For or against a constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United

[LaCroix]

Are you arguing that only the constitutional amendments' protections against quartering or search and seizure prevent this from  happening?  I'd bet that the Star-Tribune can be searched, or the Army can take over its offices, under some conditions (admittedly, I cannot give an example at the moment, but the hypothetical seems there, despite your protestations otherwise).

i think chipwich means police cannot enter star tribune and seize documents whenever it pleases. if police waltzed in and seized documents, star-tribune could sue the police department under § 1983 claiming constitutional right violations. to avoid violating star tribune's constitutional right against search and seizure, police need permission from the court in the form of search warrants, etc.

[chipwich]

Who is the Star Tribune going to assemble with?  It's not an actual person.  It has no body.  I would go further and say the Star Tribune can not run for office or register to vote.  Like wise it can't register with selective service or be drafted nor can it serve on a jury.

Corporations organize assemblies all the time. If the assembly turns into a riot, the Tribune can be held liable. Most offices in the United States have specific conditions requiring a person, but institutions can hold office- It was the case in some medieval institutions. They could conceivably be drafted.

[Razgovory]

If the Tribune were to organize a rally and it turned into a riot would tribune be punished or would the physical person who did the organizing.  If the Tribune were convicted and sentence to time in jail, how exactly would that work?  Is the charter put in a closet for three months and the employees put out of work for that time period? We aren't talking about medieval organizations here, but modern American ones.  Explain to me how the Tribune can run for City Council.  Then explain it can serve on jury.  Then how it can be drafted and sent out in the infantry.

[dps]

Do you sincerely believe that if the Star-Tribune's charter does not mention having protection from quartering or search and seizure, it can be searched at any time and the army can just move into it's offices with no recourse?

Are you arguing that only the constitutional amendments' protections against quartering or search and seizure prevent this from  happening?  I'd bet that the Star-Tribune can be searched, or the Army can take over its offices, under some conditions (admittedly, I cannot give an example at the moment, but the hypothetical seems there, despite your protestations otherwise).

I wouldn't take that bet, because I'm absolutely sure that the Star-Tribune's offices can be searched.  Isn't the point, though, that their offices can't be legally searched except under the same legal restrictions under which your home or mine can be searched, and that the Star-Tribune enjoys that freedom from arbitrary seach because of constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable searches, not because of anything contained in its corporate charter?

[chipwich]

Do you sincerely believe that if the Star-Tribune's charter does not mention having protection from quartering or search and seizure, it can be searched at any time and the army can just move into it's offices with no recourse?

Are you arguing that only the constitutional amendments' protections against quartering or search and seizure prevent this from  happening?  I'd bet that the Star-Tribune can be searched, or the Army can take over its offices, under some conditions (admittedly, I cannot give an example at the moment, but the hypothetical seems there, despite your protestations otherwise).

I wouldn't take that bet, because I'm absolutely sure that the Star-Tribune's offices can be searched.  Isn't the point, though, that their offices can't be legally searched except under the same legal restrictions under which your home or mine can be searched, and that the Star-Tribune enjoys that freedom from arbitrary seach because of constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable searches, not because of anything contained in its corporate charter?

I could have clarified that the offices can only be searched with a warrant along with other protections, I thought that was obvious.