| The War Room Gun-toting neocon? Tree-hugging lib? Duke it out in the War Room. |
 |
|
01-07-2013, 03:22 PM
|
#41
|
 Black Belt
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU
Posts: 6,101
vCash: 50
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dochter
Brilliant. Most likely someone will just tell the cop not to show.
About Manson. At first I thought "Huh, didn't know that". Then I thought back to all the car pool lane signs I've seen. Then I read all the responses to him. Good times, he got run over.
|
Haha, I believed him too because I said to myself "Why would anyone make that up? It must be true!"
|
|
|
|
01-07-2013, 03:40 PM
|
#42
|
|
-|-|- Old Punx No Die -|-|-
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Behind an instrument on some random stage somewhere
Posts: 6,633
vCash: 500
|
ITT: talking out the ass did not go unpunished
__________________
Just Bleedist and Theory of Technique Unitarian - We All Bleed.
*Sherdog Shoop Staffel*
F7 Uber Alles!
Music means living.
~RIP my love Bethy~
|
|
|
|
01-07-2013, 03:40 PM
|
#43
|
Black Belt
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,547
vCash: 500
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkballs
Without going into a long-winded legal analysis here, corporate personhood has been used more for liability, and recently, first amendment reasons. For liability: we want to be able to hold corporations themselves liable for tort. For free speech: if a political entity (ex: the darkballs workers party) can donate unlimited funds for towards politics, why can't a corporation (ex: the darkballs widget factory)?
No court has ever suggested that corporate personhood = the rights of a citizen in every which way. Clearly, corporations cannot adopt children, marry, etc...
So give this guy points for wit, but no, he doesn't have a sound legal argument here.
|
Corporations also have 2nd Amendment rights. Maybe it's just privileges that don't get extended to corporations?
Either way what this guy is doing is pretty funny and I'm curious how it will turn out.
|
|
|
|
|
01-07-2013, 05:32 PM
|
#44
|
 Brown Belt
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 3,075
vCash: 666
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeintruth74
|
lol, this is awesome. If the DMV defines a person to include corporations, they cant then just waive off that a corporation is a person for HOV lanes.
And to the folks who are saying this is a silly way to challenge a law, this is exactly the way laws are challenged. Look up the civil rights movement for a bit of history- you violate an existing law, then challenge that it doesnt have grounds for some reason.
|
|
|
|
|
01-07-2013, 06:10 PM
|
#45
|
Brown Belt
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,631
vCash: 500
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkballs
Without going into a long-winded legal analysis here, corporate personhood has been used more for liability, and recently, first amendment reasons. For liability: we want to be able to hold corporations themselves liable for tort. For free speech: if a political entity (ex: the darkballs workers party) can donate unlimited funds for towards politics, why can't a corporation (ex: the darkballs widget factory)?
No court has ever suggested that corporate personhood = the rights of a citizen in every which way. Clearly, corporations cannot adopt children, marry, etc...
So give this guy points for wit, but no, he doesn't have a sound legal argument here.
|
i'd like to double affirm this post here. right on the money.
|
|
|
|
|
01-07-2013, 07:45 PM
|
#46
|
 Silver Belt
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 10,374
vCash: 500
|
this whole movement against a poor choice of phrase "corporations are people" is really absurd.
Citizens United was pretty clear to anyone not wrapped up in an anti-corporations movement. If individuals can spend unlimited amounts of money on behalf of a political position then the form under which that spending occurs shouldn't invalidate their right to do so.
Seriously, I will never get why this has become so difficult for people to grasp and why one poorly turned phrase has superseded the more core reasoning. I guess people prefer challenging sound bites to actually thinking?
Last edited by panamaican; 01-07-2013 at 07:54 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
01-07-2013, 11:47 PM
|
#47
|
Brown Belt
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 3,075
vCash: 666
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by panamaican
this whole movement against a poor choice of phrase "corporations are people" is really absurd.
Citizens United was pretty clear to anyone not wrapped up in an anti-corporations movement. If individuals can spend unlimited amounts of money on behalf of a political position then the form under which that spending occurs shouldn't invalidate their right to do so.
Seriously, I will never get why this has become so difficult for people to grasp and why one poorly turned phrase has superseded the more core reasoning. I guess people prefer challenging sound bites to actually thinking?
|
you dont get that the notion of extension of personal rights guaranteed within the constitution applying over a corporated entity isnt analogous to calling corporations people?
Cmon it's harder to avoid seeing the correlation than it is to see it.
|
|
|
|
|
01-08-2013, 12:04 AM
|
#48
|
Silver Belt
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 10,374
vCash: 500
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by drainbamage
you dont get that the notion of extension of personal rights guaranteed within the constitution applying over a corporated entity isnt analogous to calling corporations people?
Cmon it's harder to avoid seeing the correlation than it is to see it.
|
But that's not what Citizens United says.
It doesn't come close to calling corporations people or extending them personal rights from the constitution. All it says is that if I want to spend all my money on political stuff, it shouldn't matter if I'm incorporated or not when I do it.
Where's the other stuff about extending personal rights to incorporated entities. I wonder if maybe people don't know what a corporation is? You know what a corporation is, legally speaking I mean?
__________________
I'm going to fly to the moon by correctly spelling my left leg. - Good math, bad math
|
|
|
|
|
01-08-2013, 12:25 AM
|
#49
|
 Blue Belt
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 712
vCash: 500
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by panamaican
But that's not what Citizens United says.
It doesn't come close to calling corporations people or extending them personal rights from the constitution. All it says is that if I want to spend all my money on political stuff, it shouldn't matter if I'm incorporated or not when I do it.
Where's the other stuff about extending personal rights to incorporated entities. I wonder if maybe people don't know what a corporation is? You know what a corporation is, legally speaking I mean?
|
The whole corporations are people thing was started in Trustees of Dartmouth v. Woodward (1819). Citizens United affirmed that and other later decisions and added that not only are corporations people, but money is speech.
|
|
|
|
|
01-08-2013, 12:33 AM
|
#50
|
Black Belt
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Cleveland
Posts: 5,318
vCash: 168
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaNesDeath
Legally what he is doing is sound. The question being posed is what entity of said corporation grants it the rights of a person.
Here in NY the HOV lane specifies two or more person during specific times and days. Age of said occupants is not a factor.
|
Not only is this legally unsound, its about as far out in left field as claiming a mannequin as your passenger as a defense.
__________________
That which does not kill us makes us stronger.
Driving the Mousasi Warwagon towards greatness. Top 5 p4p within 2 years!!!
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
