Comments on: Supreme Court To Hear Two Major First Amendment Cases http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/19/supreme-court-to-hear-two-major-first-amendment-cases/ Life. Liberty. Property. Defending individual freedom and liberty, one post at a time. Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:15:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Mike D http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/19/supreme-court-to-hear-two-major-first-amendment-cases/#comment-7385 Mike D Sun, 21 Jan 2007 22:01:02 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/19/supreme-court-to-hear-two-major-first-amendment-cases/#comment-7385 "Would you rather the government imposed judgement as to which individuals are entitled to constitutional protection" The larger threat to individual liberty today is from corporations, not against them (vis a vis baby bells cooperating with illegal phone record collection, patents on DNA, etc). No doubt, corporations are essential in our society and must be protected from tyranny, but they are certainly NOT people. People have inalienable rights, corporations do not. “Would you rather the government imposed judgement as to which individuals are entitled to constitutional protection”

The larger threat to individual liberty today is from corporations, not against them (vis a vis baby bells cooperating with illegal phone record collection, patents on DNA, etc). No doubt, corporations are essential in our society and must be protected from tyranny, but they are certainly NOT people. People have inalienable rights, corporations do not.

]]> By: Vogue http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/19/supreme-court-to-hear-two-major-first-amendment-cases/#comment-6648 Vogue Fri, 19 Jan 2007 23:48:46 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/19/supreme-court-to-hear-two-major-first-amendment-cases/#comment-6648 While I certainly think there is valid concern as to whether a corporation should be considered under the same rights as a person, this really only goes to show that we need further definition on rights. Not to say that a business/entity bill of rights wouldn't be further proof that the government must regulate everything, even in a republic. But honestly, isn't this America? Land of the free? Home of the brave? Where capitalism is the final frontier? In support of a true capitalistic democratic republic, those with the money SHOULD be able to throw it around how ever they wish (legally of course)! That said, I don't really have any money, so I will just bow out and keep the rest of my opinions to myself until the day I develop my own Microsoft, create my own Myspace website, or find a way to profit on some other poor Joe's hard work and dedication. :o) While I certainly think there is valid concern as to whether a corporation should be considered under the same rights as a person, this really only goes to show that we need further definition on rights. Not to say that a business/entity bill of rights wouldn’t be further proof that the government must regulate everything, even in a republic. But honestly, isn’t this America? Land of the free? Home of the brave? Where capitalism is the final frontier? In support of a true capitalistic democratic republic, those with the money SHOULD be able to throw it around how ever they wish (legally of course)! That said, I don’t really have any money, so I will just bow out and keep the rest of my opinions to myself until the day I develop my own Microsoft, create my own Myspace website, or find a way to profit on some other poor Joe’s hard work and dedication. :o)

]]> By: Al http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/19/supreme-court-to-hear-two-major-first-amendment-cases/#comment-6647 Al Fri, 19 Jan 2007 23:39:59 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/19/supreme-court-to-hear-two-major-first-amendment-cases/#comment-6647 I don't feel that any corporation should have any say on matters of political opinion or social decision. I also feel that "not for profit" organizations should be influencing government in any way either. I'm sure WI Right To Life is a for profit action anyway so the ads in question should follow the same standards as any other corporation. I don’t feel that any corporation should have any say on matters of political opinion or social decision. I also feel that “not for profit” organizations should be influencing government in any way either. I’m sure WI Right To Life is a for profit action anyway so the ads in question should follow the same standards as any other corporation.

]]> By: Ken McManaman http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/19/supreme-court-to-hear-two-major-first-amendment-cases/#comment-6646 Ken McManaman Fri, 19 Jan 2007 23:35:27 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/19/supreme-court-to-hear-two-major-first-amendment-cases/#comment-6646 Corporations are not always "persons" entitled to protection under the Bill of Rights, specifically the 1st and 14th Amendments (which allows selective incorporation by the states) to the US Constitution. A corporation is normally considered, in law and in equity, as a "legal fiction" and, if this is the usually definition, how can it be construed as a "person" entitled to first amendment protection in political fundraising matters? Corporations are not always “persons” entitled to protection under the Bill of Rights, specifically the 1st and 14th Amendments (which allows selective incorporation by the states) to the US Constitution. A corporation is normally considered, in law and in equity, as a “legal fiction” and, if this is the usually definition, how can it be construed as a “person” entitled to first amendment protection in political fundraising matters?

]]> By: David Moore http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/19/supreme-court-to-hear-two-major-first-amendment-cases/#comment-6645 David Moore Fri, 19 Jan 2007 23:05:14 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/19/supreme-court-to-hear-two-major-first-amendment-cases/#comment-6645 Corporations are allowed free speach because they are legally recognised as individuals able to own property and sue in court. Would you rather the government imposed judgement as to which individuals are entitled to constitutional protection and which need not such fundemental rights. I thought our republic had moved passed such attempts to limit the rights of individuals. Such attempts at regulating who actually gets to exercise their rights were employeed quite successfully in the past to prevent women and blacks from voting, the irish from unionising and italians from owning property. Laws must be applied equally and the rights of all protected our republic could find itself slipping quickly towards despotism. Corporations are allowed free speach because they are legally recognised as individuals able to own property and sue in court. Would you rather the government imposed judgement as to which individuals are entitled to constitutional protection and which need not such fundemental rights. I thought our republic had moved passed such attempts to limit the rights of individuals. Such attempts at regulating who actually gets to exercise their rights were employeed quite successfully in the past to prevent women and blacks from voting, the irish from unionising and italians from owning property. Laws must be applied equally and the rights of all protected our republic could find itself slipping quickly towards despotism.

]]> By: David Moore http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/19/supreme-court-to-hear-two-major-first-amendment-cases/#comment-6644 David Moore Fri, 19 Jan 2007 23:00:18 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/19/supreme-court-to-hear-two-major-first-amendment-cases/#comment-6644 This news givs me hope. The fact that McCain-Fiengold came into being shortly after Mssrs McCain and Feingold's own heated battles with 3rd party activist groups demonstrates the need to protect free speach from any politician looking to prohibit it. Especially when such attempts are wrapped in the guise of "perserving the integrety of our Republic". This is tantamount to "destroying the village in order to save it." This news givs me hope. The fact that McCain-Fiengold came into being shortly after Mssrs McCain and Feingold’s own heated battles with 3rd party activist groups demonstrates the need to protect free speach from any politician looking to prohibit it. Especially when such attempts are wrapped in the guise of “perserving the integrety of our Republic”. This is tantamount to “destroying the village in order to save it.”

]]> By: Free speech for people http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/19/supreme-court-to-hear-two-major-first-amendment-cases/#comment-6643 Free speech for people Fri, 19 Jan 2007 22:39:52 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/19/supreme-court-to-hear-two-major-first-amendment-cases/#comment-6643 Why corporations are allowed free speech escapes me completely also. Why corporations are allowed free speech escapes me completely also.

]]>