Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nothing really new, radical or activist going on here. Just slapping down some bad law and helping keep the robber barons a little more free.
FIXED. Come on, you know this does not help the majority of US citizens even one little bit. If anything, our voice has been all but silenced... sold to the highest bidder.
Nothing really new, radical or activist going on here. Just slapping down some bad law and helping keep the robber barons a little more free.
FIXED. Come on, you know this does not help the majority of US citizens even one little bit. If anything, our voice has been all but silenced... sold to the highest bidder.
The majority is only aided by the fact there there will be more points of view. It's always been up to individuals to do the homework themselves and we each can only cast one vote.
My voice has neither been silenced... nor is it for sale.
However, just for the record, I'm pro-"robber barron".
The Truth About the "Robber Barons" - Thomas J. DiLorenzo - Mises Institute
You deserve thousands upon thousands of rep points for that one!My voice has neither been silenced... nor is it for sale.
Isn't Coors plural?
I know you are trying to be fecitious.. but this is plain stupid.
Not really. I am only trying to follow the logical applications of a GOP led SCOTUS ruling, that conservatives say extends/grants the equal protection and equal speech rights enumerated in the US Constitution, to corporate entities.
Conservatives argue that non citizens and non combatant enimies are not covered by the US Constitution...so, I assume conservatives argue that corporations are equal to citizens, since corps are entitled to the same rights as citizens.
Where am I wrong?
uh---maybe because corporations haven't been given ALL the rights that an individual citizen has ?
My voice has neither been silenced... nor is it for sale.
SANTA CLARA COUNTY V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC R. CO., 118 U. S. 394 (1886) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & OyezU.S. Supreme Court
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 118 U.S. 394 (1886)
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company
Argued January 26-29, 1886
Decided May 10, 1886
118 U.S. 394
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Syllabus
The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
USSC corporate citizenship history....
USSC corporate citizenship history - Google Search
Nothing really new, radical or activist going on here. Just slapping down some bad law and helping keep us all a little more free.
My voice has neither been silenced... nor is it for sale.
Yes it has, and yes it is. Of course you side with the robber barons like a good little neocon.
SANTA CLARA COUNTY V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC R. CO., 118 U. S. 394 (1886) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & OyezU.S. Supreme Court
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 118 U.S. 394 (1886)
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company
Argued January 26-29, 1886
Decided May 10, 1886
118 U.S. 394
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Syllabus
The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
USSC corporate citizenship history....
USSC corporate citizenship history - Google Search
Nothing really new, radical or activist going on here. Just slapping down some bad law and helping keep us all a little more free.
Some legal scholars are of the opinion that the ruling only granted some of the rights, not all...and that the case is specific to the state of CA.
but, if corporations are protected with the equal protection clause...are they eligible to vote and run for office...and if not, why not?
The GOP led SCOTUS says Coors has the same free speech as every citizen.
Doesn't the Coors Corporation, a corp with all the free speech rights as every citizen, have the constitutional right to exercise that free speech right to it's full extent?
Doen't Coors as a Corporate entity meet all the legal requirements needed to run for political office? It's old enough and natural, and native born.
Of course you would confuse capitalist with neocon.
The GOP led SCOTUS says Coors has the same free speech as every citizen.
Doesn't the Coors Corporation, a corp with all the free speech rights as every citizen, have the constitutional right to exercise that free speech right to it's full extent?
Doen't Coors as a Corporate entity meet all the legal requirements needed to run for political office? It's old enough and natural, and native born.
Of course you would confuse capitalist with neocon.
Capitalist, corporatist, neocon. No difference from where I sit. When corporations are buying nominees, parties and whole elections, you don't consider that a problem? How is anyone supposed to run for us (real living citizens) if they are up against the deep pockets of big business that wants nothing more than more and more profits and will do ANYTHING to get their sympathizer in office. Do you have the voice (money) to take on pharmaceutical and oil companies? Didn't think so.
The GOP led SCOTUS says Coors has the same free speech as every citizen.
Doesn't the Coors Corporation, a corp with all the free speech rights as every citizen, have the constitutional right to exercise that free speech right to it's full extent?
Doen't Coors as a Corporate entity meet all the legal requirements needed to run for political office? It's old enough and natural, and native born.
More Breaking News
Stop your fricken whining. Get your pacifier and then sit down and read the founding documents for the first time in your life.
After that.... shut up.
SANTA CLARA COUNTY V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC R. CO., 118 U. S. 394 (1886) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
USSC corporate citizenship history....
USSC corporate citizenship history - Google Search
Nothing really new, radical or activist going on here. Just slapping down some bad law and helping keep us all a little more free.
Some legal scholars are of the opinion that the ruling only granted some of the rights, not all...and that the case is specific to the state of CA.
but, if corporations are protected with the equal protection clause...are they eligible to vote and run for office...and if not, why not?
I'd agree with those scholars however, that case was only the begining (so far as I can tall) of a long stretch of laws and precidents regulating the so called personhood of corporations.
And treating corporations as "persons" in some matters of law is not the same as treating corporations as individuals. Most of the legal protections they enjoy (or liability they incur) have to do with the prevention of discrimination or holding them accountable for violating the rights of others. (this corporate group, violated the rights of that one etc.)
The GOP led SCOTUS says Coors has the same free speech as every citizen.
Doesn't the Coors Corporation, a corp with all the free speech rights as every citizen, have the constitutional right to exercise that free speech right to it's full extent?
Doen't Coors as a Corporate entity meet all the legal requirements needed to run for political office? It's old enough and natural, and native born.
Coors is anathema to Muslims.
Obama is beloved of Muslims.