Social Issues vs. Economics

But do you think the original intent of the Bill of Rights was to guarantee the rights of (multinational) corporations or citizens?

 

The "Bill of Rights" in their original intent, were seen as natural rights of all humans both citizens and non-citizens, not to be abridged by government, Federal, State or local within the jurisdiction of the U.S. and its' territories.

 

Non-citizens, that’s interesting. So can a terrorist claim the right of free speech under the Bill of Rights? Terrorists are non-citizens.

The preamble of the Constitution states, “We the people of the United States of America…
I don’t see how that can apply to non-citizens.

What part of the Constitution makes provision for non-citizens?

 

Timothy McVeigh was a citizen.

Reading many posts of the here makes me wonder 'how' American history is taught in schools today, or 'if' it is taught at all.

Initially, the 13 colonies each regarded as an individual sovereign State, unified and declared their independence from Great Britain and King George III with justification as stated in the "Declaration of Independence".

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

That document serves as the basis for the U.S. Constitution and its' interpretation.

Noting that the U.S. Constitution as initially created was not, nor was it intended to be perfect and everlasting as initially written, but only adequate based upon the times to allow all the colonies to adopt it willingly. It should also be recognized that the South was NOT allowed to secede from the Union based upon the content of the documents to which they were signatories and attempting to violate. There was never an intent to keep slavery a right of slave owners when the Constitution was being written, but the immediate elimination would likely have made it impossible to bring all the colonies to accept and form a "more perfect union" recognizing it not to be a "perfect union".

Yes, terrorists, both citizen and non-citizen, are allowed the right of free speech with the same limitations applicable although non-citizens can be refused residency or jailed and later deported as determined necessary.

The preamble of the Constitution exists simply as a statement that as free and sovereign people we, the citizens of the sovereign States are exerting our right to take responsibility for the creation of the laws under which we will therefore agree to live under. Noting that the laws of our nation are applicable to not only the citizens, but also to those who visit. The Declaration of Independence declares the natural rights of all humans, foremost the right to self governance, and as such the Constitution serves as the law of the land, applicable to all persons within its jurisdiction. There are no separate laws applicable to non-citizens who legally enter the country other than those which allow them to extend or make permanent their stay.

 

The Declaration of Independence is as its name implies; it is a letter to the King of England declaring colonial independence.

It sets no legally binding precedent. There is not a single case that was specifically decided on the Declaration of Independence or its provisions; no decision has turned or can turn on the Declaration of Independence itself.

You have not shown what part of The Constitution guarantees the rights of non-citizens.

 

It was, as its' name implies a declaration, claiming the right of independence, expounding on the reasons for dissolving the political and governing connection with Great Britain and the King, basically stating that the unalienable rights (without specifying citizens) are secured by government, who derives its' powers from the consent of the governed.
Although copies of the declaration were sent to England, there is no record of a copy being sent to the King or confirmation that he ever saw any one of the copies sent there.

The Declaration of Independence may not have set a legally binding precedent, but did serve as a precedent for the actions taken after defeating the British as a basis for how the about to be formed new government should be formed. The were still no U.S. citizens but only 13 sovereign States united in defeating the British so that they could then try to form a new government as described in the Declaration of Independence, in more detail and acceptable to each of the original 13 States in creating "a more perfect union."

The Constitution no where claims that rights are to be extended only to citizens, and all persons including non-citizens are entitled to the same protections as a citizen while within the jurisdiction of the U.S. as long as they abide by the laws applicable to the citizens.

You appear to be hung up one the words "We the people of the United States" being used in the preamble, which would only apply to those States who would later ratify making their residents "people of the United States."

The primary objective of the Constitution is to enumerate the duties of the Federal government within which government should be confined.

Are you implying that non-citizens should be treated differently than citizens, and if so in what ways?

 

I feel my opinion on that matter is insignificant. The main point I’m trying to make is about interpretation of original intent of The Constitution. It seems I’m not doing such a good job but I’ll try again if you’ll bear with me.

You’re correct. I cede this point to you. J

Are you in agreement with the Supreme Court that corporations are “persons?” If so, what part of The Constitution equates corporations with personhood?

Are you in agreement with the Supreme Court, that to limit the use of corporate funds to influence state and federal elections violates the first amendment protection of free speech? If so, what part of The Constitution equates money with speech?

I would add The Constitution to your list too...

Corporations ≠ Persons
Money ≠ Speech

 

While you won't find the word corporation in the U.S. Constitution, the nearest you might get to original interpretation would be to read some Supreme Court decisions dealing with private holdings of more than one individual such as "Trustees of Dartmouth College v.Woodward - 1819", although the Code of Laws of the United States, "1 USC § 1 - Words denoting number, gender, and so forth" clearly states the following:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—
the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
This makes sense as all the references in addition to the word individuals are held to much the same, and often much greater, accountabilities and responsibilities under our laws, and taxed. Remember one of the major causes of the American Revolution began in the 1750's with the slogan "No taxation without representation."

Yes, I am in full agreement as the Federal government produces many laws that have effect on their ability to be competitive and remain in business. Again, the Constitution no where equates money with speech, but in a country so large, it takes money to have your words spread and heard by a great number of people , especially in Federal elections which have effect on everyone from coast to coast. That's a consequence we must accept when the greatest power resides in a Central government.

I take it "The Federalist papers" and "The Anti-Federalist papers" are no longer mentioned in school? They provide a great source of the disagreements that existed at our founding over the Constitution.

Corporations are NOT single individuals, but ARE taxed as an individual, and are collectively owned by those who invest in them and also pay taxes.

Money provides the means by which speech can be more widely spread. The nice thing about speech is that you don't have to listen if you don't want to, and you are free to disagree with it. Most often politicians try to say thing that can be broadly interpreted, and more often it those who are not running for office that by speaking widely and freely force them to try and clarify what they (the politicians) have said. Isn't everyone hoping for 'change'? The same 'change'?

 

How is equal representation possible in a system in which money equals speech and corporations are persons?

The inevitable outcome of such a system is that multinational corporations receive government representation while real persons with no money have no speech and therefore no representation.

 

How is equal representation possible in any system?
Money only allows speech to become more widely spread and more often repeated. It doesn't matter if the source is from wealthy individuals, corporations, labor unions, or non-profit PAC's, and the result is that the politicians who prevail in the election are most beholding to those who contributed large sums towards their campaigns. In my opinion, it is how we have allowed our political system to be changed, from one in which government derived its powers from the bottom (consent of the governed) into one in which powers are exercised from the top (by re-interpretation of the consent in order to achieve an agenda).

It is not the responsibility of government to produce equality among all inhabitants, but only to ensure that the laws we (the people) consent to be governed within are applicable and enforced equally among us all.

In my opinion, we would be better served by the media if they would confine their coverage of those running for office to questions relating to 'how' they would govern, and not what they think of their opponents.

One solution to what you seem to feel to be a problem, money equaling speech, would be to vote for the candidate who receives the least campaign contributions.

I still maintain that until the Constitution is made more relevant to what the Federal government is allowed to do, little will change regardless of who is elected. Both States, and the people will become even less relevant in giving consent to how they are governed, which results in laws that benefit some to the detriment of others and massively increasing debts which increases the dependency of the voter base to the point that they primarily vote for those who promise them the most.

I came into this world when the U.S. population was about 128 million, and the Federal debt was only about $73 billion, or a debt of about $570 per person, with a median household income about $1160.
Today the U.S. populations is about 313 million, and the Federal debt is nearly $16 trillion, or a debt of about $51,000 per person, with the median household income about $49,000.

How long can a government perpetuate fiscal irresponsibility by purposely devaluing its currency, which produces the illusion of government remaining solvent as it results in economic growth as a result of inflation by increasing the cost of living to the entire population, while reducing our ability to compete in the worlds economy?

Examine the effect of the Federal reserve act, the 16th and 17th amendments, and try to understand the changes they have produced over the last nearly 100 years.

 

If money did not equal speech and corporations were not persons, equal representation would most certainly be more likely.

The right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is not in any sense equal if money equals speech and corporations are persons.

You and the Supreme Court are violating the original intent of The Constitution with such a broad interpretation.

Corporations ≠ Persons
Money ≠ Speech

 

Isn't what you are trying to imply is that money is quite effective in purchasing the ear of our elected politicians? With a public nearly evenly divided on many issues that will be controlled by a central government, how can anything resembling equal representation be achieved?

 

That is my concern.

Exactly...

Citizens United helped pave the way to the Super-PAC, the effects of which are currently unknown.

What level of representation do you think Super-Pac's receive?

Do you still believe inequality doesn't matter?

 

And likely most everyones concern, but clearly not one which can be solved in a way satisfactory to all concerned.

I haven't given them a thought, but would assume that if the candidate(s) they have supported are elected, the reasons that candidate received their support will receive attention by that candidate as a means of assuring support in future elections.

It would depend on what inequality we are talking about. Some things cannot be made equal, and no one should be led to believe that it is the responsibility of government to make laws which entitle them to being made 'more' equal at the expense of others without their (the others) consent.

 

The right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is not in any sense equal if money equals speech and corporations are persons.

You and the Supreme Court are violating the original intent of The Constitution with such a broad interpretation.

Corporations ≠ Persons
Money ≠ Speech

 

I don't mean to interrupt, but I found this a while ago, and it seems pertinent.

http://www.knowthecandidates.org/ktc/bushcontributors.htm

 

Actually, the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are not things upon which the government was formed to assure all would share equally, but only protect the lawful exercise of in acquiring or maintaining.

Yes, how and where you spend your money can be seen as a form of speech. Where do you go to spend your money? Personally, I spend my money where I feel I get something of equivalent value in return for the money I'm spending. Corporations like individuals pay taxes, so why should they be excluded from having a say politically when government has the power to create laws and regulations that may affect their ability to compete or costs of employing people across the nation?

How would you feel if corporations were to be untaxed and then allowed no voice in politics? After all they are not people, and the people they employ or purchase their products and/or services do pay taxes. Would that be a more suitably narrow interpretation of the Constitution, acceptable to you?

 

Or...

http://www.opensecrets.org/races/contrib.php?cycle=2008&id=PRES

Or even better, once the info begins to be provided...

http://www.opensecrets.org/races/contrib.php?id=PRES&cycle=2012

 

Though corporations pay taxes, some are subsidized. And although corporations pay taxes--like people do--the needs of the corporation are different from the needs of people. People are for people; corporations are for profit.

How can this be balanced out?

Life, liberty, and property.

 

Are you calling me a corporation?

And just what are we trying to balance out?

Oh yes, and a large number of 'people' are also subsidized.