Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens

So, how do you draw the lines on a financial basis, which is at base your problem, and NOT exclude individuals of incredible wealth, and how do you include them without violating the 1st and 14th Amendments?

How do you restrict corporations of "means" without restricting the smallest community, sportmen's, conservation, etc., groups?

Simply put: you can't. That's why the First Amendment is there in the first place.

Because you have the loudest voice, doesn't mean you're right. That's the situation; corporations have the loudest voice and are in a position to monopolize the entire political process.

Look at the melt down of 2008. When it all came down, Wall Street went to congress and even said, we have to be regulated. As soon as they got their trillion, they fought all regulation. They allowed Dodd-Frank to pass as a diversion; but it didn't correct ANY of the core issues that brought about a collapse. This is a sector that can literally bankrupt America, but they have the power to make sure nothing hinders them in any way. That's not in the best interest of anyone but Wall Street. But the current situation is such that they can just contribute to politicians as much as needed to get their way, or contribute to their opponents to push anyone who doesn't do their bidding out of office. How is this good for America? These ARE the un-principled, and they're running rough shod over all of America.

That has nothing to do with corporations and everything to do with the abject corruption of government.

THAT is fixable.

Actually 4ager; you got it right...it's abject corruption of government. That's what we have...that's precisely the point I'm trying to make. Unlimited political contributions corrupts unlimited. We all know that the only thing a politician REALLY cares about is re-election. So if corporations have the ability to cash bully politicians, what do you call that?

You're looking at a symptom, not the cause.

If corporations are "people" then how come we don't prosecute BP for killing a dozen rig workers, or Ford Motors for burning teenagers up in Pintos; and then putting the whole board of directors on death row?

Either they are people and have personal rights on the one hand and can be sanctioned for wrong doings just like a person; or their not.

what is it now, 500 or 600 volumes, plus the 13 pages here, to try and determine what the 250 year old constitution means?

Time for a new one.

If corporations are "people" then how come we don't prosecute BP for killing a dozen rig workers, or Ford Motors for burning teenagers up in Pintos; and then putting the whole board of directors on death row?

Either they are people and have personal rights on the one hand and can be sanctioned for wrong doings just like a person; or their not.

That, sir, is an extremely good point. Per the history of the law of persona ficta, those "nonhuman persons" could be and were subject to the same penalties. Why they are not now is a very viable question.

Again, you prove your utter stupidity.

It isn't that the Constitution lacks clarity. The problem is people trying to twist into something it is not, saying things it does not say.

If corporations are "people" then how come we don't prosecute BP for killing a dozen rig workers, or Ford Motors for burning teenagers up in Pintos; and then putting the whole board of directors on death row?

Either they are people and have personal rights on the one hand and can be sanctioned for wrong doings just like a person; or their not.

But they are indicted, or can be. And are responsible for the actions (both civil and criminal) of their employees under the legal theory of respondeat superior.

Which means that if a member of the board of directors, or an executive(say)commits a criminal act in the course of his employment which is related to the corporations business, both the individual and the corporation, can be indicted.

A corporation is considered a legal person in the eyes of the law. It can contract,sue or be sued,carry on any legal business the same as any individual.

And it can be indicted.

Interesting dialogue here; but we are covering really old, well settled law.

Exactly

And who is to say what it doesn't say. That is why we need a new one. So we all have a say in what it says.