House Passes Mandatory National Service Bill

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Just because the Courts have said something does not mean that it is an accurate interpretation of the Constitution. They have decided that the Constitution is a "living document," so I have decided that their rulings are "living documents" as well:)

But unless and until those rulings are overruled, they represent the best authority on how to implement the Constitution.

So when the Dred Scott decision upheld the idea that slaves were property rather than humans with constitutional protections, was the Supreme Court the "best authority on how to implement the Constitution.?"

What would have been a better way? To fight a civil war over it?

The Civil War wasn't fought to free the slaves. It was fought to keep the southern states from succeeding. The freeing of the slaves was only a result.

Yes by the way, I know what the revisionists say, but that the facts.

So why do you avoid the question?

Again, if not via the Supreme Court, what would have been a better way to interpret and implement implement the Constitution?

The Civil War wasn't fought to free the slaves. It was fought to keep the southern states from succeeding. The freeing of the slaves was only a result.

And why were the southern states seceding?

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

That hasn't stopped you from crying about corporations when the courts have clearly ruled they have the same rights as individuals.

In the only case you've cited so far, that is not what the Court said.

That is exactly what came out of the case I cited, ................

That is not what the Court said. It is just someone's spin on it which you have adopted and so it is now Aaronspin.

The laws of the US hold that a legal entity (like a corporation or non-profit organization) shall be treated under the law as a person except when otherwise noted. This rule of construction is specified in 1 U.S.C. §1, which states:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

This federal statute has many consequences. For example, a corporation is allowed to own property and enter into contracts. It can also be sued, and held liable under both civil and criminal law. Among the most frequently discussed and controversial consequences of corporate personhood in the United States is the extension of a limited subset of the same constitutional rights.

Corporations as legal entities have always been able to perform commercial activities, similar to a person acting as a sole proprietor, such as entering into a contract or owning property. Therefore corporations have always had a 'legal personality' for the purposes of conducting business while shielding individual stockholders from personal liability (i.e., protecting personal assets which were not invested in the corporation).

The stronger concept of corporate personhood, in which (for example) First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights have been asserted by corporations, is often traced to the 1886 U.S. Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (118 U.S. 394).

ziggy wrote:

The Civil War wasn't fought to free the slaves. It was fought to keep the southern states from succeeding. The freeing of the slaves was only a result.

And why were the southern states seceding?

Because the federal government had usurped state's rights.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

The Civil War wasn't fought to free the slaves. It was fought to keep the southern states from succeeding. The freeing of the slaves was only a result.

And why were the southern states seceding?

Because the federal government had usurped state's rights.

State's rights to do what?

This federal statute has many consequences. For example, a corporation is allowed to own property and enter into contracts. It can also be sued, and held liable under both civil and criminal law. Among the most frequently discussed and controversial consequences of corporate personhood in the United States is the extension of a limited subset of the same constitutional rights.

And what is the effect of the word limited here? Or is is meaningless?

Ask Al Gore or the green party as you guys are about the only ones questioning what the Supreme Court said when to the Supreme Court, the legal system and most normal Americans it is pretty clear.

Of course you're the guys that don't know what the meaning of the word "is" is and you think a BJ ain't sex.

You’re also the ones that don’t believe Americans should have the freedom to spend their money as they see fit either.

Go figure.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

The Civil War wasn't fought to free the slaves. It was fought to keep the southern states from succeeding. The freeing of the slaves was only a result.

And why were the southern states seceding?

Because the federal government had usurped state's rights.

State's rights to do what?

The cause of the Civil War is a complex one. I found this article that sheds some light on the cause of the war. There is plenty of additional reading attached. As you go down through the article you see things discussed that are happening again today. Thing like and opressive Federal Government, heavy taxation, cultureal issues.

Link to article

That is a southern view. Since I like ot look at both saide I'll post a link to the northern view of the Cause of the War.

Election of 1860 saw Abraham Lincoln get elected when Northern and Southern Democrats splintered into three parties. Dating back to 1856, the chasm that had formed over slavery broke the Democratic Convention apart in 1860. The division was over Douglas's "popular sovereignty" that had failed so miserably in Kansas. The South refused to back Douglas, walking out of Democratic conventions in Charleston and Baltimore, and nominated Vice President John Breckenridge for President. Breckenridge sought to preserve slavery in the states (not just the South), ensure slavery as an option in the territories, and threatened secession if Lincoln was elected. He even called the Southern Democrats the Disunion Party. Breckenridge won most of the South.

John Bell was a major slaveholder who was also pro-Union. Drawing from pro-slavery Whigs who could not join the Republicans and pro-Union Southern Democrats, Bell did well throughout the South but managed to win only in Tennessee and Kentucky. Douglas seemed to be oblivious that most people had dismissed his "popular sovereignty" concept. Majorities in the North and the South resented the idea because of the problems it had caused in Kansas.

Abraham Lincoln touched the subject of slavery only briefly in his speeches and was always certain to point out that he did not intend to abolish slavery where it already existed. He pushed his Homestead Act and transcontinental everything to his constituents. With Lincoln's election, the Deep South seceded.

The northern article

The Civil war was not about slavery. Notice Lincoln's regarding slavery. IN fact, Lincoln stated once that if keeping blacks slaves would preserve the Union he'd leave them slaves.

Quite frankly, the stage today is ripe for another Civil War. Alot of the issues that existed in the early 1800s exist today. Things like a heavy tax burdon, intrusive Federal Government, and cultural divides.

Aaron wrote:Ask Al Gore or the green party as you guys are about the only ones questioning what the Supreme Court said when to the Supreme Court, the legal system and most normal Americans it is pretty clear.

So why don't you quote, with a source, what the Supreme Court actually said rather than just keep spinning it into whatever serves your ever shifting immediate purposes?

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

The Civil War wasn't fought to free the slaves. It was fought to keep the southern states from succeeding. The freeing of the slaves was only a result.

And why were the southern states seceding?

Because the federal government had usurped state's rights.

State's rights to do what?

The cause of the Civil War is a complex one. I found this article that sheds some light on the cause of the war. There is plenty of additional reading attached. As you go down through the article you see things discussed that are happening again today. Thing like and opressive Federal Government, heavy taxation, cultureal issues.

Link to article

That is a southern view. Since I like ot look at both saide I'll post a link to the northern view of the Cause of the War.

Election of 1860 saw Abraham Lincoln get elected when Northern and Southern Democrats splintered into three parties. Dating back to 1856, the chasm that had formed over slavery broke the Democratic Convention apart in 1860. The division was over Douglas's "popular sovereignty" that had failed so miserably in Kansas. The South refused to back Douglas, walking out of Democratic conventions in Charleston and Baltimore, and nominated Vice President John Breckenridge for President. Breckenridge sought to preserve slavery in the states (not just the South), ensure slavery as an option in the territories, and threatened secession if Lincoln was elected. He even called the Southern Democrats the Disunion Party. Breckenridge won most of the South.

John Bell was a major slaveholder who was also pro-Union. Drawing from pro-slavery Whigs who could not join the Republicans and pro-Union Southern Democrats, Bell did well throughout the South but managed to win only in Tennessee and Kentucky. Douglas seemed to be oblivious that most people had dismissed his "popular sovereignty" concept. Majorities in the North and the South resented the idea because of the problems it had caused in Kansas.

Abraham Lincoln touched the subject of slavery only briefly in his speeches and was always certain to point out that he did not intend to abolish slavery where it already existed. He pushed his Homestead Act and transcontinental everything to his constituents. With Lincoln's election, the Deep South seceded.

The northern article

The Civil war was not about slavery. Notice Lincoln's regarding slavery. IN fact, Lincoln stated once that if keeping blacks slaves would preserve the Union he'd leave them slaves.

Quite frankly, the stage today is ripe for another Civil War. Alot of the issues that existed in the early 1800s exist today. Things like a heavy tax burdon, intrusive Federal Government, and cultural divides.

Both articles are good reading, Cato. Thank you for the links.

But the one consistent theme in virtually every paragraph of both articles is the endless permutations of the politics of slavery.

Aaron wrote:The stronger concept of corporate personhood, in which (for example) First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights have been asserted by corporations, is often traced to the 1886 U.S. Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (118 U.S. 394).

So why did you not include the next following sentence in the same paragraph- which says explicitly that the concept put forth in the first sentence was not addressed, but was "avoided" by the Supreme Court? The answer is because of what I said yesterday- that the only case you have cited so far does not indicate that the Suporeme Court said what you say it did.

The entire paragraph is:

"The stronger concept of corporate personhood, in which (for example) First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights have been asserted by corporations, is often traced to the 1886 U.S. Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (118 U.S. 394). However, that particular Supreme Court decision did not address the matter of whether corporations were 'persons' with respect to the Fourteenth Amendment; in Chief Justice Waite's words, "we avoided meeting the question"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

And yet you bitch and moan about playing "word games". Word gamer, heal thyself first.

The next line is a claim by the green party and Al Gore, among others and doesn't change the fact that the Supreme Court has held that corporations are entitled to the same rights, particularly the 1st, 5th and 14, which individuals are.

I did address that and I really don't know how much clearer it can be regardless of how much you attempt to muddy the water.

Keep trying though, no one to the right of you or Al Gore's buying it.

And I don't bitch and moan about anything. I state facts or opinion and that's all.

The next line is a claim by the green party and Al Gore, among others and doesn't change the fact that the Supreme Court has held that corporations are entitled to the same rights, particularly the 1st, 5th and 14, which individuals are.

You have yet not showed us any Supreme court language that says that. Maybe the Court did say that, or maybe it didn't. But despite your claims over the past 10 days or so, you have yet to show us any Supreme Court language that does say so. A cycnic might begin to wonder why you haven't.

And for sure in the only case you have cited, the Supreme Court did not say that.

Under West Virginia law, an individual may contribute up to $1,000 to a candidate for public office in a election.

But corporations are prohibited from doing so, to wit:

§3-8-8. Corporation contributions forbidden; exceptions; penalties; promulgation of rules; additional powers of State Election Commission.
(a) Notwithstanding any provision of section two-b of this article, no officer, agent or person acting on behalf of any corporation, whether incorporated under the laws of this or any other state or of a foreign country, may pay, give, lend or authorize to be paid, given or lent any money or other thing of value belonging to the corporation, to any candidate, financial agent, political committee or other person for the payment of any primary or other election expenses whatever. No person may solicit or receive any payment, contribution or other thing from any corporation or from any officer, agent or other person acting on behalf of the corporation.

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/WVCODE/ChapterEntire.cfm?chap=03

So if corporations have all the rights of real people, is this provision of WV election law invalid?

Under West Virginia law, an individual may purchase and/or consume alcoholic beverages and/or tobacco products.

But any person(s) under the age of 21 is/are prohibited from doing so, to wit:

And you can cite the WV Code if you want to.

And under West Virginia law, an individual employee can be negligent of his duties, falsifying records to cover-up his devious and intentional inactions that led to the deaths of other employees ……. and the Corporation is held liable for said, to wit:

Coal Tattoo: Massey subsidiary to be sentenced today in Aracoma fire case.

This afternoon, U.S. District Judge John T. Copenhaver Jr. is scheduled to sentence Massey Energy's Aracoma Coal Co. subsidiary for criminal mine safety violations in the January 2006 fire that caused the deaths of coal miners Don Bragg and Ellery Hatfield.

http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200904150200

.

You’re stating your opinion, not United States Law.

The bottom line is the United States of America and the Supreme Court both recognize corporate personhood and will do so until a law is passed that states otherwise.

And like it or not, that recognition comes from the case I stated regardless of how wrong you think it is.

If you don't like these very basic, very simple facts then my suggestion for you would be to start the process of introducing such a law to revoke recognition of corporate personhood.

Good luck with that.

The bottom line is the United States of America and the Supreme Court both recognize corporate personhood and will do so until a law is passed that states otherwise.

Now that's a hell of a different tune than you were singing here only a couple days ago.

You can't show what you contended the Supreme Court said because it just isnt there.

I told you so.

Aaron wrote:You’re stating your opinion, not United States Law.

I am stating West Virginia law.

Again, under West Virginia law, an individual may contribute up to $1,000 to a candidate for public office in an election.

But corporations are prohibited from doing so, to wit:

§3-8-8. Corporation contributions forbidden; exceptions; penalties; promulgation of rules; additional powers of State Election Commission.
(a) Notwithstanding any provision of section two-b of this article, no officer, agent or person acting on behalf of any corporation, whether incorporated under the laws of this or any other state or of a foreign country, may pay, give, lend or authorize to be paid, given or lent any money or other thing of value belonging to the corporation, to any candidate, financial agent, political committee or other person for the payment of any primary or other election expenses whatever. No person may solicit or receive any payment, contribution or other thing from any corporation or from any officer, agent or other person acting on behalf of the corporation.

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/WVCODE/ChapterEntire.cfm?chap=03

So if corporations have all the rights of real people, is this provision of WV election law invalid?

ziggy wrote:So if corporations have all the rights of real people, is this provision of WV election law invalid?

So, conducting another "circle jerk" like you were doing on the subject of "Teachers striking", ..... huh?



.

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:So if corporations have all the rights of real people, is this provision of WV election law invalid?

So, conducting another "circle jerk" like you were doing on the subject of "Teachers striking", ..... huh?

.

If you don't know the answer, Sam, why can't you just be honest enough to say so?

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Ask Al Gore or the green party as you guys are about the only ones questioning what the Supreme Court said when to the Supreme Court, the legal system and most normal Americans it is pretty clear.

So why don't you quote, with a source, what the Supreme Court actually said rather than just keep spinning it into whatever serves your ever shifting immediate purposes?

You have yet to post anything that disputes what I am saying.

And you have yet to post anything that supports it.

Sure I have and your crying is proof enough.

The US recognizes corporate personhood, thus the reason for all your crying.

GEEEZUS, I'm tired of "clicking" on this thread just to read the same insanity.

Cornell University Law School - corporations: an overview

The law treats a corporation as a legal "person" that has standing to sue and be sued, distinct from its stockholders. The legal independence of a corporation prevents shareholders from being personally liable for corporate debts. It also allows stockholders to sue the corporation through a derivative suit and makes ownership in the company (shares) easily transferable. The legal "person" status of corporations gives the business perpetual life; deaths of officials or stockholders do not alter the corporation's structure.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/corporations

The law typically views a corporation as a fictional person, a legal person, or a moral person (as opposed to a natural person); United States law recognises this as corporate personhood. Under such a doctrine (obviously a legal fiction), a corporation enjoys many of the rights and obligations of individual citizens, such as the ability to own property, sign binding contracts, pay taxes, have certain constitutional rights, and otherwise participate in society. (Note that corporations do not possess all the rights appertaining to individuals: in most jurisdictions, for example, a corporation cannot vote.)

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/corporation/legal-status.html

Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like actual people. Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state,[1] and they may be responsible for human rights violations.[2] Just as they are "born" into existence through its members obtaining a certificate of incorporation, they can "die" when they lose money into insolvency. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offences, such as fraud and manslaughter.[3]

A corporation is legally a citizen of the state (or other jurisdiction) in which it is incorporated (except when circumstances direct the corporation be classified as a citizen of the state in which it has its head office, or the state in which it does the majority of its business).

In 1819, the U.S. Supreme Court granted corporations a plethora of rights they had not previously recognized or enjoyed.[11] Corporate charters were deemed "inviolable," and not subject to arbitrary amendment or abolition by state governments.[12] The Corporation as a whole was labeled an "artificial person," possessing both individuality and immortality.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

Zig, tell us again, that WV Teachers have the right to "strike" without suffering any Legal consequences.



.