|
Yeah. The real answer is that the right to donate to political campaigns is closer to a right like voting than it is to a right like owning property. There are some policy justifications in some contexts though -- it makes sense to allow industry comments on regulations governing the industry, for example. VitalSigns posted:I don't understand how the constitution can guarantee any human rights for corporations, when corporations are a creation of federal law and can all be legislated back out of existence tomorrow Keep in mind that legal reasoning is almost always 10000% retroactive. Judges almost always decide the result they want first, then find the reasoning that justifies it. This is *especially*, but not uniquely, true for conservative-movement judges.
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 21:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 10:32 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't understand how the constitution can guarantee any human rights for corporations, when corporations are a creation of federal law and can all be legislated back out of existence tomorrow We legislate natural persons out of existence too, though admittedly there's always a few busywork steps in-between.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 21:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't understand how the constitution can guarantee any human rights for corporations, when corporations are a creation of federal law and can all be legislated back out of existence tomorrow Just to be clear - corporations are almost all a creation of *state* law, and Congress probably does not have the power to legislate them out of existence even if that was something they wanted to do. They can regulate them within the limits set on Congress, but they have no actual control over whether they get created or not. That's Delaware's job. (There was debate at the Constitutional Convention over whether to provide Congress with the power to create corporations; Madison proposed it, and it was rejected.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 21:54
|
|
|
Would this hypothetical radical anticorporate Congress be able to ban them from participating in interstate commerce? That would have the same practical effect.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 21:57
|
|
|
One of Warren's bills is to require corporations of a certain size that conduct interstate commerce to charter with the federal government and adhere to certain requirements: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3348/text
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 21:59
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Would this hypothetical radical anticorporate Congress be able to ban them from participating in interstate commerce? That would have the same practical effect. Sure, why not. (Would the Supreme Court uphold that? Probably depends on which Supreme Court you get, it's not like Commerce Clause jurisprudence is anything resembling coherent.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 22:00
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:
I would expect equal protection under the 14th to apply to whatever rights corporations do have, since given the ammendment's history it ought to protect a business owned by black people from being treated unfairly by the state government.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 22:18
|
|
|
twodot posted:One of Warren's bills is to require corporations of a certain size that conduct interstate commerce to charter with the federal government and adhere to certain requirements: I'd been too lazy to actually find the bill. Thanks! The important criterion is "a billion dollars a year in revenue". I think that's a bit high as a floor but it also means the bill would be easier to defend in court.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 22:20
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Just to be clear - corporations are almost all a creation of *state* law, and Congress probably does not have the power to legislate them out of existence even if that was something they wanted to do. "No non-natural person may engage in interstate or foreign commerce in the United States of America" would probably do it (e;f,b). Kalman posted:(There was debate at the Constitutional Convention over whether to provide Congress with the power to create corporations; Madison proposed it, and it was rejected.) There are only a few federal corporations (U.S. Postal Services, Tennessee Valley Authority, etc.), yes, each with its own enabling statute...and then all the national banks with "Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." which confused me the first time I saw that as an entity name. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30365.pdf https://www.occ.treas.gov/topics/licensing/national-banks-fed-savings-assoc-lists/national-by-name-pdf.pdf
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 23:23
|
|
|
Looking forward to it being constitutional to make it illegal for corporations to own printing presses, broadcast licenses, or internet publishing platforms used in interstate commerce if you guys get your way. It will also be excellent for the economy if corporations can have their property seized without compensation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 00:40
|
|
|
Drone Jett posted:Looking forward to it being constitutional to make it illegal for corporations to own printing presses, broadcast licenses, or internet publishing platforms used in interstate commerce if you guys get your way. This but unironically.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 00:47
|
|
|
Drone Jett posted:It will also be excellent for the economy if corporations can have their property seized without compensation. I agree, it will be excellent for several prominent companies to be nationalized and for their largest shareholders to be expropriated. Maybe we can start with Amazon, since that's a monopoly and there's no particular benefit to keeping it in private hands.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 01:20
|
|
|
Drone Jett posted:Looking forward to it being constitutional to make it illegal for corporations to own printing presses, broadcast licenses, or internet publishing platforms used in interstate commerce if you guys get your way. What about any of that would be bad, it all sounds neutral to super duper good
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 01:28
|
|
|
Well, once it's established that groups of people organized and pooling resources under a common charter have no rights whatsoever, we can proscribe troublesome groups like the NRA, or the ACLU. After all, their members will still have the right to pursue their political interests individually.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 01:31
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Well, once it's established that groups of people organized and pooling resources under a common charter have no rights whatsoever, we can proscribe troublesome groups like the NRA, or the ACLU. After all, their members will still have the right to pursue their political interests individually. I still don't understand why liberals are in such a hurry to lose the next civil war, but that's a different subject.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 01:45
|
|
|
People don't suddenly lose their rights because they choose to act collectively instead of individually.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 01:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What about any of that would be bad, it all sounds neutral to super duper good I believe they're suggesting it will encourage
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 01:48
|
|
|
AGGGGH BEES posted:People don't suddenly lose their rights because they choose to act collectively instead of individually. Unless they're commies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:07
|
|
|
AGGGGH BEES posted:People don't suddenly lose their rights because they choose to act collectively instead of individually.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:28
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Well, once it's established that groups of people organized and pooling resources under a common charter have no rights whatsoever, we can proscribe troublesome groups like the NRA, or the ACLU. After all, their members will still have the right to pursue their political interests individually.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:34
|
|
|
AGGGGH BEES posted:People don't suddenly lose their rights because they choose to act collectively instead of individually. They do when they form a union 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:34
|
|
|
ulmont posted:"No non-natural person may engage in interstate or foreign commerce in the United States of America" would probably do it (e;f,b). I don't see how you can justify banning sapient artificial intelligences from engaging in interstate commerce. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 04:00
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:They do when they form a union Is this about unions collecting money from nonmembers and then spending it on political stuff?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 04:03
|
|
|
Zoran posted:I agree, it will be excellent for several prominent companies to be nationalized and for their largest shareholders to be expropriated. Maybe we can start with Amazon, since that's a monopoly and there's no particular benefit to keeping it in private hands. Amazon is just a private company that figured out how to build a shopping infrastructure for the internet. That's great for them but they're a natural monopoly and there is no particular reason not to nationalize natural monopolies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 04:41
|
|
|
Yes, nationalize Amazon to stop its (checks notes) lower prices and better service, typical monopoly behavior.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 05:03
|
|
|
Drone Jett posted:Yes, nationalize Amazon to stop its (checks notes) lower prices and better service, typical monopoly behavior. Nationalize Amazon to stop it basically stealing the entire business plan of anyone who operates on Amazon (it is not functionally possible to not operate on amazon) and then strategically sabotaging them while establishing a subsidiary competitor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 05:29
|
|
|
The government has no business doing what Amazon does. They arn't providing any kind of essential public service that the government could do better. In fact, given how worthless the USPS is, quite the contrary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 14:17
|
|
|
Can you expand on why you think the USPS is worthless?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 15:24
|
|
|
UPS and Fedex subcontract a lot of the last mile of their delivery out to USPS. The only reason small towns and truly rural areas get any mail is because USPS exists. Without it, private corporations would abandon deliveries to truly rural areas, like Alaska, both Montanas, and the parts of Colorado outside of the greater Denver metropolitan area.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 15:28
|
|
|
AGGGGH BEES posted:The government has no business doing what Amazon does. They arn't providing any kind of essential public service that the government could do better. In fact, given how worthless the USPS is, quite the contrary. The government shouldn't do what Amazon does! *Leaps immediately to the example that proves why the government could do it just as well or better* FedEx and UPS both rely on the infrastructure established by the USPS for their business models to function. Ever heard of zip codes?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 15:28
|
|
|
AGGGGH BEES posted:The government has no business doing what Amazon does. They arn't providing any kind of essential public service that the government could do better. In fact, given how worthless the USPS is, quite the contrary. The USPS worthless? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The USPS worthless? Had some idiot on Facebook also tryin to say this dumb poo poo too. Asked why aren't you questioning why the USPS is worse than it's could be and who's behind the laws and regulations surrounding them. HINT: it's republicans, the one who are tying to destroy anything public so they can privatize it. I used to work at FedEx. We shipped a lot of USPS mail bags. Because republicans mandated that they turn over a certain portion of their mail to FedEx and UPS because clearly they couldn't meet the shipping demands 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 16:42
|
|
|
Don't scare him off, we might have a new jrodefeld here and that could provide years of entertainment
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 17:31
|
|
|
The USPS probably also would need a constitutional amendment in order to be abolished or even privatized, wouldn't it? Or is the general interpretation that it's all an enumeration of powers and nothing implying specific duties?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 17:41
|
|
|
AGGGGH BEES posted:The government has no business doing what Amazon does. They arn't providing any kind of essential public service that the government could do better. In fact, given how worthless the USPS is, quite the contrary. The USPS is amazing at their job. You got duped by all the propaganda about how they’re in debt, didn’t you?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:The USPS probably also would need a constitutional amendment in order to be abolished or even privatized, wouldn't it? Or is the general interpretation that it's all an enumeration of powers and nothing implying specific duties? The constitution doesn't say the USPS has to be useful so thats probably how they'd get over that one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:The USPS probably also would need a constitutional amendment in order to be abolished or even privatized, wouldn't it? Or is the general interpretation that it's all an enumeration of powers and nothing implying specific duties? Enumeration of powers. The Constitution says Congress has the power to establish post offices and post roads, but not that Congress must do those things. ...right near the post offices Congress is given the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal, but it's been a very long time (over 200 years) since that's happened.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Congress is given the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal, but it's been a very long time (over 200 years) since that's happened.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 18:52
|
|
|
AGGGGH BEES posted:The government has no business doing what Amazon does. They arn't providing any kind of essential public service that the government could do better. In fact, given how worthless the USPS is, quite the contrary. Have you ever had an amazon package delivered by AMZL, their in-house package delivery service? I've been trying to cut back on how much I use Amazon for a lot of reasons, and let me tell you, their horrible shitshow of a delivery service has made it a whole lot easier. "No corner left un-cut at any level" is the most generous way I can describe their USPS-alike service, and they only do the easy stuff in dense city environments.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 10:32 |
|
|
blackmongoose posted:Don't scare him off, we might have a new jrodefeld here and that could provide years of entertainment Well I was trying before everyone dog piled. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 19:22
|
|