Zegion1
|
  |
| Joined: 06 Nov 2011 |
| Total Posts: 2814 |
|
|
| 20 Jan 2013 04:22 PM |
The Citizens United decision basically said that corporations are people, so they're going to give the rights of the 1st amendment to corporations.
So anyways, can you explain to me how corporations are people? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 20 Jan 2013 05:37 PM |
I don't even know
that decision was not a good one |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Robonix
|
  |
| Joined: 05 May 2008 |
| Total Posts: 351 |
|
|
| 21 Jan 2013 05:09 PM |
| I'm the personification GIVE ME MONEY of Apple, how GIVE ME MONEY may I help you? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 21 Jan 2013 06:34 PM |
| Conveniently enough, it means Corporations may be held responsible for human rights violations, which would not be a prosecutable offense if the law were arranged differently. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Texar
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Dec 2008 |
| Total Posts: 2935 |
|
|
| 23 Jan 2013 03:38 AM |
| Of course just because they MAY be held responsible does not necessarily mean they WILL be held responsible for any violations. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
mineraal
|
  |
| Joined: 24 Nov 2012 |
| Total Posts: 400 |
|
|
| 23 Jan 2013 08:35 AM |
| Depends. Large corporations are made of people, but are not people. But some one man corporations, like the crown, are people kind off. But the crown dosn't apply to U.S law. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Dralin
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Nov 2008 |
| Total Posts: 2572 |
|
|
| 23 Jan 2013 09:42 AM |
It's basically just a legal loophole.
This way, you can be as corrupt a business owner as you want, and if your business so happens to be a corporation, when you dump a million gallons of oil into your nearest source of water you can say "My corporation did it". |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Zegion1
|
  |
| Joined: 06 Nov 2011 |
| Total Posts: 2814 |
|
|
| 23 Jan 2013 03:38 PM |
No, it really doesn't mean that. I'm referring to the Citizens United decision, which basically said that people cannot be deprived of freedom of speech, and corporations are people so therefore they should not be deprived of money that goes into political campaigns. It essentially called corporations people, and money speech - and extended the rights of the first amendment to corporations.
The problem is, what's next? We gave corporations rights to the 1st amendment, so is that going to open the floodgates to giving corporations other rights, like the right to give unlimited funding directly to a candidate (rather than super-PAC). Or are we going to give them the right to marry? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Texar
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Dec 2008 |
| Total Posts: 2935 |
|
|
| 23 Jan 2013 03:53 PM |
If corporations are people then someone freeze all of their assets because we're witnessing some of the largest identity fraud cases in the history of man kind, they have no pulse and thus are dead meaning use of their assets at present can not logically be their own actions and should be stopped immediately. Corporations are people, people are living human beings.
I also demand that the government distribute large quantities of wealth to the poor of America as to allow them to remain in poverty is infringing upon their freedom of speech. Money is speech. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Zegion1
|
  |
| Joined: 06 Nov 2011 |
| Total Posts: 2814 |
|
|
| 23 Jan 2013 03:57 PM |
"I also demand that the government distribute large quantities of wealth to the poor of America as to allow them to remain in poverty is infringing upon their freedom of speech. Money is speech."
that's actually a really good argument :0 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Avogadro
|
  |
| Joined: 14 Nov 2010 |
| Total Posts: 4011 |
|
|
| 23 Jan 2013 04:44 PM |
Stupid question. The ruling doesn't literally say CORPORATIONS ARE HUMANS. It says corporations have all of the first amendment rights of humans.
And why shouldn't they? Are corporations not just groups of people? What do you think they are? Martians? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Zegion1
|
  |
| Joined: 06 Nov 2011 |
| Total Posts: 2814 |
|
|
| 23 Jan 2013 07:13 PM |
| We're giving the rights of the 1st amendment directly to corporations. Corporations obviously aren't people, and because of this, we have record-breaking amounts of spending in elections now - which is arguably a bad thing. So what's next? How far will the line be crossed - are we going to extend all of the amendments off to corporations? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 23 Jan 2013 09:04 PM |
Of course just because they MAY be held responsible does not necessarily mean they WILL be held responsible for any violations.
____
Congratulations, you've identified the purpose of a legal framework. That's how the system works. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Texar
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Dec 2008 |
| Total Posts: 2935 |
|
|
| 25 Jan 2013 11:06 AM |
| Hooray, did I win something!? :D |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 25 Jan 2013 08:24 PM |
| No. And they shouldn't be taxes as if they are one rich person. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|