Skip to main content

View Diary: Bernie Sanders Introduces The "Corporations are not People" Amendment (193 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Religious entities dont have freedoms. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior

    Again, freedom is held by the individual as a consequence of being alive. Among them is the freedom to practice religion as one so chooses or to peaceably assemble for the free exercise thereof. Nothing in that requires you to form a corporation. If you do so, expect that entity to be regulated.

    In other words, corporations or legally created entities of any sort don't not have natural freedoms under our conception of the constitution. Only people, individuals, or natural born persons, have freedom...which under our foundation understanding, comes from God alone. Governments are instituted among men to secure such rights and liberties. Those same freedoms are not passed down to legally established entities.

    Basically, you're making Mitt Romney's argument: Corporations are people.

    •  Of course they have freedoms. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wham Bam, VClib

      If we passed a law stating that no religious corporations shall expend money for the purchase of any religious text but the King James Bible, some church that really loves the NSV would sue, claiming that its right to free exercise has been violated.

      And they would win, because religious corporations have rights to free exercise.  

      And if that very, very obvious proposition is in line w/ Mitt Romney's position - as well as with all jurisprudence of the past two centuries - then so be it.

      Just so we're clear, though: you think that the FBI should be able to seize the assets of mosques for no reason whatsoever, without probable cause, a warrant, or even reasonable suspicion, just because those assets are in corporate form?

      Like I said, that's horrifically bad policy and even worse politics.

      •  The state can do that now. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior
        Just so we're clear, though: you think that the FBI should be able to seize the assets of mosques for no reason whatsoever, without probable cause, a warrant, or even reasonable suspicion, just because those assets are in corporate form?

        You use hyperbole. This sort of thing doesn't happen to for profit companies either. But can the state dissolve the legal entity Mosque, Inc. for no other reason than it wants to? Of course it can. Muslims have no inherent legal right to Mosque, Inc. You have a right to own a Mosque, individually or jointly. But if you want legal protection for that, that is getting the state involved in your religion by voluntary choice. Expect to be regulated.

        You don't have a right to form a corporation of any sort.  The state of New York can dissolve any legally created entity under its laws at any time it chooses. Including a "religious corporation." You have the right to peaceably assemble and worship. You do not have a right to have your documents filed with the state limiting your personal liability.

        Can you arrest a religious entity? Can you put a religious entity in jail? Of course not. Can you mandate that a religious entity provide health insurance to its employees? Of course you can.

        So no...you misunderstand the law in this particular instance. A corporation is not a person.

        If we passed a law stating that no religious corporations shall expend money for the purchase of any religious text but the King James Bible, some church that really loves the NSV would sue, claiming that its right to free exercise has been violated.

        Once again you use hyperbole to prove a point.

        A more salient example is "Can the government force a religious corporation to lower the height of its steeple to prevent interference with public airwaves? Can the government outlaw the ability of religious corporations to engage in koran burning on corporate grounds?"

        Of course it can.

        Can an individual burn his own koran in the privacy of his own home? Of course.

        Actually its your concept of corporations being somehow equal to natural persons by virtue of merely being formed that I find breathtaking.

        •  Recall when the Bush admin froze the assets (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coffeetalk, VClib

          of a mosque, which then successfully asserted its rights against unlawful search & seizure.

          Or recall when the KS AG wanted to subpoena the records of Planned Parenthood.  I think the current state of the law, where Planned Parenthood can refuse to provide those records based on its 4th amendment right, is a good thing.  You think the KS AG should be able to rifle through PP's records whenever it wants.

          I guess I'm not going to be able to convince you that it's a good thing that corps have rights, but certainly you can see why the public will overwhelmingly reject an amendment that strips churches and other organizations of their rights.

          •  (BTW, there was a line in the decision re: the (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coffeetalk, Wham Bam, VClib

            mosque, where the court says something like, "from the outset we have to decide whether the mosque qua corporation has a 4th amendment right to be free from search, and of course it does."  

            So I'm not sure why you're talking about hyperbole, when these sorts of things do happen in the real world.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site