Obama Drops "Creator" from Declaration, Now he Axes Motto

[Phatscotty]

Just popped in to see if this thread was as much bullshit as I imagined it was. Turns out it is. He left out one word fucking forget about it. It's not going to "f*ck up" the nation, it's one word one time. It's not like he re-wrote the damn document. Also Phatscotty you are fucking crazy. Barrack Obama isn't on a mission to f*ck up the country in every way possible that's fucking retarded. And for God's sake's AMERICA IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION!! there are christian people who live here yes, but that doesn't mean the place belongs to you.

Actually, it was one word twice. Twice, in speeches relatively close in time (matter of days) indicates a conscious effort to omit rather than a slip-up.

Player, anyone who claims that people who want to return to the intent of the Constitution automatically mean that slavery must also be included are blind to the actual arguments on the table. The 3/5th clause of the Constitution had to be included to get the document ratified by enough states, but the abolitionists knew that one day the public would realize the error of their ways and amend the Constitution to treat everybody equally based on their race. The various rights for women were included later as the country changed from an agrarian society to an industrial one and more women began to leave their homes. The right to vote based on owning property was removed so that the newly freed blacks would be able to vote (although the arguments behind owning property before voting are quite compelling, even though they would not be practical in today's society of living in apartments). When people want to return to the intent of the Constitution, they want to return to the power being with the people instead of with the government. It's quite a simple argument.

How could she, when it is the Constitution and "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL", which inspired the children/grandchildren of the Founders to fight and die to end slavery. Player expected it overnight. She doesnt understand 3/5 was the "foot in the door" to 5/5!!!

Ending slavery required EPIC, revolutionary Ideas and stepping stones.



Someday Player will understand. So, soooo sadly, that day is not today.

[stahrgazer]

Nightstrike, the point is that your attempts to look to a Creator are actually MORE flimsy, not supportive of our government. Because the definition of that Creator, what he/she wants, etc differs. That is why government must be nuetral.

AND it is why all this argument about Obama being somehow evil or just not Christian, etc., is just dangerous. Most who know Obama say he is a faithful man. But, the FACTS are it really doesn't matter. He is not our Pastor, he is our president.

And thank "whatever" (the Creator, if you wish) that Obama doesn't claim god speaks to him and tells him to start wars - that was his predecessor's claim.

[Woodruff]

Just popped in to see if this thread was as much bullshit as I imagined it was. Turns out it is. He left out one word fucking forget about it. It's not going to "f*ck up" the nation, it's one word one time. It's not like he re-wrote the damn document. Also Phatscotty you are fucking crazy. Barrack Obama isn't on a mission to f*ck up the country in every way possible that's fucking retarded. And for God's sake's AMERICA IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION!! there are christian people who live here yes, but that doesn't mean the place belongs to you.

Actually, it was one word twice. Twice, in speeches relatively close in time (matter of days) indicates a conscious effort to omit rather than a slip-up.

Player, anyone who claims that people who want to return to the intent of the Constitution automatically mean that slavery must also be included are blind to the actual arguments on the table. The 3/5th clause of the Constitution had to be included to get the document ratified by enough states, but the abolitionists knew that one day the public would realize the error of their ways and amend the Constitution to treat everybody equally based on their race. The various rights for women were included later as the country changed from an agrarian society to an industrial one and more women began to leave their homes. The right to vote based on owning property was removed so that the newly freed blacks would be able to vote (although the arguments behind owning property before voting are quite compelling, even though they would not be practical in today's society of living in apartments). When people want to return to the intent of the Constitution, they want to return to the power being with the people instead of with the government. It's quite a simple argument.

How could she, when it is the Constitution and "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL", which inspired the children/grandchildren of the Founders to fight and die to end slavery. Player expected it overnight. She doesnt understand 3/5 was the "foot in the door" to 5/5!!!
Ending slavery required EPIC, revolutionary Ideas and stepping stones.

Yes, you might even say they were progressive in nature.

[Phatscotty]

Just popped in to see if this thread was as much bullshit as I imagined it was. Turns out it is. He left out one word fucking forget about it. It's not going to "f*ck up" the nation, it's one word one time. It's not like he re-wrote the damn document. Also Phatscotty you are fucking crazy. Barrack Obama isn't on a mission to f*ck up the country in every way possible that's fucking retarded. And for God's sake's AMERICA IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION!! there are christian people who live here yes, but that doesn't mean the place belongs to you.

Actually, it was one word twice. Twice, in speeches relatively close in time (matter of days) indicates a conscious effort to omit rather than a slip-up.

Player, anyone who claims that people who want to return to the intent of the Constitution automatically mean that slavery must also be included are blind to the actual arguments on the table. The 3/5th clause of the Constitution had to be included to get the document ratified by enough states, but the abolitionists knew that one day the public would realize the error of their ways and amend the Constitution to treat everybody equally based on their race. The various rights for women were included later as the country changed from an agrarian society to an industrial one and more women began to leave their homes. The right to vote based on owning property was removed so that the newly freed blacks would be able to vote (although the arguments behind owning property before voting are quite compelling, even though they would not be practical in today's society of living in apartments). When people want to return to the intent of the Constitution, they want to return to the power being with the people instead of with the government. It's quite a simple argument.

How could she, when it is the Constitution and "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL", which inspired the children/grandchildren of the Founders to fight and die to end slavery. Player expected it overnight. She doesnt understand 3/5 was the "foot in the door" to 5/5!!!
Ending slavery required EPIC, revolutionary Ideas and stepping stones.

Yes, you might even say they were progressive in nature.

naturally. and democratic too!! OH, AND REPUBLICAN TOO! Libertarian? YEP. SOCIAL, YUPPPPP. Independence??? Ya You Bethcya!

[Phatscotty]

Nightstrike, the point is that your attempts to look to a Creator are actually MORE flimsy, not supportive of our government. Because the definition of that Creator, what he/she wants, etc differs. That is why government must be nuetral.

AND it is why all this argument about Obama being somehow evil or just not Christian, etc., is just dangerous. Most who know Obama say he is a faithful man. But, the FACTS are it really doesn't matter. He is not our Pastor, he is our president.

And thank "whatever" (the Creator, if you wish) that Obama doesn't claim god speaks to him and tells him to start wars - that was his predecessor's claim.

I bet you his dad could beat up the other guys dad tho....

Actually, Obama did say Jesus spoke to him. about 2 weeks ago, and it's not the first time. It's ok, we see what we want to see, what we think we need to see, and we turn a blind eye to what we do not want to see, or what needs to be seen

[gannable]

Commie Obama certainly isnt my president

[Woodruff]

Commie Obama certainly isnt my president

On the presumption that you're still living in Philadelphia and that you are, in fact, a U.S. citizen...who pray tell IS your President?

[PLAYER57832]

Commie Obama certainly isnt my president

On the presumption that you're still living in Philadelphia and that you are, in fact, a U.S. citizen...who pray tell IS your President?

McCarthy?

[Night Strike]

Player, anyone who claims that people who want to return to the intent of the Constitution automatically mean that slavery must also be included are blind to the actual arguments on the table.

Not really. Either it changes or it doesn't. Just because you like some changes and not others doesn't make the idea of those changes fundamentally wrong. That is why it is a very pertinent argument, because we know no sane person today wants to return to those days, but so many of you argue that you want to return to the "vision of our forefathers".. further, you don't really mean them "en masse" you mean only specific folks with whom you agree.

The only legitimate changes to the Constitution are the 27 Amendments. THAT is the Constitution that we want to return to. We don't want this system that allows the elected and unelected people in Washington to dictate our lives to us. The intent of the founders was that our government would be limited to the things explicitly allowed in the Constitution. Our politicians have thrown that premise out the window, so that is what we want to return to. There is a desire to remove a couple of the Amendments among some circles (income tax and direct election of senators) and add a couple of Amendments (balanced budget), but NO ONE IS SUPPORTING THE RE-INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY. As scotty eloquently pointed out, the 3/5 compromise WAS the step the founders took to eliminate slavery. They wanted the freedom for everybody, but they knew they could not grant the freedom and hold the country together at the same time. So the 3/5ths compromise was one stop along the route to abolition. The vision of our forefathers WAS for freedom, it just couldn't be achieved all at once.

Why all this effort to claim Obama is not a Christian. He is. Why do so many supposed Christian flat out lie about that? Bearing false witness is a commandment! Why is it OK for all these people to break a commandment, yet if our political leader, the president, while in his official capacity as leader of ALL in this country.. religious or not, omits on word, (for maybe no reason at all, like that flag/no flag hoopla in the campaign) suddenly that means he is the embodiment of Satan? There is something pretty stinky in those claiming church, nowadays, but it is NOT Obama!

Christians aren't lying about their questions of his beliefs. The man repeatedly claims he believes in a collective salvation and that his personal salvation depends on it. That is in no way a Christian teaching. Couple that with his beliefs in Black Liberation Theology and there are legitimate questions. Anybody can claim they're a Christian, but when their other statements and actions don't line up with it, other Christians are supposed to question and confront them.

@tzor, nightstrike, and any guys along their line in this thread)

But isn't the Constituion a double-edged sword?

The Supreme Court Justices ruled that businesses are entities endowed with the freedom of speech, and are thus able to give campaign contributions and create all sorts of influence on American politics due to the Constitution. That's going to be extremely difficult to reverse (if ever), given the way the system works.

Section 1 of the United States Code states that a person is defined to include corporations.

the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ ... -000-.html
Therefore, it was NOT the Supreme Court that gave these rights to corporations, it was CONGRESS. The Supreme Court made sure that those rights were upheld in their decision. If Congress wants to change the US Code to remove corporations from the definition of "person", then that's their responsibility (along with accepting the other ramifications regarding the ability to sue, etc.). The Supreme Court clearly used the definitions provided by Congress to decide whether or not the corporation's Constitutional rights were being observed.

[Metsfanmax]

That's an incorrect description of what the Supreme Court did. They were simply basing their decision on the precedent of the railroad case that started this off in the 1800s. In that decision, the Supreme Court intentionally avoided addressing the issue of whether corporations were considered persons for the purposes of the First Amendment, and instead just claimed that their speech was protected by it.

[Night Strike]

That's an incorrect description of what the Supreme Court did. They were simply basing their decision on the precedent of the railroad case that started this off in the 1800s. In that decision, the Supreme Court intentionally avoided addressing the issue of whether corporations were considered persons for the purposes of the First Amendment, and instead just claimed that their speech was protected by it.

No matter what they made their ruling on, the Congress has no justification for complaint because their own statutes define corporations as persons. To be honest, I'd even argue that the original intent of the First Amendment was for it to cover individuals, with no protections given to organizations, corporations, or unions. But since that's not how Congress chose to define a person, then that's the results we get.

[PLAYER57832]

That's an incorrect description of what the Supreme Court did. They were simply basing their decision on the precedent of the railroad case that started this off in the 1800s. In that decision, the Supreme Court intentionally avoided addressing the issue of whether corporations were considered persons for the purposes of the First Amendment, and instead just claimed that their speech was protected by it.

No matter what they made their ruling on, the Congress has no justification for complaint because their own statutes define corporations as persons. To be honest, I'd even argue that the original intent of the First Amendment was for it to cover individuals, with no protections given to organizations, corporations, or unions. But since that's not how Congress chose to define a person, then that's the results we get.

Gee, and here I thought it was the Creator who you said determined rights, who was a human being.

Also: Congress and the rules it makesbow to the constitution, not the reverse. Congress cannot alter the constitution, except through Amendments. The Supreme court can, by changing how the constitution is interpreted and implemented.

[Woodruff]

The Supreme Court Justices ruled that businesses are entities endowed with the freedom of speech, and are thus able to give campaign contributions and create all sorts of influence on American politics due to the Constitution. That's going to be extremely difficult to reverse (if ever), given the way the system works.

Section 1 of the United States Code states that a person is defined to include corporations.

Weird thought...does that make the stock market akin to slavery?

On a more serious note...if corporations are considered "persons", shouldn't "limited liability" end? After all, it seems odd to me that I can go to prison for neglect, yet an egg production owner in Iowa can violate food safety regulations to boost profits and end up poisoning thousands of Americans with salmonella without being locked up.

[Night Strike]

The Supreme Court Justices ruled that businesses are entities endowed with the freedom of speech, and are thus able to give campaign contributions and create all sorts of influence on American politics due to the Constitution. That's going to be extremely difficult to reverse (if ever), given the way the system works.

Section 1 of the United States Code states that a person is defined to include corporations.

Weird thought...does that make the stock market akin to slavery?

On a more serious note...if corporations are considered "persons", shouldn't "limited liability" end? After all, it seems odd to me that I can go to prison for neglect, yet an egg production owner in Iowa can violate food safety regulations to boost profits and end up poisoning thousands of Americans with salmonella without being locked up.

Sounds perfectly legitimate to me if you can prove the owner knowingly allowed the violations to occur.

That's an incorrect description of what the Supreme Court did. They were simply basing their decision on the precedent of the railroad case that started this off in the 1800s. In that decision, the Supreme Court intentionally avoided addressing the issue of whether corporations were considered persons for the purposes of the First Amendment, and instead just claimed that their speech was protected by it.

No matter what they made their ruling on, the Congress has no justification for complaint because their own statutes define corporations as persons. To be honest, I'd even argue that the original intent of the First Amendment was for it to cover individuals, with no protections given to organizations, corporations, or unions. But since that's not how Congress chose to define a person, then that's the results we get.

Gee, and here I thought it was the Creator who you said determined rights, who was a human being.

Also: Congress and the rules it makesbow to the constitution, not the reverse. Congress cannot alter the constitution, except through Amendments. The Supreme court can, by changing how the constitution is interpreted and implemented.

The Constitution outlined that persons have the right to free speech (a codification of a God-given right). Congress used US Code Section 1 to define persons to include corporations, therefore the ruling by the Supreme Court that corporations could not have their free speech limited for elections is completely consistent. That is exactly how our system is designed to work: Constitution gives the framework, Congress works within that framework to govern the country, and the Supreme Court makes sure those laws are consistent with the Constitution.

[PLAYER57832]

On a more serious note...if corporations are considered "persons", shouldn't "limited liability" end? After all, it seems odd to me that I can go to prison for neglect, yet an egg production owner in Iowa can violate food safety regulations to boost profits and end up poisoning thousands of Americans with salmonella without being locked up.

Sounds perfectly legitimate to me if you can prove the owner knowingly allowed the violations to occur.

Except that is not the standard applied to individuals.

The Constitution outlined that persons have the right to free speech (a codification of a God-given right). Congress used US Code Section 1 to define persons to include corporations, therefore the ruling by the Supreme Court that corporations could not have their free speech limited for elections is completely consistent. That is exactly how our system is designed to work: Constitution gives the framework, Congress works within that framework to govern the country, and the Supreme Court makes sure those laws are consistent with the Constitution.

No. You are letting the tail wag the dog.
Congress can pass whatever laws it wants, but its up to the Supreme court to rule if they abide by the constitution or not. Its pretty clear that the rights in the constitution apply to real people, not institutions. The Supreme court should have ruled that way. Instead, they decided to alter the entire framework of our nation to meet the ends of some powerful business people. .. now made even more powerful.

Further if it comes to anything you consider "liberal" ... you are among the first to argue that even far more evidenced and milder changes (Mirand comes to mind, as does Roe vs Wade), you take exactly the opposite stance. In fact, I distinctly remember you arguing that the definition of a person could not be changed in the case of abortion.. yet now you argue just the opposite. The abortion case was based on science/biology. This is based on a fiction and the desires of a few people who don't seem to think they had enough power already.

[tzor]

On a more serious note...if corporations are considered "persons", shouldn't "limited liability" end? After all, it seems odd to me that I can go to prison for neglect, yet an egg production owner in Iowa can violate food safety regulations to boost profits and end up poisoning thousands of Americans with salmonella without being locked up.

"Limited liability" is limited solely to the financial liability of the investors, not the obligations of the employees.

Limited liability is a concept whereby a person's financial liability is limited to a fixed sum, most commonly the value of a person's investment in a company or partnership with limited liability. In other words, if a company with limited liability is sued, then the plaintiffs are suing the company, not its owners or investors. A shareholder in a limited company is not personally liable for any of the debts of the company, other than for the value of his investment in that company. This usually takes the form of that person's dividends in the company being zero, since the company has no profits to allocate. The same is true for the members of a limited liability partnership and the limited partners in a limited partnership. By contrast, sole proprietors and partners in general partnerships are each liable for all the debts of the business (unlimited liability).

[PLAYER57832]

On a more serious note...if corporations are considered "persons", shouldn't "limited liability" end? After all, it seems odd to me that I can go to prison for neglect, yet an egg production owner in Iowa can violate food safety regulations to boost profits and end up poisoning thousands of Americans with salmonella without being locked up.

"Limited liability" is limited solely to the financial liability of the investors, not the obligations of the employees.

We know this. The thing is people don't have any such protections. I get sued, I lose my house, my future earnings.. essentially unlimited, in many cases even past bankruptcy.

[Night Strike]

Further if it comes to anything you consider "liberal" ... you are among the first to argue that even far more evidenced and milder changes (Mirand comes to mind, as does Roe vs Wade), you take exactly the opposite stance. In fact, I distinctly remember you arguing that the definition of a person could not be changed in the case of abortion.. yet now you argue just the opposite. The abortion case was based on science/biology. This is based on a fiction and the desires of a few people who don't seem to think they had enough power already.

You can never claim the allowance of abortion is based on science when the fetus has a completely different set of DNA than the mother. It is 100% a different person, and it's impossible to logically argue otherwise. Because of this, both the fetus and mother are individuals, which makes them both a person as defined in Section 1 of the US Code. An individual is a person, that can't be changed. Congress chose to also count corporations as persons, which can be changed if they want.

[PLAYER57832]

Further if it comes to anything you consider "liberal" ... you are among the first to argue that even far more evidenced and milder changes (Mirand comes to mind, as does Roe vs Wade), you take exactly the opposite stance. In fact, I distinctly remember you arguing that the definition of a person could not be changed in the case of abortion.. yet now you argue just the opposite. The abortion case was based on science/biology. This is based on a fiction and the desires of a few people who don't seem to think they had enough power already.

You can never claim the allowance of abortion is based on science when the fetus has a completely different set of DNA than the mother. It is 100% a different person, and it's impossible to logically argue otherwise. Because of this, both the fetus and mother are individuals, which makes them both a person as defined in Section 1 of the US Code. An individual is a person, that can't be changed. Congress chose to also count corporations as persons, which can be changed if they want.

No, the science shows when the fetus begins to have something close to human feelings and such. But I am not arguing that point. My argument is that you seemed to have a problem with the Supreme court ruling in that way when it was an issue you disagreed with, but now.. just because you happen to like it, you think its fine.
That's pretty hypocritical.

And no, the reverse is not the same, because I don't believe Congress has the right or power to determine who is and is not a person. Only science can truly do that. Science and faith. The Supreme court should have ruled that way.

[Woodruff]

The Supreme Court Justices ruled that businesses are entities endowed with the freedom of speech, and are thus able to give campaign contributions and create all sorts of influence on American politics due to the Constitution. That's going to be extremely difficult to reverse (if ever), given the way the system works.

Section 1 of the United States Code states that a person is defined to include corporations.

Weird thought...does that make the stock market akin to slavery?

On a more serious note...if corporations are considered "persons", shouldn't "limited liability" end? After all, it seems odd to me that I can go to prison for neglect, yet an egg production owner in Iowa can violate food safety regulations to boost profits and end up poisoning thousands of Americans with salmonella without being locked up.

Sounds perfectly legitimate to me if you can prove the owner knowingly allowed the violations to occur.

I believe in that particular case, yes...it was proven. But he wasn't. And on top of that, he had a past history of similar problems and even worse actions on his part.

[Woodruff]

On a more serious note...if corporations are considered "persons", shouldn't "limited liability" end? After all, it seems odd to me that I can go to prison for neglect, yet an egg production owner in Iowa can violate food safety regulations to boost profits and end up poisoning thousands of Americans with salmonella without being locked up.

"Limited liability" is limited solely to the financial liability of the investors, not the obligations of the employees.

Correct. But "persons" don't get that limited liability. If a corporation is going to be a "person", they shouldn't be allowed to only have the benefits of that and none of the liability.

[Night Strike]

Further if it comes to anything you consider "liberal" ... you are among the first to argue that even far more evidenced and milder changes (Mirand comes to mind, as does Roe vs Wade), you take exactly the opposite stance. In fact, I distinctly remember you arguing that the definition of a person could not be changed in the case of abortion.. yet now you argue just the opposite. The abortion case was based on science/biology. This is based on a fiction and the desires of a few people who don't seem to think they had enough power already.

You can never claim the allowance of abortion is based on science when the fetus has a completely different set of DNA than the mother. It is 100% a different person, and it's impossible to logically argue otherwise. Because of this, both the fetus and mother are individuals, which makes them both a person as defined in Section 1 of the US Code. An individual is a person, that can't be changed. Congress chose to also count corporations as persons, which can be changed if they want.

No, the science shows when the fetus begins to have something close to human feelings and such. But I am not arguing that point. My argument is that you seemed to have a problem with the Supreme court ruling in that way when it was an issue you disagreed with, but now.. just because you happen to like it, you think its fine.
That's pretty hypocritical.

And no, the reverse is not the same, because I don't believe Congress has the right or power to determine who is and is not a person. Only science can truly do that. Science and faith. The Supreme court should have ruled that way.

Separate DNA = Separate Being, whether they are aware or have feelings. It's a cut and dry case. And if Congress wishes to expand the definition of a person, they have the full right to do that. What they don't have the right to do is to contract the definition of person as less than individuals by segmenting certain individuals as not persons, like what happened with slavery. All individuals are persons, but other "things" can be treated as persons before the law if they wish for the legal definition to be expanded.

[tzor]

We know this. The thing is people don't have any such protections. I get sued, I lose my house, my future earnings.. essentially unlimited, in many cases even past bankruptcy.

Actually they do, you are mixing apples and oranges here. The investors of a company are not the company, they are merely investors in the company. Likewise if you go off the deep end, your parents (who finally supported you, paid for your college education and expect you to pay them back by generous visitation rights to the grandkids) are not liable for your actions.

Now one can argue that bankrupcy law for corporations and for people are not the same. One can argue that it is far too easy for companies to "die" (Indeed people generally don't merge with other people as corporations can) only to be born again in another incarnation. Bankrupcy is not what many people think it is. It is more of getting a scarlet letter branded onto your forehead.

[PLAYER57832]

Further if it comes to anything you consider "liberal" ... you are among the first to argue that even far more evidenced and milder changes (Mirand comes to mind, as does Roe vs Wade), you take exactly the opposite stance. In fact, I distinctly remember you arguing that the definition of a person could not be changed in the case of abortion.. yet now you argue just the opposite. The abortion case was based on science/biology. This is based on a fiction and the desires of a few people who don't seem to think they had enough power already.

You can never claim the allowance of abortion is based on science when the fetus has a completely different set of DNA than the mother. It is 100% a different person, and it's impossible to logically argue otherwise. Because of this, both the fetus and mother are individuals, which makes them both a person as defined in Section 1 of the US Code. An individual is a person, that can't be changed. Congress chose to also count corporations as persons, which can be changed if they want.

No, the science shows when the fetus begins to have something close to human feelings and such. But I am not arguing that point. My argument is that you seemed to have a problem with the Supreme court ruling in that way when it was an issue you disagreed with, but now.. just because you happen to like it, you think its fine.
That's pretty hypocritical.

And no, the reverse is not the same, because I don't believe Congress has the right or power to determine who is and is not a person. Only science can truly do that. Science and faith. The Supreme court should have ruled that way.

Separate DNA = Separate Being, whether they are aware or have feelings. It's a cut and dry case.

While I agree that human life is human life (and therefore am not arguing your actual point), no, it is not "cut and dry". What you describe is not science, it is faith and belief. Science decides at what point a blob of matter and, yes, DNA come close to being a human being physically. Faith decides when the soul enters and it becomes human spiritually. Just to give an example, some religions view sperm as "human". I don't. It is most definitely NOT "cut and dry".

However, the idea that an artificial entity, without any DNA, without any kind of biological profile at all, is even "living", never mind human and a person.. that is ridiculous.

And if Congress wishes to expand the definition of a person, they have the full right to do that.

No, I and many others absolutely argue they do not. This was not about "rights" or really anything to do with helping society. It was, plain and simple about greed and power. It was about giving corporations even more power to tromp on what should be individual rights... to understand, vote and think how we like. It is already being taken away.

Nor, as Woodruff indicated, is it truly a universal declaration of "personhood". Corporations were specifically created to shield business from the personal. In this ruling, corporations were given the rights of a person.. the right of free speech, in particular, but NOT the full responsibilities. Corporations don't pay the same taxes we do, don't serve in the army, are not required to register for any pending draft, and do not face the same liabilities that human beings do.

What they don't have the right to do is to contract the definition of person as less than individuals by segmenting certain individuals as not persons, like what happened with slavery. All individuals are persons, but other "things" can be treated as persons before the law if they wish for the legal definition to be expanded.

Classic case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too. In fact, the slavery issue was decided by science, (with some moral help from religion to push the issue along). If anything, it gave states the right to determine who was and was not "human", because, initially there was a difference in determinations. That right was never given to Congress, except through the amendment process. It was adopted by the Supreme court.

To make an example, Congress could decide to try and legalize slavery. They cannot. Why? Because the constitution supercedes any congressional law. In this case, all the Supreme court had to say was that while congress can afford certain attributes that humans have to a corporation, for practicalities' sake (which is,effectively what they did), they cannot alter the biologic truth and cannot expand the constitution to apply where it is not already specified to apply.

IF Congress and the states had, together voted in an amendment making corporations "people", then it would be different. That is exactly what happened in the case of slavery. The constitution was altered. That is the ONLY way in which Congress can alter the constitution. The Supreme court, however is the body given with interpreting it, so they do have that right. And, in this case, they abused it in ways not seen in decades, not since the "seperate but equal" ruling. The impacts of this ruling will be even more harmful to society than that one.

[PLAYER57832]

We know this. The thing is people don't have any such protections. I get sued, I lose my house, my future earnings.. essentially unlimited, in many cases even past bankruptcy.

Actually they do, you are mixing apples and oranges here. The investors of a company are not the company, they are merely investors in the company. Likewise if you go off the deep end, your parents (who finally supported you, paid for your college education and expect you to pay them back by generous visitation rights to the grandkids) are not liable for your actions.

A closer analogy would be that parents ARE responsible for minor children, because they cannot operate on their own. Without getting into picky details (that shift somewhat depending on various factors), corporations, unions, etc. (this is a broad ruling, applying to basically all artificial entities) are ruled by boards and/or CEOs, heads. They essentially act as the "parent" or "gaurdien" for the corporation, making all its decisions and so forth.

So, yes, they should face the responsibilities, the consequences of their decisions. "Rights without responsibility is a recipe for tyrrany."

Now one can argue that bankrupcy law for corporations and for people are not the same. One can argue that it is far too easy for companies to "die" (Indeed people generally don't merge with other people as corporations can) only to be born again in another incarnation. Bankrupcy is not what many people think it is. It is more of getting a scarlet letter branded onto your forehead.

Again, you are painting a broad brush onto a myriad of complexities. While the "idea" of bankruptcy is roughly the same, how it is defined, played out vary not just by entity, but by state. That is particularly true for individuals.

In Florida, you get to keep your house and many other assets (unless it changed in the past few years). In PA, you don't.. just to name a big variation. (but no, I am NOT going to debate bankruptcy law! It really doesn't matter, just your blanket statement is not correct).

For most companies, by contrast, it doesn't even amount to a scarlet letter, becuase the new company has "no relatioinship" to the old ones, precisely because there is a barrier between the fictitious entity called a "corporation" and those who actually run the thing.