Skip to main content

View Diary: Ending the criminal insanity of the concept of corporations as people (280 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The 1st Amendment Specifies "The People" (2+ / 0-)

    in its right to peaceably assemble.

    However in "speech" and "religion" there is no actor specified. The Citizens United ruling is consistent with the syntax of the clause, that it's the speech that possesses the freedom.

    I think higher education and especially legal and Constitutional training are misleading when it comes to predicting the rulings of this Court. If we know their ideology, and we can read the grammar of the amendment, we can see that it's religion not believers or worshippers that possess the freedom and we can understand that the must rule in favor of the corporation.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 05:21:08 AM PST

    •  Corporations Don't Have Religions (10+ / 0-)

      Corporations don't have religions; they don't have freedom of what they don't have. They have owners. They have property. They are property.

      If Scalia et al rule that corporations have souls, there will be hell to pay.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 06:32:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think it matters. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shaharazade, orlbucfan

        I think just as big a problem is the idea of a religious exemption.  It's directly contrary to the plain words in the Constitution.  As I read it, Congress is not supposed to make any law respecting the establishment of religion.  What is a religious exemption but special treatment in the law specifically relating to a religion?

        The government should be religion-blind.  The core argument of people like the Hobby Lobby owners should be treated as a demand to enshrine religion in federal law, and forcefully rejected.

        I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

        by tle on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 08:47:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It Shouldn't Matter (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          The UK court decision today, and Scalia's old peyote opinion, are what you and I agree the Constitution says: religion is irrelevant to an otherwise valid law.

          You can believe whatever you want, but you must act according to the law, which is derived from purely physical and provable facts. Even "intent" that is currently enshrined in so many laws, especially recently, is irrelevant because uproveable.

          The fact that these theocrats have been coddled for centuries despite the plain language of the Constitution, and plain sense, is what has emboldened them to the point of Hobby Lobby vs religious freedom.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 01:43:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site