Languish.org

What do you guys think, for or against the idea?

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-citizens-united-constitutional-amendment

QuoteHillary Clinton: 'I would consider' anti-Citizens United amendment
07/21/14 07:28 PM
By Alex Seitz-Wald

While eying a potential presidential run that would surely be boosted by deep-pocketed super PACs, Hillary Clinton said Monday evening that she's open to supporting a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which opened the door to the outside groups and the flood of money that poured into the political process with them.

Taking questions from Facebook users at the social media giant's California headquarters Monday evening, Clinton expressed some interest in the idea. "I would consider supporting an amendment among these lines that would prevent the abuse of our political system by excessive amounts of money if there is no other way to deal with the Citizen's United decision," she said in response to a question on the measure.

Amending the Constitution is an almost impossibly uphill battle, but the idea has secured support from almost all the Democrats in the Senate, which will vote on the measure later this year.

The former first lady is currently on a book tour for her memoir "Hard Choices," which was released in June. The publicity campaign is being seen as part of a months-long rollout leading up to a decision on whether or not she'll run for president. Clinton has previously said that she'll decide by the end of the year.

On Monday, Clinton also fielded questions on a number of other issues, and proclaimed "The Brothers Karamazov" by Fyodor Dostoyevsky to be her favorite book, while "Goodnight Moon" is the first book she plans to read to her future grandchild.

On the Malaysian airliner shot down over rebel-held territory in Ukraine, Clinton placed some blame at the feet of Russian President Vladimir Putin. "[T]here is a price to pay for this kind of behavior," she said of Putin, adding the crash victims were "murdered." On the ongoing fighting in Gaza between Israel and the Palestinians, the former secretary of state said she hopes "there can be a ceasefire soon to end the conflict."

Asked what her first action would be if she became president, Clinton responded with an answer that seemed designed to appeal to the vocal populist wing of the Democratic party. "Answering hypothetically ... the next president should work to grow the economy, increase upward mobility, and decrease inequality," she said.

For those looking for any hints about a potential 2016 run, Clinton offered a tantalizing endorsement of the state that holds the nation's first primary. "I love New Hampshire," she replied to a user who asked if she would visit the Granite State.

Clinton is on a swing through Silicon Valley, a fertile ground for donors to a potential presidential campaign. Following the Facebook Q&A, she was scheduled to do a similar event hosted by Twitter.

Clinton is expected to raise more than a billion dollars if she runs, with even more money going to an archipelago of super PACs and other outside groups supporting her. Already, three major super PACs are working on her behalf, while there are at least a half dozen smaller ones.

In the lead-up to the 2012 presidential election, President Obama chose a similar forum as Clinton's to endorse an amendment to roll back Citizens United, telling Reddit users that "we need to seriously consider" an amendment.

Still, Obama and his allies maintained that they would not "unilaterally disarm" in the campaign finance arms race. As long as Republicans could use super PACs, Democrats will too, they said. Clinton's allies are already using a similar line to defend their outside activism on her behalf.

QuoteAgainst
    2 (22.2%)

I didn't know Yi had a sock account.

Other.  I'd want to see the exact wording first.

76.9% in favor, if we were states that would be enough to pass.

Against.  It would be a big effort to pass it, and since we are in fact a plutocracy, big money would figure out some way around it anyway.

The title and poll questions are different.  I'd say "no" to the general question asked in the poll, since such an amendment would not likely be perfect, and you'd lock the change into the constitution, rather than into  statute, where it can be tweaked.

I'd support a constitutional amendment to clarify that corporations are only legal persons for the purposes established by their rules of incorporation, but that's such an obvious truth that we won't need a constitutional amendment to make that the law of the land.  We just need to wait for a moron or two to die or retire from the court, and CU will be gone.  It is the Dred Scott decision of our day; everyone knows that it is wrong, contrary to precedent, and moronic.  I don't think you could get such a decision even 5% of the time if you randomly chose USSC justices from the list of all who have ever served.

As long as the amendment includes a provision that Tim gets curbstomped by a pack of drunken Samoans every time he posts a thread I am all for it.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 21, 2014, 10:09:44 PM

QuoteAgainst
    2 (22.2%)

I didn't know Yi had a sock account.

I stand with Yi.

You misread it, it's Citizens United, not Fetuses United

Quote from: derspiess on July 22, 2014, 08:21:23 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 21, 2014, 10:09:44 PM

QuoteAgainst
    2 (22.2%)

I didn't know Yi had a sock account.

I stand with Yi.

Do you: squee for Yi?

Quote from: Valmy on July 22, 2014, 08:33:54 AM

Quote from: derspiess on July 22, 2014, 08:21:23 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 21, 2014, 10:09:44 PM

QuoteAgainst
    2 (22.2%)

I didn't know Yi had a sock account.

I stand with Yi.

Do you: squee for Yi?

That may be taking it a bit too far, even though it rhymes.

Makes a hell of a nice campaign button.

Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2014, 07:09:55 AM
The title and poll questions are different.  I'd say "no" to the general question asked in the poll, since such an amendment would not likely be perfect, and you'd lock the change into the constitution, rather than into  statute, where it can be tweaked.

Yeah I voted yes but really to the title and not the poll question. -_-

Quote from: garbon on July 22, 2014, 06:55:32 PM

Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2014, 07:09:55 AM
The title and poll questions are different.  I'd say "no" to the general question asked in the poll, since such an amendment would not likely be perfect, and you'd lock the change into the constitution, rather than into  statute, where it can be tweaked.

Yeah I voted yes but really to the title and not the poll question. -_-

I read it after I voted on it as well.

no. i don't think knee jerk constitutional amendments to SCOTUS decisions is generally a good idea, especially not here

Quote from: LaCroix on July 23, 2014, 06:27:50 AM
no. i don't think knee jerk constitutional amendments to SCOTUS decisions is generally a good idea, especially not here

I think you're using knee jerk a little liberally in this case.  I agree with grumbler's assertion that it should state corporations are only persons to the extent necessary to enforce their usage.  I disagree with him, however, that we can trust common sense to prevail.  While there seems to be widespread agreement that CU was the worst possible decision that could have come from that case, for it to be corrected and struck, we need another case to come into play, go through the whole appeals process, and have certiorari granted by a future term of the USSC.

There are enough variables at play there that I'd rather see the amendment process go through- that way, the courts can fall back on the letter of the law instead of the USSC's warped interpretation of the spirit of the law.

Quote from: DGuller on July 22, 2014, 08:15:59 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 22, 2014, 06:55:32 PM

Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2014, 07:09:55 AM
The title and poll questions are different.  I'd say "no" to the general question asked in the poll, since such an amendment would not likely be perfect, and you'd lock the change into the constitution, rather than into  statute, where it can be tweaked.

Yeah I voted yes but really to the title and not the poll question. -_-

I read it after I voted on it as well.

Well, duh.  Just like how you need to pass laws before you read them or let anyone know the details.

Quote from: derspiess on July 23, 2014, 09:23:46 AM

Quote from: DGuller on July 22, 2014, 08:15:59 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 22, 2014, 06:55:32 PM

Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2014, 07:09:55 AM
The title and poll questions are different.  I'd say "no" to the general question asked in the poll, since such an amendment would not likely be perfect, and you'd lock the change into the constitution, rather than into  statute, where it can be tweaked.

Yeah I voted yes but really to the title and not the poll question. -_-

I read it after I voted on it as well.

Well, duh.  Just like how you need to pass laws before you read them or let anyone know the details.

I'd read Tim's poll question but disregarded it.

I haven't had my coffee yet.

When I wanted to change the constitution, I was a totalitarian.

I did vote yes, tho.

I would need to know the unintended consequences of the amendment first.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2014, 02:42:34 PM
I would need to know the unintended consequences of the amendment first.

An amendment like that would be unconstitutional.






:shifty:

I want to know all the unknown unknowns.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 23, 2014, 09:13:28 AMI think you're using knee jerk a little liberally in this case.  I agree with grumbler's assertion that it should state corporations are only persons to the extent necessary to enforce their usage.  I disagree with him, however, that we can trust common sense to prevail.  While there seems to be widespread agreement that CU was the worst possible decision that could have come from that case, for it to be corrected and struck, we need another case to come into play, go through the whole appeals process, and have certiorari granted by a future term of the USSC.

There are enough variables at play there that I'd rather see the amendment process go through- that way, the courts can fall back on the letter of the law instead of the USSC's warped interpretation of the spirit of the law.

i don't think i am. people blame the court, but it was a natural occurrence with how american culture treats corporations. corporations are everywhere and are a huge part of our lives, and the shift has been happening for a long time. if this changes, so will the court, which will also intervene if it deems necessary. exaggerated hypotheticals don't convince me

You mean an exaggerated hypothetical like a court ruling that a corporation could invoke a right to exercise its own religious beliefs?

Of course such an absurdity could never  happen.

Most of the time I just don't think about it, but about once or twice a week it kind of hits me how incredibly ridiculous these decisions really are.

A corporation has Rights. I mean, actual *Rights*, like the things we revere, hold sacred, God given, etc., etc., THOSE rights.

The USSC actually decided that a legal entity that has been created through the works of man for strictly financial purposes...has rights.

It is simply...boggling. It goes beyond belief that anyone could possibly come to that conclusion.

Well, some organizations have to have rights, otherwise their constituent members would be unable to exercise theirs.

I've actually started to lean away from limited liability entities being able to claim First Amendment rights.  I don't think it's an insane interpretation of the First Amendment, but I'm not as adamant as I used to be about CU being a good decision.

I thought the Hobby Lobby one was dumb.

I must be missing something very basic and very important, because I still don't see how Citizens or Hobby have anything to do with granting corporations rights or personhood.  I thought they were both based on the logic that individual rights are not diminished when acting through the corporate form.

Yi- let's say you are correct

Then in Citizens United you would expect to see a discussion about the speech rights of some individuals and how a restraint applied to a corporation would affect them.  Or about how the restraints on corporate speech would impact more generally on public access to discussion or debate or the dissemination of ideas.  But there is no such discussion in Citizens United, other than to say that "by suppressing the speech . . . of corporations . . . the Government prevents their voices [sic] . . from reaching the public" which is both rather silly and simply states the conclusion.  Earlier, the Court states its holding flatly: "First Amendment protection extends to corporations."

If the Court meant something more subtle it certainly didn't express that.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2014, 10:57:27 PM
You mean an exaggerated hypothetical like a court ruling that a corporation could invoke a right to exercise its own religious beliefs?

no, i mean the impact

Quote from: The Minsky MomentYi- let's say you are correct

Then in Citizens United you would expect to see a discussion about the speech rights of some individuals and how a restraint applied to a corporation would affect them.  Or about how the restraints on corporate speech would impact more generally on public access to discussion or debate or the dissemination of ideas.  But there is no such discussion in Citizens United, other than to say that "by suppressing the speech . . . of corporations . . . the Government prevents their voices [sic] . . from reaching the public" which is both rather silly and simply states the conclusion.  Earlier, the Court states its holding flatly: "First Amendment protection extends to corporations."

If the Court meant something more subtle it certainly didn't express that.

...yes it did.  :huh:

i put in bold the words you quoted

Quote"There is simply no support for the view that the First Amendment, as originally understood, would permit the suppression of political speech by media corporations. The Framers may not have anticipated modern business and media corporations. Yet television networks and major newspapers owned by media corporations have become the most important means of mass communication in modern times. The First Amendment was certainly not understood to condone the suppression of political speech in society's most salient media. It was understood as a response to the repression of speech and the press that had existed in England and the heavy taxes on the press that were imposed in the colonies. The great debates between the Federalists and the Anti–Federalists over our founding document were published and expressed in the most important means of mass communication of that era—newspapers owned by individuals.

Austin interferes with the "open marketplace" of ideas protected by the First Amendment. It permits the Government to ban the political speech of millions of associations of citizens. (5.8 million for-profit corporations filed 2006 tax returns). Most of these are small corporations without large amounts of wealth. (96% of the 3 million businesses that belong to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have fewer than 100 employees); (more than 75% of corporations whose income is taxed under federal law, see 26 U.S.C. § 301, have less than $1 million in receipts per year). This fact belies the Government's argument that the statute is justified on the ground that it prevents the "distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth." It is not even aimed at amassed wealth.

The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach. The Government has "muffle[d] the voices that best represent the most significant segments of the economy." And "the electorate [has been] deprived of information, knowledge and opinion vital to its function." By suppressing the speech of manifold corporations, both for-profit and nonprofit, the Government prevents their voices and viewpoints from reaching the public and advising voters on which persons or entities are hostile to their interests. Factions will necessarily form in our Republic, but the remedy of "destroying the liberty" of some factions is "worse than the disease." Factions should be checked by permitting them all to speak and by entrusting the people to judge what is true and what is false.

Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310, 353-55 (2010) (internal citation and some quotation omitted).

as for your "First Amendment protection extends to corporations" quote, you didn't even indicate that too was cherry-picked! and, that's not a holding by the Citizens United court, but rather an already established rule

QuoteThe Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations. Bellotti, supra, at 778, n. 14, 98 S.Ct. 1407 (citing Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85, 97 S.Ct. 1614, 52 L.Ed.2d 155 (1977); Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448, 96 S.Ct. 958, 47 L.Ed.2d 154 (1976); Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922, 95 S.Ct. 2561, 45 L.Ed.2d 648 (1975); Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 95 S.Ct. 1239, 43 L.Ed.2d 448 (1975); Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 95 S.Ct. 1029, 43 L.Ed.2d 328 (1975); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 94 S.Ct. 2831, 41 L.Ed.2d 730 (1974); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 91 S.Ct. 2140, 29 L.Ed.2d 822 (1971) (per curiam); Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 87 S.Ct. 534, 17 L.Ed.2d 456 (1967); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686; Kingsley Int'l Pictures Corp.  **900 v. Regents of Univ. of N. Y., 360 U.S. 684, 79 S.Ct. 1362, 3 L.Ed.2d 1512 (1959); Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 72 S.Ct. 777, 96 L.Ed. 1098 (1952)); see, e.g., Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180, 117 S.Ct. 1174, 137 L.Ed.2d 369 (1997); Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727, 116 S.Ct. 2374, 135 L.Ed.2d 888 (1996); Turner, 512 U.S. 622, 114 S.Ct. 2445, 129 L.Ed.2d 497; Simon & Schuster, 502 U.S. 105, 112 S.Ct. 501, 116 L.Ed.2d 476; Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 109 S.Ct. 2829, 106 L.Ed.2d 93 (1989); Florida Star v. B.J. F., 491 U.S. 524, 109 S.Ct. 2603, 105 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989); Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 106 S.Ct. 1558, 89 L.Ed.2d 783 (1986); Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 98 S.Ct. 1535, 56 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978); Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 96 S.Ct. 2440, 49 L.Ed.2d 310 (1976); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974); Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn., Inc. v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6, 90 S.Ct. 1537, 26 L.Ed.2d 6 (1970).

Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310, 342 (2010)

LaCroix

Sure the decision contains more words.  Obviously I wasn't saying that the 80+ page decision was only 21 words long.  By definition, any set of excerpts that I post that is less than 80 pages could be accused of "cherry picking"

However, the addition  words you quoted add absolutely nothing of substance I said.  The Court just says over and over again that suppressing "corporate speech" amounts to suppressing the expression of speech because it involves suppressing speech by corporations.  That is circular reasoning.  What it does not do at any point is identify the way in which any individual or set of individuals is being inhibited from delivering a message.  '

As for the Court's holding -- that the First Amendment "applies to corporations" -- that is hardly "cherry picking.". In fact it is the very first statement the Court makes on the subject. I think it is fair to say it represents the Court's actual position on the matter.

Quotethat's not a holding by the Citizens United court

Of course it is a holding of the Court, it is in the Court's majority opinion - what else would it be?  It is the Court explicitly taking a long line of precedent and applying a particular characterization that will be binding on all future lower courts.

Quotebut rather an already established rule

No it was not.  Cleary the Court is *saying* that but it don't make it so.  The question is what do the cited cases actually say and what do they stand for.  If you go and read those cases they stand for a different proposition- namely that the fact that the speech emanates from a corporation does not mean it is not protected.  That is a different proposition from saying that IS automatically protected.

How can you be sure I am correct about this?

Because there was in fact "an already established rule" going to the exact question decided in Citizens United.  That was the rule the Court followed in Austin - namely that corporate political speech could be regulated.  The Court overruled Austin So it cannot be maintained there was an "already established rule" that "First Amendment protections applied to corporations" because most recent Supreme Court cases addressing the question in the very same context held the opposite. 

at work, so for now: not everything in an opinion is a holding, which you must know. SCOTUS was reiterating a rule, one established long before Citizens United. this rule is the First Amendment applied, in part, to corporations. SCOTUS merely expanded the already established rule with its holding later in the opinion

Minsk: Do you actually believe that the New York Times has no speech/press rights since it's a corporation?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 24, 2014, 01:52:51 PMThe Court overruled Austin So it cannot be maintained there was an "already established rule" that "First Amendment protections applied to corporations" because most recent Supreme Court cases addressing the question in the very same context held the opposite.

also, decided to check Austin. first section of Austin's analysis:

QuoteCertainly, the use of funds to support a political candidate is "speech"; independent campaign expenditures constitute "political expression 'at the core of our electoral process and of the First Amendment freedoms.'" The mere fact that the Chamber is a corporation does not remove its speech from the ambit of the First Amendment.

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652, 657 (1990)

the first paragraph of the whole opinion also discusses how corporations have rights

Quote from: chipwich on July 24, 2014, 02:23:53 PM
Minsk: Do you actually believe that the New York Times has no speech/press rights since it's a corporation?

If it does have them, where did the rights come from?  Humans have innate rights by virtue of their being human; from whence come the rights of corporations?

Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2014, 02:35:34 PMfrom whence come the rights of corporations?

with the first amendment on december 15, 1791

The First Amendment did not create a right, it already existed.

Quote from: LaCroix on July 24, 2014, 02:28:40 PM
also, decided to check Austin. first section of Austin's analysis:

QuoteCertainly, the use of funds to support a political candidate is "speech"; independent campaign expenditures constitute "political expression 'at the core of our electoral process and of the First Amendment freedoms.'" The mere fact that the Chamber is a corporation does not remove its speech from the ambit of the First Amendment.

Nothing in that statement is objectionable, and it is all consistent with both prior precedent and with Yi's formulation above. 

There is a big difference between "the mere fact that X is a corporation does not remove its speech from the ambit of the First Amendment" and "The First Amendment applies to corporations."

Quotethe first paragraph of the whole opinion also discusses how corporations have rights

The first Para is a summary; doesn't say anything about corporations having rights.
The Austin court doesn't hold that corporations have rights but it does quite correctly - explain that "state law grants corporations special advantages" and proceeds to enumerate what those "advantages" are.

Quote from: chipwich on July 24, 2014, 02:23:53 PM
Minsk: Do you actually believe that the New York Times has no speech/press rights since it's a corporation?

I would turn this around - if the New York Times DOES have free speech rights because it is a corporation, why is there a need for a specific freedom of the press outside the already articulated freedom of speech?

Quoteongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Seems like the bolded part is unnecessary if it is covered by "freedom of speech" generally.

Quote from: LaCroix on July 24, 2014, 02:48:07 PM

Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2014, 02:35:34 PMfrom whence come the rights of corporations?

with the first amendment on december 15, 1791

As Berkut notes, this is incorrect.  The First Amendment created no rights.

Quote from: chipwich on July 24, 2014, 02:23:53 PM
Minsk: Do you actually believe that the New York Times has no speech/press rights since it's a corporation?

To say that the NYT Company has "press rights" is a sloppy form of expression.  If meant metaphorically or as a kind of mental shortcut, it isn't a big deal, but taken literally it can lead to serious error.

The First Amendment is a restriction on Congress from restraining the freedom of the press.  The implication of the Amendment is that it bars Congress from doing certain things that might in turn impact on the NYT Corporation.   But it isn't right to leap from that to say that the NYT corporation, qua corporation "has rights"

Despite its absolutist literal language, the First Amendment is in reality typically applied according to rules of reason, i.e. weighing the impact on speech and expression vs. the interest served by regulation in accordance with a standard.  The relevant impact is measured with respect to human beings not artificial entities.  Because it is possible that a restriction aimed at an artificial entity can materially impact natural persons, however, the Court quite rightly has held over the years the rule LaCroix quoted in Austin - the fact that "X" is a corporation does not mean that speech emanating from "X" is wholly outside the protection of the First Amendment.  Sometimes that complex formulation is reduced to shorthand of talking about "corporate freedom of expression.". That's not really the right way to talk about it, but as long as that was understood as merely convenient shorthand, no harm no foul.  But with Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, the Court tumbled down the slippery slope.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 24, 2014, 02:57:43 PMThe Austin court doesn't hold that corporations have rights but it does quite correctly - explain that "state law grants corporations special advantages" and proceeds to enumerate what those "adva

i never said the austin court holds corporation has rights. you said "recent supreme court cases," referring to austin, have held corporations do not have rights. that is incorrect, which i showed. the austin court discusses at length the rights corporations have. a right can be limited. a right is not absolute. i do not have the right to scream fire in a movie theater. the language is in the opinions -  both austin and those 1970 SCOTUS cases listed on the second page show corporations have rights.

the first amendment does apply to corporations. do you honestly want me to go through more SCOTUS cases to show you?

QuotePierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535, 45 S.Ct. 571, 573, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925), the court concluded that a corporation's First Amendment rights must derive from its property rights under the Fourteenth.

First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 778 (1978)

how about that? will that suffice? it even answers grumbler's question

i'm not sure why you continue to maintain corporations have no rights. it's flat out weird

Lacroix, you know what is wierd?  Someone who thinks that a legal fiction created for the sole purpose of allowing shareholders to enjoy limited liablity has the same rights as real people.  That is some wierd stuff right there.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2014, 03:22:35 PM
Lacroix, you know what is wierd?  Someone who thinks that a legal fiction created for the sole purpose of allowing shareholders to enjoy limited liablity has the same rights as real people.  That is some wierd stuff right there.

you could point to lots of things we take for granted and call it legal fiction, so i'm unpersuaded by that argument

Isn't the whole concept of natural rights granted by god / the creator confirmed in law just a legal fiction too?

People made up the concept of "rights". People made up the concept of allowing people to individually or collectively form legal entities that have limited liability. If people want to make up the concept of giving rights to corporations, I see no reason to consider that as the step crossing the threshold of wierdness.

Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2014, 03:34:10 PM
Isn't the whole concept of natural rights granted by god / the creator confirmed in law just a legal fiction too?

Yes.

Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2014, 03:34:10 PM
Isn't the whole concept of natural rights granted by god / the creator confirmed in law just a legal fiction too?

People made up the concept of "rights". People made up the concept of allowing people to individually or collectively form legal entities that have limited liability. If people want to make up the concept of giving rights to corporations, I see no reason to consider that as the step crossing the threshold of wierdness.

of course. the first amendment prohibiting the government from interferring with free speech created a right. a "right" is merely that, something a person or business is allowed to do. corporations are not considered human post-CU any more than they were pre-CU, but corporations do have slightly more rights

Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2014, 03:34:10 PM
Isn't the whole concept of natural rights granted by god / the creator confirmed in law just a legal fiction too?

People made up the concept of "rights". People made up the concept of allowing people to individually or collectively form legal entities that have limited liability. If people want to make up the concept of giving rights to corporations, I see no reason to consider that as the step crossing the threshold of wierdness.

Human rights are a postulate.  There is no way to prove them to be true.  However, they aren't a legal fiction, in the sense that corporations are.  Corporations are created by law; human rights, by postulate (they predate law).  The USSC is not empowered to create postulates; it must accept the ones that exist (though it obviously must determine they exist where necessary, as in the "unenumerated rights").  To go straight from "humans have rights as a consequence of being human" to "corporations have rights as a consequence of we say so" is, as Minsky notes, to tumble down the slippery slope.  If the USSC can do that, then it can certainly grant rights to other fictions like generations or The Red-headed League.

Now, if statute were to give give certain "rights" ("powers," more properly) to corporations, then you are talking a different case.  That's not what is happening here.

Quote from: LaCroix on July 24, 2014, 03:38:08 PM
of course. the first amendment prohibiting the government from interferring with free speech created a right. a "right" is merely that, something a person or business is allowed to do. corporations are not considered human post-CU any more than they were pre-CU, but corporations do have slightly more rights

Do you really want to cling to the position that no American had a right to free speech prior to December 15, 1791?

Quote from: LaCroix on July 24, 2014, 03:24:39 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2014, 03:22:35 PM
Lacroix, you know what is wierd?  Someone who thinks that a legal fiction created for the sole purpose of allowing shareholders to enjoy limited liablity has the same rights as real people.  That is some wierd stuff right there.

you could point to lots of things we take for granted and call it legal fiction, so i'm unpersuaded by that argument

Yeah, I know.  That is what is so weird.  A corporation is so obviously a legal fiction which is created for the sole purpose of allowing shareholders to enjoy limited liability that nobody in their right mind ought to think corporations enjoy the same rights as people.  Weird.

Quote from: LaCroix on July 24, 2014, 03:14:29 PM
i never said the austin court holds corporation has rights.  . . . the austin court discusses at length the rights corporations have.

You've lost me. 

QuotePierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535, 45 S.Ct. 571, 573, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925), the court concluded that a corporation's First Amendment rights must derive from its property rights under the Fourteenth.

I don't know where you got this from.  Pierce didn't say anything about the First Amendment, it was a 14th amendment due process case, based on Meyer v. Nebraska, which was decided prior to the incorporation of the First Amendment against the states.  The holding in Pierce was that "we think it entirely plain that the Act of 1922 unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control: as often heretofore pointed out, rights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be abridged by legislation which has no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the State."

QuoteFirst Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 778 (1978)

Bellotti is the same formulation as Austin, in fact that's where Austin got it from.  The fact that X is a corporation doesn't mean that communications coming from X are outside the ambit of the First Amendment.  True.  That is what Bellotti holds, that is what Austin holds, and probably a dozen other cases. 

CU goes beyond that - well beyond.

Quotei'm not sure why you continue to maintain corporations have no rights. it's flat out weird

It is the opposite proposition that a corporation qua artificial entity can be said to have "rights" is weird.  It is so weird that poor Alito had to tie himself in knots over Hobby Lobby.  Because logically if corporations as entities really do have constitutional rights, then it should not matter one whit whether the entity is "close" corporation or widely held.  On the contrary, on the logic of Citizens United that seems to place weight on "'the voices that best represent the most significant segments of the economy'" - widely held corporations should be more privileged in the exercise of their "rights".  But even Alito is forced to turn back in the face of the sheer inanity of positing the right of an artificial entity to the free exercise of its[?!] religion.  So he wisely falls back to the pre-CU notion, reflected in Bellotti and Austin of tying the speech harm to actual human beings, only to then fall down another rabbit hole in the way he treats close corporations as alter egos.

Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2014, 03:44:50 PM
Human rights are a postulate.  There is no way to prove them to be true.  However, they aren't a legal fiction, in the sense that corporations are.  Corporations are created by law; human rights, by postulate (they predate law). 

The origins of law are prehistoric. You can't authoritatively state that human rights predate law, because some version of law apparently predated recorded history.

Also, concepts of human rights have radically changed through time. The concept of human rights may be quite old, but rights as we know them (freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc.) are quite recent.

Sounds to me like corporations can be killed in self-defense.

Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2014, 03:47:00 PMDo you really want to cling to the position that no American had a right to free speech prior to December 15, 1791?

well now, i don't know the laws of each colony, or which laws the united states adopted upon formulation. however, based off your recent reply, it seems we have different interpretations of "right."

to me, a right is something allowed by a nation's laws. at a base level (something caveman era, i guess), there are no rights by definition

you* find a right to be an idea, inherently existing

however, the problem is when these two different interpretations are confused. you* hold to the second, while SCOTUS's decision in citizens united held to the first. SCOTUS was not saying a corporation is a human being, and corporations have inherent rights. no, it was furthering american law concerning the rights of corporations - which has been long evolving. what SCOTUS did with citizens united was no different than all those other cases before it that extended rights to corporations

*at least i think that's your position. correct me if i'm wrong

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2014, 04:03:20 PM
Sounds to me like corporations can be killed in self-defense.

I'm waiting for a corporation to be given the right to self-defense.  Hire a bunch of gunmen to shoot the lawyers trying to liquidate it.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 24, 2014, 03:54:29 PMYou've lost me.

a court's "holding" is a determination by the court. in dicta, which is discussion leading up to a court's holding, austin clearly talks about corporations having rights. austin did not hold corporations have rights, but in discussing its opinion before reaching its determination, austin (along with all these other cases) does say corporations have rights

i mean, you can try to argue all you want about your interpretation of what all these hundreds (thousands probably) of cases are saying when they refer to the rights corporations enjoy, but that only makes it your interpretation. fact is, a corporation who has a right to do something because the first amendment authorized it means that corporation enjoys protection of the first amendment

Quote from: Razgovory on July 24, 2014, 04:17:35 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2014, 04:03:20 PM
Sounds to me like corporations can be killed in self-defense.

I'm waiting for a corporation to be given the right to self-defense.  Hire a bunch of gunmen to shoot the lawyers trying to liquidate it.

:lol:

Of course corporations have a right to self-defense. Why do you think banks have guards with guns?

Quote from: chipwich on July 24, 2014, 05:14:14 PM
Of course corporations have a right to self-defense. Why do you think banks have guards with guns?

Chipwich, how are you doing ?   :)

Quote from: Berkut on July 24, 2014, 03:00:31 PM
I would turn this around - if the New York Times DOES have free speech rights because it is a corporation, why is there a need for a specific freedom of the press outside the already articulated freedom of speech?

I would turn this around - if the New York Times DOES have free speech rights because it is a corporation, why is there a need for a specific freedom of the press outside the already articulated freedom of speech?

I'm not familiar with the distinction between the two. If you have something to say on that matter, please say it.

Quote from: mongers on July 24, 2014, 05:18:30 PM

Quote from: chipwich on July 24, 2014, 05:14:14 PM
Of course corporations have a right to self-defense. Why do you think banks have guards with guns?

Chipwich, how are you doing ?   :)

I',m feeling alright, even though I am in Ide-esque unemployment

Quote from: chipwich on July 24, 2014, 05:20:08 PM

Quote from: mongers on July 24, 2014, 05:18:30 PM

Quote from: chipwich on July 24, 2014, 05:14:14 PM
Of course corporations have a right to self-defense. Why do you think banks have guards with guns?

Chipwich, how are you doing ?   :)

I',m feeling alright, even though I am in Ide-esque unemployment

Don't worry, you're young, something will workout and you still have plenty of opportunities(time). 

Quote from: chipwich on July 24, 2014, 05:14:14 PM
Of course corporations have a right to self-defense. Why do you think banks have guards with guns?

So if the board gets together and decides to disband the corporation those guards will open fire?

Quote from: mongers on July 24, 2014, 05:23:07 PM

Quote from: chipwich on July 24, 2014, 05:20:08 PM

Quote from: mongers on July 24, 2014, 05:18:30 PM

Quote from: chipwich on July 24, 2014, 05:14:14 PM
Of course corporations have a right to self-defense. Why do you think banks have guards with guns?

Chipwich, how are you doing ?   :)

I'm 26, kinda pushing the "

I',m feeling alright, even though I am in Ide-esque unemployment

Don't worry, you're young, something will workout and you still have plenty of opportunities(time).

Unfortunately I'm 26, kinda pushing the "young" angle.

Quote from: chipwich on July 24, 2014, 05:25:08 PM
Unfortunately I'm 26, kinda pushing the "young" angle.

Please.  You are a baby.

Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2014, 05:24:23 PM

Quote from: chipwich on July 24, 2014, 05:14:14 PM
Of course corporations have a right to self-defense. Why do you think banks have guards with guns?

So if the board gets together and decides to disband the corporation those guards will open fire?

No, self-defense only works in specific circumstances. Even a prisoner on death row doesn't have the right to defend himself against the people who are trying to kill them

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 24, 2014, 03:08:46 PM

Quote from: chipwich on July 24, 2014, 02:23:53 PM
Minsk: Do you actually believe that the New York Times has no speech/press rights since it's a corporation?

To say that the NYT Company has "press rights" is a sloppy form of expression.  If meant metaphorically or as a kind of mental shortcut, it isn't a big deal, but taken literally it can lead to serious error.

The First Amendment is a restriction on Congress from restraining the freedom of the press.  The implication of the Amendment is that it bars Congress from doing certain things that might in turn impact on the NYT Corporation.   But it isn't right to leap from that to say that the NYT corporation, qua corporation "has rights"

If the corporation does not have rights it cannot sue the government when those rights are violated.

Quote
Despite its absolutist literal language, the First Amendment is in reality typically applied according to rules of reason, i.e. weighing the impact on speech and expression vs. the interest served by regulation in accordance with a standard.  The relevant impact is measured with respect to human beings not artificial entities.  Because it is possible that a restriction aimed at an artificial entity can materially impact natural persons, however, the Court quite rightly has held over the years the rule LaCroix quoted in Austin - the fact that "X" is a corporation does not mean that speech emanating from "X" is wholly outside the protection of the First Amendment.  Sometimes that complex formulation is reduced to shorthand of talking about "corporate freedom of expression.". That's not really the right way to talk about it, but as long as that was understood as merely convenient shorthand, no harm no foul.  But with Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, the Court tumbled down the slippery slope.

I'm not familiar with Austin (which apparently has been overturned). I am familiar with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Star_Tribune_Company_v._Commissioner which states that corpotations can sue for damages under the first amendment.

Quote from: chipwich on July 24, 2014, 05:14:14 PM
Of course corporations have a right to self-defense. Why do you think banks have guards with guns?

To prevent the redistribution of wealth outside the boardroom and Wall Street.

Quote from: chipwich on July 24, 2014, 05:26:46 PM

Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2014, 05:24:23 PM

Quote from: chipwich on July 24, 2014, 05:14:14 PM
Of course corporations have a right to self-defense. Why do you think banks have guards with guns?

So if the board gets together and decides to disband the corporation those guards will open fire?

No, self-defense only works in specific circumstances. Even a prisoner on death row doesn't have the right to defend himself against the people who are trying to kill them

A prisoner on death row and been given due process.  I'm not sure if purchased by corporate raiders counts as a due process.

Quote from: chipwich on July 24, 2014, 05:25:08 PM

Quote from: mongers on July 24, 2014, 05:23:07 PM

Quote from: chipwich on July 24, 2014, 05:20:08 PM

Quote from: mongers on July 24, 2014, 05:18:30 PM

Quote from: chipwich on July 24, 2014, 05:14:14 PM
Of course corporations have a right to self-defense. Why do you think banks have guards with guns?

Chipwich, how are you doing ?   :)

I'm 26, kinda pushing the "

I',m feeling alright, even though I am in Ide-esque unemployment

Don't worry, you're young, something will workout and you still have plenty of opportunities(time).

Unfortunately I'm 26, kinda pushing the "young" angle.

:lol:

Yeah, I thought that was cute as well.

It's only going downhill from there...

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2014, 04:03:20 PM
Sounds to me like corporations can be killed in self-defense.

:lol:

Quote from: Chip
I',m feeling alright, even though I am in Ide-esque unemployment

Underemployment, sir.

Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2014, 07:16:21 PM

QuoteUnfortunately I'm 26, kinda pushing the "young" angle.

:lol:

No, he's got it straight.  I wish I'd known when I was 26 that 30 was the new 40.  He's got four years and I think he'll make them count a bit better.

Quote from: Ideologue on July 24, 2014, 09:12:53 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2014, 07:16:21 PM

QuoteUnfortunately I'm 26, kinda pushing the "young" angle.

:lol:

No, he's got it straight.  I wish I'd known when I was 26 that 30 was the new 40.  He's got four years and I think he'll make them count a bit better.

You're reaching Gral levels.

Question:

Would such an amendment be the first mention of the concept of a corporation in the Constitution?

I'm not sure I want to codify that one way or the other in a permanent way right now.

Quote from: Ideologue on July 24, 2014, 09:11:43 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2014, 04:03:20 PM
Sounds to me like corporations can be killed in self-defense.

:lol:

Good thing Ed Anger Inc is a LLC.

Quote from: Ideologue on July 24, 2014, 12:13:14 AM

I've actually started to lean away from limited liability entities being able to claim First Amendment rights.  I don't think it's an insane interpretation of the First Amendment, but I'm not as adamant as I used to be about CU being a good decision.

So many entities are limited liability though. Churches, charities, unions...We've created a legal environment where limited liability is the rule and on practical grounds needed for any type of large organization.

I've read the opinion that for profit organizations, seeking to maximize shareholder value as their mission, don't deserve protection. But if you go to actual mission statements, that is not what many for profit organizations (at least formally) have as their primary purpose. For example, google's is to "Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." In google's case, I think they have been more effective at that mission than turning a profit for shareowners (though they have obviously been successful there too), and I doubt they would be so successful at their mission as a non profit.

They've singularly failed at the "do no evil" bit.  :P

Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2014, 10:02:14 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on July 24, 2014, 12:13:14 AM

I've actually started to lean away from limited liability entities being able to claim First Amendment rights.  I don't think it's an insane interpretation of the First Amendment, but I'm not as adamant as I used to be about CU being a good decision.

So many entities are limited liability though. Churches, charities, unions...We've created a legal environment where limited liability is the rule and on practical grounds needed for any type of large organization.

I've read the opinion that for profit organizations, seeking to maximize shareholder value as their mission, don't deserve protection. But if you go to actual mission statements, that is not what many for profit organizations (at least formally) have as their primary purpose. For example, google's is to "Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." In google's case, I think they have been more effective at that mission than turning a profit for shareowners (though they have obviously been successful there too), and I doubt they would be so successful at their mission as a non profit.

I probably ought to have said commercial.  You're absolutely right. :)

Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2014, 09:23:27 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on July 24, 2014, 09:12:53 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2014, 07:16:21 PM

QuoteUnfortunately I'm 26, kinda pushing the "young" angle.

:lol:

No, he's got it straight.  I wish I'd known when I was 26 that 30 was the new 40.  He's got four years and I think he'll make them count a bit better.

You're reaching Gral levels.

It's also, ironically, the new 20.

Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2014, 07:16:21 PM

Quote from: chipwich on July 24, 2014, 05:25:08 PM

Quote from: mongers on July 24, 2014, 05:23:07 PM

Quote from: chipwich on July 24, 2014, 05:20:08 PM

Quote from: mongers on July 24, 2014, 05:18:30 PM

Quote from: chipwich on July 24, 2014, 05:14:14 PM
Of course corporations have a right to self-defense. Why do you think banks have guards with guns?

Chipwich, how are you doing ?   :)

I'm 26, kinda pushing the "

I',m feeling alright, even though I am in Ide-esque unemployment

Don't worry, you're young, something will workout and you still have plenty of opportunities(time).

Unfortunately I'm 26, kinda pushing the "young" angle.

:lol:

I wish i knew what you're trying to communicate :blush:

After you hit 30, 26 looks really young.

Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2014, 03:58:03 PM

Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2014, 03:44:50 PM
Human rights are a postulate.  There is no way to prove them to be true.  However, they aren't a legal fiction, in the sense that corporations are.  Corporations are created by law; human rights, by postulate (they predate law). 

The origins of law are prehistoric. You can't authoritatively state that human rights predate law, because some version of law apparently predated recorded history.

Also, concepts of human rights have radically changed through time. The concept of human rights may be quite old, but rights as we know them (freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc.) are quite recent.

You might want to look up "postulate" before you go further down his road.  ;)

Quote from: Razgovory on July 25, 2014, 01:05:33 AM
After you hit 30, 26 looks really young.

This.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 25, 2014, 01:05:33 AM
After you hit 30, 26 looks really young.

I wasn't exactly communicating that as I've not hit 30. :P

Quote from: grumbler on July 25, 2014, 07:07:31 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2014, 03:58:03 PM

Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2014, 03:44:50 PM
Human rights are a postulate.  There is no way to prove them to be true.  However, they aren't a legal fiction, in the sense that corporations are.  Corporations are created by law; human rights, by postulate (they predate law). 

The origins of law are prehistoric. You can't authoritatively state that human rights predate law, because some version of law apparently predated recorded history.

Also, concepts of human rights have radically changed through time. The concept of human rights may be quite old, but rights as we know them (freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc.) are quite recent.

You might want to look up "postulate" before you go further down his road.  ;)

I know what a postulate is.

Quote from: chipwich on July 24, 2014, 05:33:41 PM
If the corporation does not have rights it cannot sue the government when those rights are violated.

A corporation has statutory powers delegated by the legislature.  Those include the power to hold and dispose of property in its own name and to sue and be sued in the courts.  So yes in that sense the corporation has rights, but only to the extent the state legislature has brought them into being by positive law.

One of the cases LaCroix cites -- Pierce - makes this same point.  Justice McReynolds actually holds that corporations strictly speaking have no rights under the 14th Amendment.  Nonetheless because they have property interests entitled to protection under law they do have standing to sue for deprivation of property.

QuoteI'm not familiar with Austin (which apparently has been overturned). I am familiar with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Star_Tribune_Company_v._Commissioner which states that corpotations can sue for damages under the first amendment.

The case says absolutely nothing about corporate "rights".

It's certainly true that corporations have standing to challenge unconstitutional actions by the government.  It was true in Bellotti, it was true in just about every First Amendment press case ever brought. You could easily find hundreds of cases for that proposition.

To repeat myself for about the 4th time in this thread, it is unquestionable that the mere fact that speech is attributable to a corporation does not mean the speech is beyond First Amendment protection.  That is what all those cases cited in Citizens United actually stand for - that, and nothing more than that.  It is precisely in line with Yi's quite logical intuition that "corporate speech" might implicate the rights of individuals and therefore be protectable.  And once again - one could, as a kind of imprecise shorthand - refer to have corporations having "rights" in the sense that may they have standing to sue in Court to redress violations that impact either on the constitutional rights of individuals or on their property interests protected by state law.   But to take the next step and say that the corporation itself has constitutional rights is an error; even McReynolds, hardly the sharpest tool in the judicial barrel, understood that basic distinction.

Quote from: alfred russel on July 25, 2014, 08:00:55 AM
I know what a postulate is.

I'm supposed to have mine checked in a few years.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2014, 09:25:12 AMBut to take the next step and say that the corporation itself has constitutional rights is an error; even McReynolds, hardly the sharpest tool in the judicial barrel, understood that basic distinction.

citizens united didn't do anything differently, though. you acknowledge what "corporate rights" are. citizens united simply extended another right to individual people

and, the point of pierce was to show how it has been interpreted concerning this area of law. it's been 80+ years since mcreynolds wrote pierce. it doesn't matter what pierce said then, but how the courts interpreted it afterward. you asked where i got that quote - bellotti in 1978.

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2014, 07:37:44 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 25, 2014, 01:05:33 AM
After you hit 30, 26 looks really young.

I wasn't exactly communicating that as I've not hit 30. :P

Stop procrastinating.

Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2014, 10:02:14 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on July 24, 2014, 12:13:14 AM

I've actually started to lean away from limited liability entities being able to claim First Amendment rights.  I don't think it's an insane interpretation of the First Amendment, but I'm not as adamant as I used to be about CU being a good decision.

So many entities are limited liability though. Churches, charities, unions...We've created a legal environment where limited liability is the rule and on practical grounds needed for any type of large organization.

the more i read about the judicial history behind corporate rights, it becomes clear citizens united was just another step forward. some may dislike the decision and possible consequences, but it makes sense

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2014, 07:37:44 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 25, 2014, 01:05:33 AM
After you hit 30, 26 looks really young.

I wasn't exactly communicating that as I've not hit 30. :P

So, how many years have you been 29?

Quote from: LaCroix on July 25, 2014, 12:03:44 PM
citizens united didn't do anything differently, though. you acknowledge what "corporate rights" are. citizens united simply extended another right to individual people

:huh:

Let's try this another way.

Before Citizens United was decided there has been over 100 years of legislation placing special restrictions on corporations in connection with political activities.  These were by and large uncontroversial and bipartisan - the Teddy Roosevelt administration sponsored the first one; Nixon signed FECA in the 70s, and the very law challenged by Citizens United was sponsored by McCain and Feingold and signed into law by Bush.  If these laws involved obvious violations of constitutional rights, it is passing strange that legislators and presidents from both parties spent a century engaging in such blatant offenses.

For the same 100 years the Supreme Court decided many cases reviewing such laws.  In many cases, the laws were upheld, in a few cases parts of the law were struck down or limited.  In EVERY case before Citizens United, the following 2 propositions were unquestioned and routinely applied:

1). The fact that a corporation is the source of some expression or "expressive act" does not in itself make the First Amendment inapplicable.

2) The fact that a corporation is the source of some expression or "expressive act" is relevant to a First Amendment analysis.  In particular, such speech is accorded less protection and corporate and other entities are treated differently from individuals.  The reason why, as the Court explained in Beaumont is that "corporation's First Amendment speech and association interests* are derived largely from those of their members and of the public in receiving their information."

* note the careful use of language in a passage that is specific to the "rights" question.

Proposition 1 is consistent either with a doctrine of corporate constitutional rights or the lack of such rights.  It is agnostic as that question.

Proposition 2, however, is not agnostic.  It is inconsistent with the notion that a corporation is a "person" with rights under the Constitution.  If the latter notion were true, then it would not be possible to say that corporate expression could be accorded discriminatory treatment.  Propositions 1 and 2 only make sense together if one assumes - like Yi in his comment in this thread or like the Supreme Court a few years back in Beaumont that what needs to be protected is not corporate expression as such, but rather the rights of the individual members of the corporate association and the listening public.

The significance of Citizens United is that it blew up proposition 2.  It says unequivocally that speech restrictions can't be based in any respect on the corporate identity of the "speaker"
That is not continuity.  It is not evolution.  It is not a minor gloss.
It is a true revolution in this particular area of law, a ruling without any precedent in all of American constitutional history, and one that contradicts  decisions going back over a century.

Citizens United this can't be squared with the traditional view - the Yi/Beaumont view - that the true basis for corporate expression protection relates to the impact on individual stakeholders and listeners.  It only makes sense if one posits that corporations are "people" not only for the limited purposes authorized under state law, but for all purposes, at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.

That position as many have observed makes no sense, and has already tripped the Court up badly in Hobby Lobby.

Quote from: LaCroix on July 25, 2014, 12:20:07 PM
the more i read about the judicial history behind corporate rights, it becomes clear citizens united was just another step forward. some may dislike the decision and possible consequences, but it makes sense

And the more I read about it, the more convinced I am that it is the Dred Scott decision of our times, due to be used as an example of USSC incompetence for a hundred years.  Of course, that's in line with my belief that humans have rights even if there is no law given them powers to protect those rights.  If one believes, as you do, that rights only exist when a government consents to them, then your view of CU makes more sense; if corporations had no First Amendment rights before the CU case started, they certainly did after the USSC gave them to them, so the question of corporate rights (at least, those rights so far given to corporations by the court) is, today, moot (until a future version court overturns them, of course).

Which brings me to the subject of the thread - I would oppose the amendment on the same basic grounds as grumbler.

My read is that the Court now recognizes that Citizens United was an embarassment and doctrinally unsound.  One can already see the Court fighting the rearguard action on this in Hobby Lobby - on the logic of CU, why on earth should widely held corporations not have the same rights as closely held corps?  Alito's decision only makes sense on the logic of Beaumont

So most likely CU will not have huge impact because even its proponents on the Court seem to be sounding the retreat.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 25, 2014, 01:01:07 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2014, 07:37:44 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 25, 2014, 01:05:33 AM
After you hit 30, 26 looks really young.

I wasn't exactly communicating that as I've not hit 30. :P

So, how many years have you been 29?

I don't turn 29 till this fall.

Quote from: LaCroix on July 25, 2014, 12:20:07 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2014, 10:02:14 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on July 24, 2014, 12:13:14 AM

I've actually started to lean away from limited liability entities being able to claim First Amendment rights.  I don't think it's an insane interpretation of the First Amendment, but I'm not as adamant as I used to be about CU being a good decision.

So many entities are limited liability though. Churches, charities, unions...We've created a legal environment where limited liability is the rule and on practical grounds needed for any type of large organization.

the more i read about the judicial history behind corporate rights, it becomes clear citizens united was just another step forward. some may dislike the decision and possible consequences, but it makes sense

It is interesting that you see over 100 years of jurisprudence being turned on its head as just another step.  To put it more plainly every jurisdiction in the Western World (including the US up until now) has recognized the limited rights of corporations and have expressly held they are different from those rights enjoyed by people.

Here is a relevant exerpt from the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Irwin Toy.

QuoteThat is, read as a whole, it appears to us that this section was intended to confer protection on a singularly human level.  A plain, common sense reading of the phrase "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person" serves to underline the human element involved; only human beings can enjoy these rights.  "Everyone" then, must be read in light of the rest of the section and defined to exclude corporations and other artificial entities incapable of enjoying life, liberty or security of the person, and include only human beings.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2014, 01:22:37 PMIf these laws involved obvious violations of constitutional rights, it is passing strange that legislators and presidents from both parties spent a century engaging in such blatant offenses.

I don't find that strange at all. Allow me to introduce you to the US Congress.  :P

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2014, 01:22:37 PM

Quote from: LaCroix on July 25, 2014, 12:03:44 PM
citizens united didn't do anything differently, though. you acknowledge what "corporate rights" are. citizens united simply extended another right to individual people

:huh:

Let's try this another way.

Before Citizens United was decided there has been over 100 years of legislation placing special restrictions on corporations in connection with political activities.  These were by and large uncontroversial and bipartisan - the Teddy Roosevelt administration sponsored the first one; Nixon signed FECA in the 70s, and the very law challenged by Citizens United was sponsored by McCain and Feingold and signed into law by Bush.  If these laws involved obvious violations of constitutional rights, it is passing strange that legislators and presidents from both parties spent a century engaging in such blatant offenses.

For the same 100 years the Supreme Court decided many cases reviewing such laws.  In many cases, the laws were upheld, in a few cases parts of the law were struck down or limited.  In EVERY case before Citizens United, the following 2 propositions were unquestioned and routinely applied:

1). The fact that a corporation is the source of some expression or "expressive act" does not in itself make the First Amendment inapplicable.

2) The fact that a corporation is the source of some expression or "expressive act" is relevant to a First Amendment analysis.  In particular, such speech is accorded less protection and corporate and other entities are treated differently from individuals.  The reason why, as the Court explained in Beaumont is that "corporation's First Amendment speech and association interests* are derived largely from those of their members and of the public in receiving their information."

* note the careful use of language in a passage that is specific to the "rights" question.

Proposition 1 is consistent either with a doctrine of corporate constitutional rights or the lack of such rights.  It is agnostic as that question.

Proposition 2, however, is not agnostic.  It is inconsistent with the notion that a corporation is a "person" with rights under the Constitution.  If the latter notion were true, then it would not be possible to say that corporate expression could be accorded discriminatory treatment.  Propositions 1 and 2 only make sense together if one assumes - like Yi in his comment in this thread or like the Supreme Court a few years back in Beaumont that what needs to be protected is not corporate expression as such, but rather the rights of the individual members of the corporate association and the listening public.

The significance of Citizens United is that it blew up proposition 2.  It says unequivocally that speech restrictions can't be based in any respect on the corporate identity of the "speaker"
That is not continuity.  It is not evolution.  It is not a minor gloss.
It is a true revolution in this particular area of law, a ruling without any precedent in all of American constitutional history, and one that contradicts  decisions going back over a century.

Citizens United this can't be squared with the traditional view - the Yi/Beaumont view - that the true basis for corporate expression protection relates to the impact on individual stakeholders and listeners.  It only makes sense if one posits that corporations are "people" not only for the limited purposes authorized under state law, but for all purposes, at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.

That position as many have observed makes no sense, and has already tripped the Court up badly in Hobby Lobby.

to your first point, there have been laws on political speech by corporations overturned by SCOTUS. look at buckley

QuoteThe First Amendment denies government the power to determine that spending to promote one's political views is wasteful, excessive, or unwise. In the free society ordained by our Constitution it is not the government, but the people individually as citizens and candidates and collectively as associations and political committees who must retain control over the quantity and range of debate on public issues in a political campaign.

For these reasons we hold that § 608(c) is constitutionally invalid. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 57 (1976)

buckley then went on to overturn a number of political campaign restrictions. that's just one example.

to the rest of your argument, is this a fair summary - before citizens united, it was recognized corporations had limited rights to political speech, but now citizens united has extended those rights to political speech? that doesn't contradict what i said. it's a logical step. if courts are holding all over the place that corporations have some first amendment rights, then it's not revolutionary to extend what corporations already had. it sounds like the austin-line cases were actually a momentary step back, now corrected with citizens united

Quote Citizens United this can't be squared with the traditional view - the Yi/Beaumont view - that the true basis for corporate expression protection relates to the impact on individual stakeholders and listeners.  It only makes sense if one posits that corporations are "people" not only for the limited purposes authorized under state law, but for all purposes, at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.

this is wrong. the court does not say corporations are to be considered people and enjoy every right of individuals. the court says "The First Amendment does not permit Congress to make these categorical distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech." this is because some corporations were allowed to campaign without certain restrictions while other corporations weren't. some political ads were fine while other ads weren't. citizens united is saying it makes no sense to restrict some people from campaigning, but allow it for other people based off how those people decided to collectivize. if people wish to politically campaign, they should be able to no matter how they charter their corporation.

corporations have rights because individual people have the right to group with one another and express themselves. citizens united did not change this, despite your "it only makes sense that it did" comment. citizens united extended individual rights - the right to collectively politically campaign through a corporation without certain restrictions. you may think citizens united held corporations are people, but that's a big miss-characterization.

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2014, 01:42:43 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 25, 2014, 01:01:07 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2014, 07:37:44 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 25, 2014, 01:05:33 AM
After you hit 30, 26 looks really young.

I wasn't exactly communicating that as I've not hit 30. :P

So, how many years have you been 29?

I don't turn 29 till this fall.

And what business do you have, kid, telling me 31 ain't old? :yeahright:

Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2014, 02:39:48 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2014, 01:42:43 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 25, 2014, 01:01:07 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2014, 07:37:44 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 25, 2014, 01:05:33 AM
After you hit 30, 26 looks really young.

I wasn't exactly communicating that as I've not hit 30. :P

So, how many years have you been 29?

I don't turn 29 till this fall.

And what business do you have, kid, telling me 31 ain't old? :yeahright:

Because it isn't. I know old. :ph34r:

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2014, 09:25:12 AM
A corporation has statutory powers delegated by the legislature.  Those include the power to hold and dispose of property in its own name and to sue and be sued in the courts.  So yes in that sense the corporation has rights, but only to the extent the state legislature has brought them into being by positive law.

This is incredible. I've never read the Star-Tribune's corporate charter, but I seriously doubt that it reads that the Star-Tribune only has some constitutional rights, say press, trial by jury, protection for Acts of Attainder, while not having protection of assembly, search by warrant, or protection from quartering.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2014, 09:25:12 AM
But to take the next step and say that the corporation itself has constitutional rights is an error

Your having repeated this does not make it true.

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?

Quote from: chipwich on July 25, 2014, 05:35:25 PM
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).

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.

Quote from: grumbler on July 25, 2014, 06:00:23 PMAre 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.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 25, 2014, 06:08:19 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: grumbler on July 25, 2014, 06:00:23 PM

Quote from: chipwich on July 25, 2014, 05:35:25 PM
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?

Quote from: dps on July 25, 2014, 11:38:47 PM

Quote from: grumbler on July 25, 2014, 06:00:23 PM

Quote from: chipwich on July 25, 2014, 05:35:25 PM
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.