Change you can believe in, Yeah

ziggy wrote:(1) The Supreme Court has not said that government cannot regulate corporations as strictly as it wants to- even as strictly it did in the first 80 or so years after the American Revolution.

(2) You miss my point- deliberately so I do believe- that if you are as opposed to socialism as you say you are, that you should be opposed to all socialism, including American Corporate Socialsim.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:(1) The Supreme Court has not said that government cannot regulate corporations as strictly as it wants to- even as strictly it did in the first 80 or so years after the American Revolution.

(2) You miss my point- deliberately so I do believe- that if you are as opposed to socialism as you say you are, that you should be opposed to all socialism, including American Corporate Socialsim.

I'm confused, what is American Corporate socialism?

ziggy wrote: so as to have the government function to serve the interests of the corporations ............ rather than the government function to have the corporations serve the interests of the general citizenry.

The government-corporate fiscal inbreeding we have witnessed over the past 6 or 7 months illustrate very profoundly what American Corporate Socialism is.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:
I'm confused, what is American Corporate socialism?

It is the system whereby government creates corporations, calling them "artificial persons". Then those corporations proceed to effectively take over the reins of government- effectively becoming the government in some circumstances- so as to have the government function to serve the interests of the corporations rather than the government function to have the corporations serve the interests of the general citizenry. The government-corporate fiscal inbreeding we have witnessed over the past 6 or 7 months illustrate very profoundly what American Corporate Socialism is.

It is the kind of incestuous corporo-government bastardization of the American economy that President Eisenhower warned us about a half century ago. He referred to it as the "military-industrial complex". Another characterization of it could be the government-industrial complex, or American corporate socialism. Either way, Eisenhower saw it coming. And now it is here, and it is eating us alive. Hundreds of billions of dollars the U.S. government doesn't have but borrows anyway to give to some of the biggest corporations in America is today's perfect example. Maybe tomorrow we will have yet another trillion dollar example of American corporate socialism in action.

ziggy wrote:Constitutionally, the "truth" is whatever the Courts say it is.

Aaron wrote:You are wrong Frank, according to your own words.

ziggy wrote:Constitutionally, the "truth" is whatever the Courts say it is.

And constitutionally, the court said in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad that corporations had the same rights as individuals, granting them corporate personhood, so no, the government CAN NOT regulate corporations as strictly as they want to. GM or IBM has the same constitutional rights you and I do. That's the "truth". Period.

Aaron wrote:You are wrong Frank, according to your own words.

ziggy wrote:Constitutionally, the "truth" is whatever the Courts say it is.

And constitutionally, the court said in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad that corporations had the same rights as individuals, granting them corporate personhood, so no, the government CAN NOT regulate corporations as strictly as they want to. GM or IBM has the same constitutional rights you and I do. That's the "truth". Period.

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:You are wrong Frank, according to your own words.

ziggy wrote:Constitutionally, the "truth" is whatever the Courts say it is.

And constitutionally, the court said in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad that corporations had the same rights as individuals, granting them corporate personhood, so no, the government CAN NOT regulate corporations as strictly as they want to. GM or IBM has the same constitutional rights you and I do. That's the "truth". Period.

Good shot Aaron, you beat me to the punch. And since the courts make no mistakes Ziggy has little room to complain.

Article III - The Judicial Branch

Section 2 -

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article3

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:
I'm confused, what is American Corporate socialism?

It is the system whereby government creates corporations, calling them "artificial persons". Then those corporations proceed to effectively take over the reins of government- effectively becoming the government in some circumstances- so as to have the government function to serve the interests of the corporations rather than the government function to have the corporations serve the interests of the general citizenry. The government-corporate fiscal inbreeding we have witnessed over the past 6 or 7 months illustrate very profoundly what American Corporate Socialism is.

It is the kind of incestuous corporo-government bastardization of the American economy that President Eisenhower warned us about a half century ago. He referred to it as the "military-industrial complex". Another characterization of it could be the government-industrial complex, or American corporate socialism. Either way, Eisenhower saw it coming. And now it is here, and it is eating us alive. Hundreds of billions of dollars the U.S. government doesn't have but borrows anyway to give to some of the biggest corporations in America is today's perfect example. Maybe tomorrow we will have yet another trillion dollar example of American corporate socialism in action.

So, we are talking about corporate welfare. Am I correct?

ziggy wrote:

Corporate welfare is a part of it.

Corporate fascism is a better overall characterization of it than simply "corporate welfare".

But either way it is corporate socialism.

Aaron wrote:We have corporate socialism because we have personal socialism and the Supreme Court stated that corporations are afforded the exact same rights private citizens are. So if personal socialism cannot be reigned in, neither can corporate socialism.

Ziggy is crying about one while championing the other but it is the Court, whom he said was never wrong, who stated they are the same.

Aaron wrote:You said the courts make no mistakes and it was the Supreme Court which granted the same rights to corporations that citizens enjoy. Your own link proves you wrong Ziggy.

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:We have corporate socialism because we have personal socialism and the Supreme Court stated that corporations are afforded the exact same rights private citizens are. So if personal socialism cannot be reigned in, neither can corporate socialism.

Ziggy is crying about one while championing the other but it is the Court, whom he said was never wrong, who stated they are the same.

The way I see it, the real issue is not one of corporate socialism or individual socialism. Those are just symptoms of a more serious problem. That problem is politicians who have long sence abandoned the ideals of our constitutional republic and opted instead for a somewhat perverted form of democracy. It is well stated that a democracy can stand only until the public relaizes it can vote itself entitlements from the public treasury. Both corporations and many in the public have realized that they can vote themselves entitlements by putting the right politician in office. Of course that "right" politican is the one that also determines the makeup of the court system. Additionally, that "right" politican has to deliver to remain in office.

As long as we have people like Ziggy, Sodbuster, and TerryRC who want the US Constitution to say what they want and will make it say what they want be it right or wrong, this is where we are going to be.

Article III - The Judicial Branch

Section 2 -

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article3

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:We have corporate socialism because we have personal socialism and the Supreme Court stated that corporations are afforded the exact same rights private citizens are. So if personal socialism cannot be reigned in, neither can corporate socialism.

Ziggy is crying about one while championing the other but it is the Court, whom he said was never wrong, who stated they are the same.

The way I see it, the real issue is not one of corporate socialism or individual socialism. Those are just symptoms of a more serious problem. That problem is politicians who have long sence abandoned the ideals of our constitutional republic and opted instead for a somewhat perverted form of democracy. It is well stated that a democracy can stand only until the public relaizes it can vote itself entitlements from the public treasury. Both corporations and many in the public have realized that they can vote themselves entitlements by putting the right politician in office. Of course that "right" politican is the one that also determines the makeup of the court system. Additionally, that "right" politican has to deliver to remain in office.

As long as we have people like Ziggy, Sodbuster, and TerryRC who want the US Constitution to say what they want and will make it say what they want be it right or wrong, this is where we are going to be.

I do not make the Constitution say anything. I just tell you what the Courts say it means.

And again, it is the Constitution that allows the Courts that power.

Article III - The Judicial Branch

Section 2 -

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

[/quote]

OK Wisebutt I have a simple little question. Are the courts do the courts make mistakes or better yet, do the courts legislate from the bench, injecting their own agenda into their rulings?