S
sallybutler
Guest
Luke, stop trying to be logical. 
- Status
T
Theo520
Guest
You got that wrong, they should decide based on what the law says.
The constitution is just the highest law, but they will rule on all laws that are federal.
L
Luke6_37
Guest
Sorry. It just bursts out some times!Luke, stop trying to be logical.
L
Luke6_37
Guest
Well, then tell that to the folks on this forum who seem to think thatâs the way it ought to be.Luke6_37:
You got that wrong, they should decide based on what the law says.
The constitution is just the highest law, but they will rule on all laws that are federal.
Good, because some actually mean it as a serious argument.
And the Court has actually done a good job, overall, or applying the Bill of Rights in this contemporary time. It has, at times, failed, too. Wickard comes to mind. A mind blowingly horrible decision.
Youâre right. No where, but corporations are legal fictions that allow individuals to work together.
The constitution also doesnât give Congress the power to restrict political contributions by citizens. So, if I have to choose between the rights of individuals in a corporation (or union) or government power, I choose the individual in virtually every instance.
Last edited:
L
Luke6_37
Guest
Except thatâs not what it says in the Constitution.
T
Trader
Guest
I do. I got to meet Justice Scalia once, and maybe it rubbed off when he shook my hand. He was the guest of honor at our Red Mass and I was in the Cathedral choir. He said our Red Mass was the second fanciest mass he had been to. He did not say which was first, but I would now guess it was the ordination mass for his son.
Everyone knows(except progressives), and the founding fathers knew, that facts and circumstances can change, but the principles concerning our human nature do not. Some progressives like to argue that if they change the meaning of words, it changes reality. That is what they did with âchoiceâ and âmarriageâ and âpersonâ.
T
Trader
Guest
Wow! I certainly agree with you on Wickard v Filburn. It piles one stretched premise on top of another until government power becomes absolute. It was not modified until long after my Constitutional History courses. I know you have said this before JonNC, but the main purpose of the written constitution is to limit the power of government. It is sad that so many people missed that class.
Wickard v. Filburn - Wikipedia
L
Luke6_37
Guest
Do you think the framers of the Constitution believed corporations are people?
I donât. God didnât create corporations, so they arenât people and canât have human rights. Privileges maybe, but not rights. I think Scalia betrayed his own principles when he voted in favor of Citizens United.
Last edited:
T
Trader
Guest
I donât know anyone who believes that. In law they are artificial persons, not people. They do not have the same rights as humans. For starters, no corporation votes, gets married, has a passport, or holds public office. They do have some rights, and also some responsibilities. Corporations pay taxes and they pay fines if they break some law. As an investor, I have a real beef that the owners of a corporation often have to bear the cost of a violation of law actually committed by one of the human employees.
L
Luke6_37
Guest
The framers of the Constitution knew about corporations and they didnât never considered them to be persons. How a strict constructionist gets around that, I donât know.Luke6_37:
I donât know anyone who believes that. In law they are artificial persons, not people. They do not have the same rights as humans. For starters, no corporation votes, gets married, has a passport, or holds public office. They do have some rights, and also some responsibilities. Corporations pay taxes and they pay fines if they break some law. As an investor, I have a real beef that the owners of a corporation often have to bear the cost of a violation of law actually committed by one of the human employees.
Congress shall make no lawâŚJonNC:
Except thatâs not what it says in the Constitution.
âŚ,shall not be infringed.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In every way, the Constitution is a limit on government power.
How does a strict constitution find a government power to limit donations for political candidates?
Thatâs not there either, so there is no mandate for limiting corporations or unions from donating.
That said, if the general government limited itself to the enumerated powers, few would be moved to donate to candidates
L
Luke6_37
Guest
Federal government power. The remaining power was to belong to the states or individual. Not oligarchys. Treating corporations as people takes power away from those two enities and puts it in the hands of a third type that the framers knew about well enough, but did not intend to have such power.
L
Luke6_37
Guest
I am not a strict constructionist. That would be @Trader. I just think itâs wrong to extend rights that have been endowed upon us by the Creator to man made fictional persons.Luke6_37:
How does a strict constitution find a government power to limit donations for political candidates?
Thatâs not there either, so there is no mandate for limiting corporations or unions from donating.
That said, if the general government limited itself to the enumerated powers, few would be moved to donate to candidates
It does not take power or rights away from people, since corporations are made up of people. A corporation is a legal fiction designed to facilitate people working together. It doesnât exist other than regardingvthe people in it.JonNC:
Federal government power. The remaining power was to belong to the states or individual. Not oligarchys. Treating corporations as people takes power away from those two enities and puts it in the hands of a third type that the framers knew about well enough, but did not intend to have such power.
Labor unions the same way.
T
Theo520
Guest
Interesting point, yet liberals have had no qualms about labor unions making major campaign donations
Last edited:
And I see no reason to prevent them from doing so. It seems to me that this has much to do with freedom of association and redress of grievancesJonNC:
Interesting point, let liberals have had no qualms about labor unions making major campaign donations
If you are not a strict constructionist, then you should have no complaint here. After all, the Court has also found an imaginary right to marriage that states must acknowledge, an imaginary right to kill the soon-to-be-born, and an imaginary power of the general government to impose these imaginary rights.
But a strict constructionist of course requires the Court to properly apply the constitution on modern circumstances, recognizing again that individual rights Trump government power. So, while same gender couples have always had a right to âmarryâ, the is no enumerated power to force states to recognize any marriage.
I believe individuals have the right to associate for redress of grievances, hence the right to pool resources to support political candidates
Last edited:
M
MidwestGuy
Guest
I donât have a problem with this especially since the recent Janus decision.
- Status