDOM OF SPEECH OF CORPORATIONS puts corporations under the auspices of such First Amendment protections that PERSONS are to obtain. That is the essence of 'corporate personhood', is it not?

Now, Capital, what are you trying to sell? Specifically, do you disagree with this assessment in that connection:

For much of the first U.S. century, it was an accepted fact that the people, through their legislators, had the power to pass laws that businesses were required to obey. After the Civil War, Reconstruction-era statutes and constitutional amendments -- particularly the 14th Amendment -- strictly limited the ability of legislators to restrict the rights of the recently freed African Americans.

And, now, as the article stated, using those 14th Amendment protections of 'equal protection of the laws', the Roberts Supreme Court extends it to the 1st Amendment as 'equal protection of free speech' of CORPORATIONS as if that artificial entity were a PERSON...

If you actually read all that connection, do you disagree with this assessment, also:

But it didn't take a century for Field's coup to begin influencing public policy. Even before the Santa Clara case, corporations were asserting that a God-given "liberty to contract" allowed them to ignore laws regulating the workplace. When legendary labor leader Samuel Gompers persuaded New York to ban the making of cigars in tenement sweatshops, the Supreme Court overturned the law in a landmark 1885 ruling, In re Jacobs, saying it violated the cigar makers' freedom. A similar 1899 case struck down a law granting an eight-hour workday to employees of city contractors, and the majority specifically cited Field's original dissent in the Slaughter-House cases.

In short, corporations did not become citizens by accident. It took roughly a decade to usurp the liberty given to freed slaves and apply it instead to businesses.

It's an historical fact that corporations used their personhood 'rights' to have all the laws passed by state legislators during the First Gilded Age that referred to worker benefits, worker protection, worker hours, worker minimum wage, worker restrictions, etc., all knocked down BY THE SUPREME COURT under the very point that such contracts between corporations and each worker were as if it were contracts between TWO PERSONS......do you disagree with that? Again, what are you trying to sell, Capital? Or, is it that you are bought off?--so, what you are saying has no basis in historical accuracy. But, like many corporatists in thomland, you try your hardest to divert and misrepresent such details into your support of such 'corporate personhood' of today.....are you an Ixtelan-ist? Here merely to confound and confuse more so than honestly interact?

Do you have your own 'defiinitions' of 'corporate personhood', 'natural rights (and law)', 'positive rights (and law)' and 'consent of the governed'? Or, are you coming from the same playbook that Ixtelan used?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

Well, Capital, while I haven't read the court ruling itself (have you?),

I have, how long have you been discussing this topic? How often have you quote passages as I have quoted as factual... You support something you haven't even read nor even understand because someone you don't know claims this opinion., Is it possible that your opinion, and the people you quote are wrong on the read of Citizen United?

Feel free to read it, HERE, and perhaps understand the ruling better than your cut and paste job

The rest of your post is a pointless exercise of ignorance... Read it, then come on back and talk intelligently about it.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

I've been around here long enough to recognize the twists and turns floated out by posters whose intent is not to have an honest conversation on these boards, Capital--and the first indication of that is your own ignorance as you claim some form of knowledge that no one has. It doesn't matter that the ruling does or does not state specifically the term 'corporate personhood' if the ruling is handling CORPORATIONS as if PERSONS. Ixtelan liked to pass that off as 'well, they are legal persons' after all--and, you know, that's 'legal.' What numbers you people are. Try to address my post, Capital. Do I really need to walk you through it? You are the one that claims that the connection that I post is trying to 'sell you something'--it's actually an extension of Thom Hartmann's point that he wrote about years ago in his book, Unequal Protection, that probably got the term 'corporate personhood' in the public (and government--even judicial) vocabulary to begin with and I know it's difficult for people like you to address something directly but the meaning of 'corporate personhood' is what I said--treating CORPORATIONS as PERSONS. No other artificial entity gets the legal advantages corporations get. NONE. Do you disagree with that? Let's walk you through one more time:

.....I think that utilizing the First Amendment for the purposes of FREEDOM OF SPEECH OF CORPORATIONS puts corporations under the auspices of such First Amendment protections that PERSONS are to obtain. That is the essence of 'corporate personhood', is it not?

Now, no matter what 'the ruling' says, is that not EXACTLY WHAT 'THE RULING' DID? The ruling DID treat COPORATIONS AS PERSONS by granting it FREE SPEECH RIGHTS (and 'using money' to do it). Do you disagree with that? Can you address any point on this board other than your rather shallow posturing regardless of any meaning?

Let's move on to the other parts you claim are 'ignorant'--and see just how you can show your own 'intelligence' on this issue. I'm up for that--are you?

Now, Capital, what are you trying to sell? Specifically, do you disagree with this assessment in that connection:

For much of the first U.S. century, it was an accepted fact that the people, through their legislators, had the power to pass laws that businesses were required to obey. After the Civil War, Reconstruction-era statutes and constitutional amendments -- particularly the 14th Amendment -- strictly limited the ability of legislators to restrict the rights of the recently freed African Americans.

And, now, as the article stated, using those 14th Amendment protections of 'equal protection of the laws', the Roberts Supreme Court extends it to the 1st Amendment as 'equal protection of free speech' of CORPORATIONS as if that artificial entity were a PERSON...

First off, do you know history? Or, are you like Ixtelan, claiming 'history doesn't matter'--what 'matters' is how 'we define and use the terms now' (you know using concepts that aren't defined like the Roberts Court addressing CORPORATIONS as if they were PERSONS WITH RIGHTS--but not calling it 'corporate personhood'--that sort of sidestepping disingenuity). Although Ixtelan (and many of Ixtelan's incarnations--maybe you are one) liked to use history to claim how 'natural laws' meant 'empires taking over'--Ixtelan skipped that history that 'natural laws' were what was actually given to REAL PEOPLE--and their 'natural ability' to determine 'moral and ethical principles' through the use of their own intelligence. You know, that sort of lying sidestepping as you claim 'ignorance' on everyone else's part--as you continue TO IGNORE what others say.

But, if you know history, let's stick to the point, shall we? In history, prior to the very court cases that that connection I give points out 'changed all this' to the 'corporate personhood' that was granted 14th, and now 1st, Amendment rights as if CORPORATIONS WERE PERSONS, were corporations given the same 'corporate personhood' rights before the Civil War and those very court cases that legitimized such rights? No. Just exactly like the connection that you tend to try to discredit with a passing claim that it was 'trying to sell something' in, what, posturing yourself that corporations don't have those very 'personhood rights' they are claiming? So, just like the connection says, something changed in the 'legal positioning' of corporations before the Civil War and after the Civil War with the passing of the 14th Amendment--ostensibly for the newly freed blacks but configured by the legalisms that only lawyers can use to include 'corporations' in the mix. Do you disagree with that? And, if you do, by all means, please show the viewing audience where you differ in that assessment. Absent that correction, what did change after the Civil War was the institution of 'corporate personhood' in the legal system--treating this artificial entity as if it had PERSONHOOD RIGHTS.

Now, next thing I'm going to hear from you is that corporations don't have the 'right to vote', so how could that be the same thing as a person, right? Well, women didn't have the right to vote at this same time--do you not think that they had personhood rights? The right to vote was a citizens right. Personhood rights claim all the other rights in the Bill of Rights--and THAT is what corporations have been granted--but, corporations are artificial entities. With 'limited liability' along with 'corporate personhood', they actually gain more advantages than just 'rights'--but, that's another story that's being mentioned on the other thread.....

Let's go to the last part that you ignored:

If you actually read all that connection, do you disagree with this assessment, also:

But it didn't take a century for (Justice Stephen) Field's coup to begin influencing public policy. Even before the Santa Clara case, corporations were asserting that a God-given "liberty to contract" allowed them to ignore laws regulating the workplace. When legendary labor leader Samuel Gompers persuaded New York to ban the making of cigars in tenement sweatshops, the Supreme Court overturned the law in a landmark 1885 ruling, In re Jacobs, saying it violated the cigar makers' freedom. A similar 1899 case struck down a law granting an eight-hour workday to employees of city contractors, and the majority specifically cited Field's original dissent in the Slaughter-House cases.

In short, corporations did not become citizens by accident. It took roughly a decade to usurp the liberty given to freed slaves and apply it instead to businesses.

It's an historical fact that corporations used their personhood 'rights' to have all the laws passed by state legislators during the First Gilded Age that referred to worker benefits, worker protection, worker hours, worker minimum wage, worker restrictions, etc., all knocked down BY THE SUPREME COURT under the very point that such contracts between corporations and each worker were as if it were contracts between TWO PERSONS......do you disagree with that? Again, what are you trying to sell, Capital? Or, is it that you are bought off?--so, what you are saying has no basis in historical accuracy. But, like many corporatists in thomland, you try your hardest to divert and misrepresent such details into your support of such 'corporate personhood' of today.....are you an Ixtelan-ist? Here merely to confound and confuse more so than honestly interact?

Again, this does require a little knowledge on your part about history--but, you can look it up for yourself if you disagree with 'what I'm trying to sell' here. Point of the matter is that, once corporations gained personhood rights, in the contractual relations of the First Gilded Age (I think we are in the Second Gilded Age right now), corporations were granted the posiition of PERSON in the contracts they held with each worker and, then, by that 'corporate personhood' status, were given Constitutional privileges in contracts (as Article 1, Section 10, claims 'No State shall.....pass any....Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts....'). Using that 'corporate personhood' right to have the Supreme Court knock down every state legislative act that affected (and usually advocated for) worker benefits, worker protection, worker hours, worker minimum wage, worker restrictions, etc., during the First Gilded Age. That didn't change until there was enough unrest to force the government to do something--and the first thing it did was have that very same Supreme Court finally uphold a worker-friendly regulation (for women's working hours in the garment industry)--and, then, later on, start granting things like worker protection and worker minimum wage through the federal government (remember, the Constitution says 'No State shall....'). Now, listen to how the constitutional fundamentalists want to go back to 'states rights' moreso than 'federal authority'.....forgetting all along any rights to real people--unless, of course, it's 'corporate personhood' rights.....

So, Capital, what is it you are trying to sell? That's there is no such thing as 'corporate personhood' because the Roberts Supreme Court didn't put it in their ruling? But, then, did the Roberts Supreme Court grant corporations the 1st Amendment right to free speech--and grant to corporations the use of money as if it represented speech? Is that in that ruling? And, does that not represent 'personhood rights'? 'Corporate personhood' rights.....and, we both know why you are ignoring this last statement, don't we:

Do you have your own 'defiinitions' of 'corporate personhood', 'natural rights (and law)', 'positive rights (and law)' and 'consent of the governed'? Or, are you coming from the same playbook that Ixtelan used?

How can corporations, as artificial entities, have 'natural rights' under 'natural law'? In fact, that is one thing corporations don't do is determine the 'moral and ethical principles' that can apply to law, do they? Why, thanks to their 'positive law privileges' (such as 'limited liability'), they don't even want 'natural law' to really be considered as 'law', do they, Capital? Now, tell the viewing audience what you are trying to sell and what YOU ARE IGNORING......but, don't try to claim it's because you are telling the truth.....and you 'know' so much more.....I've seen the twists and lies you and your kind like to represent in these parts for quite a few years.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

I've been around here long enough to recognize the twists and turns floated out by posters whose intent is not to have an honest conversation on these boards, Capital--and the first indication of that is your own ignorance as you claim some form of knowledge that no one has. It doesn't matter that the ruling does or does not state specifically the term 'corporate personhood' if the ruling is handling CORPORATIONS as if PERSONS.

Sorry, I am not interested in discussing with the self imposed ignorant. I asked you to read the orginal document that your story LIED about. You choose not to. Instead you continue to spin out more lies. It's clear you are not interested in Facts and intellectual discourse, but only propaganda. Come back when you know what you are talking about.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

What you have posted Kerry is very interesting to read. I personally don't agree with the Roberts court decision and I believe it will just get worse before it's reversed. You seem to be the kind of fellow that gets to the nuts and bolts of the issue and I like that.

Thanks

Sprinklerfitter's picture
Sprinklerfitter
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2011 6:49 am

Ah, Capital, how disappointing--and predictable on your part. Why, you are the one saying that I'm trying 'to sell something' here--isn't that appropriate terminology for your type? But, what it is that you are trying to say about 'corporate personhood'? That it doesn't exist? But, of course, if you fail to comment on how people are using its meaning, you can say that IGNORANTLY, can't you? Let me emphasize something a little differently in that (one) statement you make your accusatory and ignorant remarks on:

I've been around here long enough to recognize the twists and turns floated out by posters whose intent is not to have an honest conversation on these boards, Capital--and the first indication of that is your own ignorance as you claim some form of knowledge that no one has. It doesn't matter that the ruling does or does not state specifically the term 'corporate personhood' if the ruling is handling CORPORATIONS as if PERSONS.

And, since it is granting corporations 'rights of free speech' (using money as 'speech'), it is granting corporations 1st Amendment rights as if a person. Thus, 'corporate personhood' rights.....

The rest still stands despite Capital's weak and rather ignore-ing responses.....claiming disingenuity on my part--but I can at least say that I explain myself when directed. Do you explain your position similarly, Capital? No, you probably look into some Ixtelan-like playbook on how to twist and accuse without addressing any issue put forth to you (or even by you). Start with 'corporate personhood' and how you think granting corporations 1st Amendment 'free speech rights' (using money) is not 'corporate personhood'--or, as I said (I know it's too simple for twisting manipulators such as yourself, Capital, but it is the point), treating CORPORATIONS AS PERSONS in considering the Bill of Rights....and the 14th Amendment.....none of your accusations can discredit that very point unless and until you have something substantial to say against its point.....which, of course, you don't or you would have already said it.....even in explaining how you don't 'believe' in 'corporate personhood' if that is what you 'are trying to sell'....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

Ah, Capital, how disappointing--and predictable on your part. Why, you are the one saying that I'm trying 'to sell something' here--isn't that appropriate terminology for your type?

Very predictable on your part... You either are too scared to read it, knowing I am right. or you have already read it and know I am right. So instead of arguing through actual facts. You want to fight this out in the abstract mud, where mud slinging is a must. So I am not interested in getting bogged down in a ridiculous discussion with a used car salesman. Facts remain... That is not what Citizen United said. Your story was a lie. therefore the rest is suspect. Do bother trying to engage unless you've read the Citizen United Ruling.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Oh, of course, Capital, more accusations without qualifications--just like you have been doing all along. Well, let's get some yes and no questions going and just see who's lieing, shall we, Capital? Can you answer yes and no questions?

Citizens United GRANTED CORPORATIONS THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH (by using money in doing so). Is that corrrecf? Yes or no, Capital. Can you even answer that?

Of course not. Because, then, the next question becomes: Does that not, by meaning and intent, indicate that corporations have rights mentioned in the Constitution and its amendments (especially in this case, 14th and 1st Amendments) as if persons? Yes or no, Capital. Can you even answer that?

Of course not. Because, then, the next question becomes: If so, is that not, by meaning and intent, CORPORATE PERSONHOOD RIGHTS? Yes or no, Capital.

It doesn't matter whether Citizens United uses the term 'corporate personhood' or not if all the questions above are answered 'YES' because that would mean that 'corporate personhood' does exist.....do you disagree with that, Capital? Now, I'm sorry, that's not just a 'yes or no' question, only, because, if you do disagree, now, you are going to have to explain (or QUALIFY) yourself? Why is it that you disagree if you do? What, to you, is this if it's NOT 'corporate personhood'? And, if you don't disagree, then, you are in agreement that 'corporate personhood' does exist......see how that works? Is that really that hard for your twisting, accusatory, ignore-ing mind to comprehend?

Now, tell me again who's lieing here, Capital? Start by answering some yes and no questions as above and let's see....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

Citizens United GRANTED CORPORATIONS THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH (by using money in doing so). Is that corrrecf? Yes or no, Capital. Can you even answer that?

My answer to that is your a fucking liar. As I have been trying to politely say for tha last couple posts. But perhaps that is a bit harsh. Lying requires you know that what you are say is patently false. Yet you refuse to actually read the ruling, thereby you can claim you simply did not know. SO READ THE RULING. So I don't have to be rude to you. That would be great.

I do not need to get bogged down in you mud hole, The questions you ask are spelled out in the Ruling. Not even the loosest reading of that ruling comes close to your propaganda. Read it or don't. But please stop asking me stupid questions

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Speak for yourself, Capital. You are the one not addressing the issue squarely--do you get training on how to be such a manipulator in discussion boards such as this? So let's see if we can really get to what you have said here:

Quote Kerry:

Citizens United GRANTED CORPORATIONS THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH (by using money in doing so). Is that corrrecf? Yes or no, Capital. Can you even answer that?

My answer to that is your a fucking liar.....

Does claiming that 'I'm' a 'fucking liar' actually answer that question, Capital? In claiming that 'I'm the fucking liar', Capital, just what are you saying with respect to whether or not the decision and ruling on Citizens United granted corporations the right to free speech (using 'money' as 'speech') as 'corporate personhood'? Is that a 'yes' or a 'no' answer? Why can't you just answer a simple question, Capital? Why throw out all these insults to me when you can't even be honest enough to answer one question?

Now, I'm going to have to start putting words in your mouth since you aren't adult enough to explain your own position but I am going to assume that your whole point is that 'corporate personhood' doesn't exist because the Roberts ruling on granting Citizens United, as a corporation, the rights to free speech, didn't say 'corporate personhood'. This is the very problem with restricting law to its 'positive definition' rather than any 'natural meaning' it should be able to sustain. The lack of the wording in the ruling DOES NOT mean the same thing as the lack of the meaning any other wording may contain over the same issue. In fact, ignoring the wording of giving Citizens United 1st Amendment rights of free speech as if a person as 'corporate personhood' just further substantiates the point that the 'positive meaning (law)' restrainers believe that 'not saying it as such makes it not mean as such'--which, of course, disregards any thinking person's ability to say differently AND REALLY MEAN IT by understanding the gist as well as the wording of any 'legal decision'. And, the gist of granting Citizen's United the right to free speech (using money) is exactly the same as the meaning of giving CORPORATIONS RIGHTS AS IF PERSONS--which, as I've said all along, despite any claims by Capital of my 'lying' about it, is the very definition of 'corporate personhood'. Capital really doesn't want to recognize that point because I really believe that Capital does know its very significance in its method of application in today's political environment. Claiming the rather sophistic excuse that 'its doesn't exist because the Roberts Court didn't say it' is a disingenuous method of handling the point--and, since Capital does not, and cannot, qualify what 'giving Citizens United free speech rights' is other than 'corporate personhood rights', Capital does Capital's best to not have to address any other point brought out about it.

But, the main point about it is that 'corporate personhood' has to be eliminated for 'real personhood' rights to regain any credence in legislative, judicial, and executive proceedings. Without its removal (and I would just as gladly get rid of its 'limited liability' advantage--but, I will be willing to leave that as it is IF 'corporate personhood' were eliminated), there will never be anything of a real person's rights to sustain against its influence. If 'money' is free speech, NOTHING (and NO ONE) can 'speak louder' than corporations to the quisling legislators that scramble for their cause...and their 'message'.....

Capital cannot squarely address this issue because Capital has a vested interest in maintaining 'corporate advantage' in the real point of 'defining personhood rights' to nothing other than natural persons. But, again, if I'm putting words in Capital's mouth, by all means, as I've asked over and over, Capital can come in here and qualify themself (and explain it differently) if that isn't really 'what Capital is all about'.....Capital? Can you do anything else other than accuse in this issue? Can you actually discuss it like an adult? Or is me being a 'fucking liar' your 'final answer'? And, if it is your 'final answer', who's really the 'fucking liar'?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

How did I know that when I refreash the page, there would a be long vacuous post waiting for me.

Quote Kerry:

Speak for yourself, Capital. You are the one not addressing the issue squarely--do you get training on how to be such a manipulator in discussion boards such as this? So let's see if we can really get to what you have said here:

Do you need a refresher course for the last half dozen posts? You post a Huffington Article that states a patently false claim, when challenged, you obfuscate, I ask you to read it, you obfuscate, You continue posting the false statement, I call you a liar, you obfuscate even more. And still, you still have not read the Citizen United Ruling. Does that about sum it up?

Does claiming that 'I'm' a 'fucking liar' actually answer that question, Capital?

Do you know what would answer your question? Reading the Ruling. Sure I could answer it, but you wouldn’t believe me, not as entrenched as you are. So I tell you yet again. Read the ruling for yourself. Once you have done that, you should be able to have an intelligent discussion about it. Hard to discuss something that one side refuses to read.

But just out of morbid curiosity. NO. Citizen united did not grant corporations right to freedom of speech (using money as speech)

You would know that if you had read the ruling.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Well, Capital, tell me something--what else would giving Citizens United the right to free speech (through money) be other than 'corporate personhood'? If you think it's something else and you believe that the ruling of the Roberts Court 'makes it' something else, by all means, define what you mean.......

Simple enough for you? Or, are you going to, again, distract this with something you don't ever qualify.....

I don't have time to chase YOUR POINT. If YOU HAVE A POINT, then bring it here (including whatever you think the Roberts Court calls it if it isn't a 1st Amendment right to free speech AS IF 'CORPORATE PERSONHOOD')....otherwise, YOU are THE FUCKING LIAR! Got that, Capital.

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Now, I know how people claim Wikipedia is 'inaccurate'--but Wikipedia does claim that Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Committee is a FIRST AMENDMENT case. More to the point, if Wikipedia is accurate (and, if not, Capital certainly can come in here and correct it), the statement of the majority opinion (of this 5-4 decision) done by Justice Kennedy state this:

"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

Yep, looks like a First Amendment case to me--and I only had to read one line. But, if Capital thinks it says something else, then, Capital can come in here and FINALLY qualify Capital's statements.....of course, in the legalize of today, one 'association of citizens' is 'corporations'--which, apart from any other association of citizens, has special advantages and 'personhood' rights claimed in other areas of the law--both past and present as I've described above.....it does ask another question, does an 'association of citizens' really have the same rights as a 'person'? Again, only corporations do...like the First Gilded Age showed in 'contract law' with 'each worker' ('Union' wasn't given the same character at the time--still isn't unless it's 'incorporated')......

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

Well, Capital, tell me something--what else would giving Citizens United the right to free speech (through money) be other than 'corporate personhood'?

You are just bound and determined not to read the Ruling,

I'd would tell you that freedom of speech was applied to associations of citizens, but you’re not interested in the truth.

I don't have time to chase YOUR POINT

No… you don’t have time for the truth. Facts do not fit the dogma. If you did, you could have read it by now.

If YOU HAVE A POINT

You other than you’re a propagandist who hasn’t the slightest interest in truth or facts. I think I nailed that one, with your help of course.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Kerry:

More to the point, if Wikipedia is accurate (and, if not, Capital certainly can come in here and correct it),

Let me get this striaght.... You WILL read wikipedia/huffington/etc ABOUT the case. but you absolutely WILL NOT read the actual case. (this place needs better emoticons)

But at least you finely/possibly see the error of your argument by posting one sentence out of 183 pages.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Ok, capital,I have read the ruling. The court extended the individual rights to the assoc. Does that also open the door to the association having the civil and criminal liabilities and responsibilities,too? Partnerships, and sole proprietors do, why not hold management, boards of directors and shareholders civilly liable, and criminally responsible?
They do this in India.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

Sorry if my comment doesn't follow the thread here as it has evolved.

Congress and the President reveal their deafness to —or willful ignoring of— the OWS movement and its "demands," with this week's passage of Obama's trade deals: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/12/free-trade-deals_n_1008237.html...

Ironic, isn't it?

And isn't it a clue to the imperviousness of the powers-that-be to the will of the people?

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:Ok, capital,I have read the ruling. The court extended the individual rights to the assoc. Does that also open the door to the association having the civil and criminal liabilities and responsibilities,too? Partnerships, and sole proprietors do, why not hold management, boards of directors and shareholders civilly liable, and criminally responsible? They do this in India.

Wow, thank you. reasonable people.

I think you are misunderstanding "association". In the case they mean "association of individual citizens" includes but not excluding. Unions, PTA, Girl Scouts, Sierra Club, HOA's, Bingo club, etc etc....

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Well, again, I am not going to read the whole thing to get Capital's point out of it. But, I did look at it and, once again, within the first 3 pages of a very lengthy and legalized document, here comes this statement:

(2) throughout the litigation, Citizens United has asserted a claim that the FEC has violated its right to free speech;

Capital's idea that this 'association' is the same thing as any association--as the Girl Scouts, Bingo club, etc., etc.,--is absolutely bogus. Do any of those organizations engage in any organized political action for, or against, any political candidate in the name of the organization? No, they don't. Can a church endorse a political activity or any political candidate? No, it can't. Where's their 'free speech'? Why can corporations say what other organizations can't (the paper does 'throw in' unions--but I suspect that's only because unions incorporate--have them be unincorported, and 'lobbying underfunded', and their 'rights to speak out at will' will be just as restrained as the Girl Scouts, the Bingo club, and church--'speaking out at will' is a free speech guarantee only for people, you know--oh, and, 'corporate persons')? But, more to the point, from the days when government was there to secure and guarantee rights, such rights were reserved to 'persons'--'natural persons'--until, as my connection (and Thom Hartmann's book, Unequal Protection) points out, the wording of the post-Civil War 14th Amendment (as understood by lawyers on the First Gilded Age's Supreme Court--whose livelihood depended most on money from railroads) legalistically inculcated 'corporations' in the mix of 'personhood rights' as if a 'corporation' had previously had 'its rights' restricted like a freed slave--which both that article (and Thom Hartmann) say was not the case for corporations before the Civil War--a rather miscuing and legalistic interpretation of the 14th Amendment on behalf of 'corporate rights' as distinguished from any other group or organization.

Capital's claim that that connection (and Thom Hartmann) are 'trying to sell something' says nothing specifically about these points in history--because Capital wants to 'sell you something'. And, it is also historically accurate to point out that once corporations gained such personhood rights, state legislatures (that still charter corporations to this day) no longer had the ability to instill specific regulations upon them that they could do before the Civil War and the 14th Amendment and its rather legalistic interpretation by the Supreme Court of the First Gilded Age--including many state laws passed in the First Gilded Age that did advocate for worker benefits, worker protection, worker hours, worker minimum wages--all struck down by the Supreme Court in the First Gilded Age due to the corporations newly legitimized 'rights' as if 'an individual'--or 'person'--up until the federal government decided to step in decades later with 'some' worker protections and minimum wages when the unrest got too unruly. There are many other examples of how corporations use 'corporate personhood rights' against local, state, and federal laws concerning corporate function in court cases that 'knock them down' due to 'corporate personhood rights' that are described in Thom Hartmann's book, Unequal Protection--maybe Capital ought to go read the book and then come back here and comment...right, Capital?.....8^).....

Furthermore, and once again, mention of the First Amendment and Citizens United's right to free speech is expressly stated in that very document that Capital directed me to. So, what is Capital 'trying to sell'? And, I'm not going to have to go looking for it but, again, if Capital sees it as incorrect, Capital can come in here and point out the specifics of such (which, I will remind the viewing audience, Capital has never specified any position as to what Capital thinks the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United vs. FEC really means)--but, I am pretty certain that 'money' was considered 'speech'. So, my questions to Capital still stand unless Capital can actually qualify Capital's own position a little more substantively against its points:

Citizens United GRANTED CORPORATIONS THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH (by using money in doing so). Is that corrrecf? Yes or no, Capital. Can you even answer that?

Of course not. Because, then, the next question becomes: Does that not, by meaning and intent, indicate that corporations have rights mentioned in the Constitution and its amendments (especially in this case, 14th and 1st Amendments) as if persons? Yes or no, Capital. Can you even answer that?

Of course not. Because, then, the next question becomes: If so, is that not, by meaning and intent, CORPORATE PERSONHOOD RIGHTS? Yes or no, Capital.

Oh, and another thing, if Capital doesn't believe that corporations have 'corporate personhood' rights as demonstrated by this Citizens United decision as well as many decisions made by the courts, then Capital shouldn't have a problem with a constitutional amendment removing any semblance of 'corporate personhood', right? I mean what problem would Capital have for an amendment to remove what Capital doesn't think exists to begin with, right? What is Capital trying to sell? I haven't really heard any pronouncements from Capital other than 'I'm' a 'fucking liar'....

So, if you really don't think that 'corporate personhood' exists and, more to the point, the Roberts Court didn't endorse 'corporte personhood rights' by this decision, what problem would you have with people that think that is what happened and would like to see an amendment against any rights to corporations as if persons in the Constitutional sense? Ey, Capital? I mean, if you don't think that corporate personhood exists, you wouldn't have a problem with such an amendment to assure against any assumed constitutional basis for rights to corporations as if persons on other people's account, would you?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

You are spot on Zenzoe. The local OWS-Liberate Albuquerque has taken up the apocryphal Gandhi quote "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight and then you win." and is trying to convince themselves they are already winning. Really this movement is just getting on its feet around the country (and the world). The FTAs with Panama, Columbia and South Korea are an excellent example of how OWS is being solidly ignored. True that 2/3 of Democrats voted against those FTAs but on the other hand all three of those countries are still occupied by the US military in a big way.

Locally the State Police came and rousted everyone out just after midnight on Indigenous Day (i.e. on Monday - the Columbus Day holiday). Ahhh the tasty irony that Native Americans were woken by militarized police (weapons galore, full body armor & dogs) and told to leave public property - the UNM campus. Yet it was like they pushed on water: the occupation continues (on the sidewalk from 10PM to 7AM). There is a permit from the campus from before and continuing after the police incident. The discussion of direct action (by sleeping in public!) has been tabled but not forgotten. More irony on the horizon: Will the PTB arrest people for joining the homeless in sleeping in public while the banksters foreclose on millions of homes, rake in record bonuses and pay little or no taxes for years to come???

A truer version of the pattern might be "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you while they work to provoke and co-opt you..." Viewing almost all national MSM portrayals of the protests they are in stage two. The ridiculous demand that the protestors solve the world's problems while they bootstrap themselves into a new form of real democracy (consensus in general assembly) is both ridicule and a set-up for co-optation by the PTB. Provocateurs (internal and external) have caused police hyper reaction [DC and elsewhere] and they have tried to strip the legitimacy of the non-violent demonstrations. I hear "get a job" occasionally but there are easily 10 to 20 times as more friendly honks from passers by. All manner of private and public vehicles honk or flash their lights all day and all night - the occupations will continue and continue to grow... We Occupy Together.

There are/were hundreds of local actions today - 10/15 - you can find them through OccupyTogether.org or October15.org

LeMoyne's picture
LeMoyne
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Quote Kerry:

Well, again, I am not going to read the whole thing to get Capital's point out of it.

Your bold statement of ignorance is impressive, I cannot fault a man who lives by a principle of ignorance.

Capital's idea that this 'association' is the same thing as any association--as the Girl Scouts, Bingo club, etc., etc.,--is absolutely bogus.

I suggest you get off your ass and get a law degree, become a Supreme Court judge and you can make any legal ruling you desire. Until then. Corporations are merely associations of citizens. Since citizens have free speech right, Citizens in associations also have that right.

Can a church endorse a political activity or any political candidate? No, it can't.

YES IT CAN. Here I thought most people understood the rules governing tax free status. But seeing your hatred for reading…

That about renders the rest of your first paragraph DOA.

Furthermore, and once again, mention of the First Amendment and Citizens United's right to free speech is expressly stated in that very document that Capital directed me to. So, what is Capital 'trying to sell'?

I’m selling the truth.. Your selling the Thom Hartmann Book. Truth wins.

So, my questions to Capital still stand unless Capital can actually qualify Capital's own position a little more substantively against its points

If you want to boil it down to 1 sentence. You posted a good one. Since you have no intention of reading the ruling I'll keep it to one sentence.

"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

That is my position in a nutshell.

To your questions and them I’m done reading your long winded vacuous posts.

Citizens United GRANTED CORPORATIONS THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH (by using money in doing so). Is that corrrecf? Yes or no, Capital. Can you even answer that?

No it didn’t. It granted associations of citizens (in this case specifically a corporation) the right of free speech however they see fit.

Of course not. Because, then, the next question becomes: Does that not, by meaning and intent, indicate that corporations have rights mentioned in the Constitution and its amendments (especially in this case, 14th and 1st Amendments) as if persons? Yes or no, Capital. Can you even answer that?

Still just means that associations of citizens have the right to free speech, just as they have the right to assemble and associate. Corporations are made up of citizens and it is those citizens that contribute to the political discussion and why the “natural person” argument fails. Unless you are Disney cartoon. Corporations themselves to not talk.

Of course not. Because, then, the next question becomes: If so, is that not, by meaning and intent, CORPORATE PERSONHOOD RIGHTS? Yes or no, Capital.

Seeing that you have been wrong this whole time, and continue to not educate yourself. I will give you the simply answer of NO. and call it a night and morn the lose of intellectual curiosity.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

So, you wouldn't have a problem with this last part, would you, Capital:

Oh, and another thing, if Capital doesn't believe that corporations have 'corporate personhood' rights as demonstrated by this Citizens United decision as well as many decisions made by the courts, then Capital shouldn't have a problem with a constitutional amendment removing any semblance of 'corporate personhood', right? I mean what problem would Capital have for an amendment to remove what Capital doesn't think exists to begin with, right? What is Capital trying to sell? I haven't really heard any pronouncements from Capital other than 'I'm' a 'fucking liar'....

So, if you really don't think that 'corporate personhood' exists and, more to the point, the Roberts Court didn't endorse 'corporte personhood rights' by this decision, what problem would you have with people that think that is what happened and would like to see an amendment against any rights to corporations as if persons in the Constitutional sense? Ey, Capital? I mean, if you don't think that corporate personhood exists, you wouldn't have a problem with such an amendment to assure against any assumed constitutional basis for rights to corporations as if persons on other people's account, would you?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Quote Capital:

...Corporations are merely associations of citizens. Since citizens have free speech right, Citizens in associations also have that right.

I would have to question your logic, with all due respect. It would appear to be the equivalent of, "Pets are associations of animals. Since animals have the right to lift their legs to pee, all pets will lift their legs to pee."

One does not have to have a law degree to see you've excluded some important distinctions and realities in your attempt to make sense of what is nonsensical.

A corporation may be able to make public announcements as to the position of its management (which may or may not represent its employees or stock holders) on any number of issues, i.e.,"speak," but the ability to speak does not capture the entirety of what it is to be a citizen: Citizens also can vote —as individuals— can run for office, can be sent to prison and be executed, and that's because each citizen has one, physical body that takes up space like no other physical body on the planet (it's unique, individual, not composed of many individuals.). Corporations cannot do any of those other things that natural, human, individual and unique persons can do: A corporation is not, therefore, a citizen, in any complete sense of the word. Certainly, many corporate heads themselves do not think of their corporations as citizens, but, rather, as multinational legal entities. Essentially, legal paperwork makes up the true, physical "body" of the corporation, and their owners pledge no allegiance to (as do real citizens), nor feel any obligation toward the welfare of, any particular country.

The state has the duty and right to protect the welfare of its citizens, which includes protecting the integrity of elections (democracy). All we ask is for the "speech" of corporations to be regulated —limited— with regard to elections, giving a healthy space surrounding election day, where corporations cannot impose unfair and overwhelming influence in approach of election day. Among the realities you ignore, is the reality of the power of corporations to corrupt the integrity of elections.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Quote Zenzoe:

A corporation may be able to make public announcements as to the position of its management (which may or may not represent its employees or stock holders) on any number of issues, i.e.,"speak," but the ability to speak does not capture the entirety of what it is to be a citizen: Citizens also can vote —as individuals— can run for office, can be sent to prison and be executed, and that's because each citizen has one, physical body that takes up space like no other physical body on the planet (it's unique, individual, not composed of many individuals.). Corporations cannot do any of those other things that natural, human, individual and unique persons can do: A corporation is not, therefore, a citizen, in any complete sense of the word. Certainly, many corporate heads themselves do not think of their corporations as citizens, but, rather, as multinational legal entities. Essentially, legal paperwork makes up the true, physical "body" of the corporation, and their owners pledge no allegiance to (as do real citizens), nor feel any obligation toward the welfare of, any particular country.

What is a corporation?

It is a legal structure in which groups of citizens engage in economic activities.

Structure includes: President (Citizen), board of directors (citizens), employees (citizens), Spokesperson (citizen). Keep in mind that this ruling is also regarding First amendment of Unions also. Unions are also groups of citizens that freely associate for a common goal.

Ruling:

244 (1936). Under the rationale of these precedents, political speech does not lose First Amendment protection “simply because its source is a corporation.” (plurality opinion)(“The identity of the speaker is not decisive in determining whether speech is protected. Corporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the ‘discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas’ that the First Amendment seeks to foster” (quoting Bel-lotti,435 U. S., at 783)). The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not “natural persons.”

Quote Zenzoe:The state has the duty and right to protect the welfare of its citizens, which includes protecting the integrity of elections (democracy). All we ask is for the "speech" of corporations to be regulated —limited— with regard to elections, giving a healthy space surrounding election day, where corporations cannot impose unfair and overwhelming influence in approach of election day. Among the realities you ignore, is the reality of the power of corporations to corrupt the integrity of elections.

Then find another way that is constitutional. Limited free speech of the citizens that you do not like is unconstitutional. They ruling is quite clear on the matter. You understand that the central premise was the unequal treatment under the Law. Since Media is itself a corporation. T.V, Radio, Print…. All corporations.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:Ok, capital,I have read the ruling. The court extended the individual rights to the assoc. Does that also open the door to the association having the civil and criminal liabilities and responsibilities,too? Partnerships, and sole proprietors do, why not hold management, boards of directors and shareholders civilly liable, and criminally responsible? They do this in India.

I have been calling for this for a long time. Of course, the problem in the US is that part of the purpose of incorporating in the US is precisely to establish "limited liability." Initially this was to separate personal assets from corporate ones but now it has been extended to criminal activity in so many ways it is just pathetic.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm

Capital's arguments do not prove that corporations are "citizens." That a corporation might be made up of citizens does not mean the corporation itself is a citizen and will have all the rights and responsibilities of a citizen. It would be like saying, "People have cells; trees have cells, therefore trees are people." I do believe that just might be a logical fallacy. But I wouldn't expect the Roberts' Court to agree with me, as it is clearly immune to common sense, logic, and a sense of fairness.

Funny how you, Capital, want it both ways—"corporations as 'citizens' should have unlimited free speech;" and also, "corporations cannot be subject to the death penalty, or, they cannot go to jail, cannot vote, etc." I mean, do you want them to be "citizens" or not? Obviously, you know full well corporations are neither people nor citizens; but enabling corporations to unfairly dominate and influence elections, and thereby ensure that conservative, right-wing policies and people rule over us, apparently feels too good to you, Capital, for you to question your position.

We can sit here all day quoting opinions that support our view. I could quote the dissent to Citizens United. But I find such is pointless, where a will bent on rationalizing money's power to corrupt democracy precludes communication.

However, I will quote the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and its definition of "citizen": "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." Any interpretation of "person," or "born," that included corporations had to be a tortured, wrongheaded interpretation of the Constitution.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

What the heck—an historian on the subject:

Quote Brian Murphy, historian:

Let me put it this way: the Founders did not confuse Boston's Sons of Liberty with the British East India Company. They could distinguish among different varieties of association — and they understood that corporate personhood was a legal fiction that was limited to a courtroom. It wasn't literal. Corporations could not vote or hold office. They held property, and to enable a shifting group of shareholders to hold that property over time and to sue and be sued in court, they were granted this fictive personhood in a limited legal context.

Early Americans had a far more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of corporations than the Court gives them credit for. http://blogs.hbr.org/fox/2010/04/what-the-founding-fathers-real.html

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Sprinklerfitter:

Some of the ideas are good some not. For starters $20 an hour ain't never gonna happen.

Yeah and it would be a really stupid idea. Who the hell would pay someone 20 bucks per hour if their job only generates $8 revenue to the company? Answer: NOBODY. Unemployment would sky rocket. If you payed unskilled labor 20 bucks per hour, skilled labor such as myself (and you) would demand at least 40 to 50 bucks per hour. And I would need every penny of it to afford a 20 dollar big mac. And the folks who need my product would be forced to pay much, much more for it. If they could afford it at all. Any benefit from a massive minimum wage increase would be wiped out by inflation and unemployment. This is an absurd idea.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Demand nine will wipe out demand seven. So many people will flood into the US that our population will spiral out of control creating an environmental disaster. Most our our country will be paved over.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am

Quote Zenzoe:

Capital's arguments do not prove that corporations are "citizens."

That is strange. Nothing I have said would indicate I was trying to prove corporations ARE "citizens". I however was adequately proving that corporations are in fact FILLED with citizens, who are freely associating themselves and cannot be denied free speech .

You are way in left field if you think I am trying to prove corporations are citizens.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Capital:

Quote Zenzoe:

Capital's arguments do not prove that corporations are "citizens."

That is strange. Nothing I have said would indicate I was trying to prove corporations ARE "citizens". I however was adequately proving that corporations are in fact FILLED with citizens, who are freely associating themselves and cannot be denied free speech .

You are way in left field if you think I am trying to prove corporations are citizens.

I don't think I misunderstood the implications of your comments at all, comments which presented an equivalency of "associations of citizens" to actual citizens, or people.

Quote Capital:

"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

That is my position in a nutshell.

Your "associations of citizens" is interchangeable with corporation and, as you use it in your arguments, such are equal to (have the same characteristics of) a citizen and/or a person, that is, such are entitled to the personhood granted by Citizens United. This was what was implied in your discussion.

Now you want to backtrack. Okay. Whatever. But I'm glad to know you're beginning to see error of your position.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Quote Zenzoe:

I don't think I misunderstood the implications of your comments at all, comments which presented an equivalency of "associations of citizens" to actual citizens, or people.

So you do not believe that 2 or more people in groups are actually people. What are they?

Now you want to backtrack. Okay. Whatever. But I'm glad to know you're beginning to see error of your position

You wish.

Your "associations of citizens" is interchangeable with corporation

Associations of citizens ARE corporation. Clearly you do not understand the passage I quoted from the ruling.

This was what was implied in your discussion.

The old "you implied it” maneuver. Certainly not what I did actually say, definiately a case of confirmation bias...

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Zenzoe, the logic of corporations are associations of citizens with first amdt rights, so the association has the rights collectively is not Das Capitals', that is from Chief Justice Roberts' ruling.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

Currently Chatting

Time to Rethink the War on Terror

Thom plus logo

When Eric Holder eventually steps down as Attorney General, he will leave behind a complicated legacy, some of it tragic, like his decision not to prosecute Wall Street after the financial crisis, and his all-out war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system