Hawkeye-X
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 02:17 PM
Original message |
Congress needs to put up an bill or an amendment REVOKING corporate personhood PERMANENTLY |
|
The case file for corporate personhood is OUT OF DATE and does not apply to today's corporations.
Also, there should be indictments ALL over the place against corporate who is influencing/peddling the congresspeople/Senators - including the Senators/Congresspeople themselves - for RICO violations.
It's time to act before the Supreme Court decides the case on the CFR - so that if it goes against the established law, then it's time to take away all the corporation powers.
Hawkeye-X
|
NoSheep
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 02:35 PM
Response to Original message |
FiveGoodMen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 02:40 PM
Response to Original message |
TxRider
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 02:41 PM
Response to Original message |
3. I agree but the court might just rule it as unconstitutional |
|
Though I cannot see a corporation as a person..
Just try to imply the second amendment to them.....
|
Centrisms Voice
(31 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
How are the existing laws about corporate personhood out of date? I'm not playing devil's advocate; I'm just genuinely curious about what you base your case on.
|
DireStrike
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. I'd say the expected SCOTUS votes on the upcoming case are a good indicator |
|
bush appointed three of these guys.
|
Centrisms Voice
(31 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. They're ridiculously partisan, true |
|
That being said, I was hoping with my earlier question to get to the "meat" of the issue. Put another way, I'd like to hear some specifics on the corporate personhood laws that make them out of date now. I'd also be interested in hearing what changes the interested DUers would like to see in these laws.
|
DireStrike
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
10. Yes, it is sort of an arcane point. |
|
There are probably books on the subject. I should probably read some of them.
|
yellerpup
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 02:44 PM
Response to Original message |
Greyhound
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 05:27 PM
Response to Original message |
8. Agreed, one point though. There never was a ruling declaring corporate "personhood". |
|
It was derived from a completely irrelevant headnote put into the ruling by the clerk.
We have been subjected to a century of theft by an agent provocateur of the banking industry.
|
jgraz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 09:06 PM
Response to Original message |
9. I like it, but don't say corporate personhood is being "revoked". |
|
It never existed. On the likely chance that such a bill would fail, we'd be admitting that corporations are currently people.
|
newtothegame
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-25-09 02:28 PM
Response to Original message |
11. Wasn't it a desire to sue/overlord corporations that led to corporate personhood in the first place? |
mdmc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-29-09 04:24 PM
Response to Original message |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 04:50 AM
Response to Original message |