Ron on a Roll

The Other One wrote:

So Huckleberry isn't running. Trump isn't running.

Who's it going to be, Bignose? I only ask since you are the self-appointed authority on all matters.

I just don't know what to think at this point. We haven't even heard a peep out of Sara lately... make me wonder if she's going to stick around.

I have no idea who the GOP will finally coalesce around. But it damn sure won't be Ron Paul.

Ratzilla wrote:

Bighead, I don't have time to read it clear through. Remind me which part of the Constitution discusses the rights of corporations or calls them a person and I'll answer.

Oh Fukcing Christ what a cop-out. The full text the goddamn piece of paper is all over the internet. Google it. Press control+F and type in 'corporation'. This ain't rocket surgery.

What you'll find is that like LOTS of hotly contested points of law, the constitution makes NO specific mention of the personhood or free speech rights of corporations. So how the hell are you going to determine the constitutionality of such a question WITHOUT interpretation? Do I need to draw you a picture in crayon?

No asswipe, but I guess I need to draw you one with someone to narrate the tough parts. My asking you to point out what part of the Constitution mentions corporations was sarcasm. And you think you're so smart.

So tell me then. When they mention gun rights, freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure etc., do you suppose they were referring to their cattle and pigs? It doesn't take rocket science to figure out the Constitution Bighead. The words "the people" and "person" are used several times in the Bill Of Rights.

But then again, I'm talking to the guy who thinks parents have no right to tell their own kids what to do, so I can't expect much common sense.

Well if the constitution is so goddamn easy to read and apply that even a Haycite can do it... then why can't you tell me exactly how it applies to the contested point of law that I asked you about?

Go ahead- let's hear your brilliant legal argument. But make sure you just stick to the direct wording of the constitution- no 'interpretating'. Cause interpretation isn't necessary in your fantasy-world.

You're being pretty thick Bighead. I told you when I asked where the the Constitution mentioned corporations that it was sarcasm. To borrow your crayon it meant that there is no place where they are mentioned.

And I also stated that both republicans and democrats consider it no more than asswipe unless it suits their agendas, one of those agendas being giving a corporation "person" status. Why you think my defending the Constitution means I agree with all the dipshit interpretations makes no sense either.

Now that said, the reason I say the courts ruled right in the favor of the scouts was not because their organization deserves to be called a person entity and be entitled to rights of same, but because when you join the Boy Scouts you expect to, and most likely intend to follow their lead. It does not mean the Scouts as a group are a "person" entity, but they are a private organization and it's their business who's accepted or not. The Scouts saying no gays, or Atheists is no different than a Catholic church saying they won't hold Muslim services. They don't have to.

When you go to work for a corporation you may not agree with a damn thing they stand for so they aren't a "person" or even representative of all those real persons involved in their ventures. I do not see them as having any right to protected speech as a "person". And that is not interpretation, that is simple fact.

Quote :

When you go to work for a corporation you may not agree with a damn thing they stand for so they aren't a "person" or even representative of all those real persons involved in their ventures. I do not see them as having any right to protected speech as a "person". And that is not interpretation, that is simple fact.

No, that is not a simple fact. That is your opinion... aka an interpretation.

As you have just clumsily demonstrated, "interpretation" is absolutely necessary if you're going to argue such a point point based on the constitution- seeings how the constitution does not specifically mention corporate personhood or corporate speech protections.


What it boils down to this this: You long for some legal/political Paradise Lost... one that never existed in the first place. You have this in common with lots of conservative types.

Not only that, but you really seem to think that your own face-value take on the bare words of the constitution- absent any context or understanding history or legal principles- is obviously 'correct'. So does every Tom, Dick, and Harry out there... and you ALL disagree with each other. Since it would be rather inconvenient to structure our legal system around the half-baked opinions of one cranky Chermin in Hayce... we grown-ups have no choice but to argue our points and let the courts decide. And like it or not, they 'interpret'. You know- 'cause the constitution does not and can not specifically address every single legal question under the sun.

It is not my opinion that a corporation is not a person. It seems you also flunked biology. If the founders had intended it to be "interpreted" they'd have said

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;............. Unless someone doesn't like it..................or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;............. Unless someone doesn't like it..............or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances........Unless someone doesn't like it."

But they didn't say it was open to interpretation so my argument stands.

I'll give you one point though. The founders by their writings seemed to be fairly bright men. They may not have considered the possibility of the extensive parade of morons that we'd allow to hold public office or otherwise have influence over the nations affairs after them.

Just so I follow, Ratz. You say that the Constitution should only be held to exact wording, yet agree with the Court's interpretation of it when it agrees with an agenda you subscribe to at the same time belittling others that do the same?

Just want to make sure I'm on the same page.

I assume you are referring to the Supreme Court agreeing that the Boy Scouts could deny membership to who they wish. Might I ask where it says in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that you have the right never to be rejected from a private organization?

And who am I belittling, besides those who can't comprehend the plain English of the Constitution?