The Water Cooler
See other The Water Cooler Articles
Title: Question of the Day. If Congress.....
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Nov 24, 2011
Author: A K A Stone
Post Date: 2011-11-24 21:31:24 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 7872
Comments: 36
If congress is forbidden to make a law. Can they go ahead and make that law anyways? Very simple question. My 11 year old could get the answer right. Can liberals?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Of course they can. They do it all the time. I don't like it, but what can I do about it?
I don't know what we can do about it. Complain on some obscure website maybe? :)
So is the constitution basically meaningless?
Not to me it isn't. It is to the Congress of criminals.
The question isn't what "no law" means. The question is what constitutes speech.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
Let me help you out. speech (spch) n. 1. a. The faculty or act of speaking. b. The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words. 2. Something spoken; an utterance. 3. Vocal communication; conversation. You're welcome. But next time to to the local elementary school and ask one of the fourth graders.
Your answer reminds me of this guy.
When did Exxon ever converse with Shell?
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
Stone would have been a Tory during the Revolution, since it was the only position that supported the Monarchy/East India Co, corporatism is free speech, alliance that existed then. The founders got rid of that concept and now the dummy TeaBaggers want it back.
"ROTFLMAO... Perfect! She longs... for someone to Teabag her. a man that squats on top of a women's face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" She aches for it"... ~~~JWpegler. Head Tea Bagger and Tea Party supporter extraordinaire, explicitly expressing his fantasies in public about other posters.
?????
Liar Liar your pants are on fire! I've already proved that wrong with the first amendment. If you think they ignored their own first amendment you are going to have to show me some law passed that did as you say. If you do that I will say sorry for calling you a liar. But lying does have a definition. You know it was wars position that corporations didn't exist back then so there was no prohibition. War can correct me if I am not exactly right on what he said.
You can collect money and lobby congress.
Wall Street owns the country…Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags. The [political] parties lie to us and the political speakers mislead us…Money rules. Mary Elizabeth Lease, 1890
Clueless as usual. Look up Citizens United...
Fred show me a talking building. Who are you to tell some successful person that they can't take. Why do you hate freedom so much?
I've already proved that wrong with the first amendment. If you think they ignored their own first amendment you are going to have to show me some law passed that did as you say. If you do that I will say sorry for calling you a liar. But lying does have a definition. You know it was wars position that corporations didn't exist back then so there was no prohibition. War can correct me if I am not exactly right on what he said. Show me where it was commonly practiced before the SCOTUS decision.
"ROTFLMAO... Perfect! She longs... for someone to Teabag her. a man that squats on top of a women's face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" She aches for it"... ~~~JWpegler. Head Tea Bagger and Tea Party supporter extraordinaire, explicitly expressing his fantasies in public about other posters.
Speaking of definitions speech (spch) n. 1. a. The faculty or act of speaking. b. The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words. 2. Something spoken; an utterance. 3. Vocal communication; conversation. hmmm, where did that come from Does a corporation have a brain, and thus thoughts or feelings to express? What physical structure does a corporation use to produce an utterance? If I wish to ask Bank of America how it is feeling today, how would I do that?
Wall Street owns the country…Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags. The [political] parties lie to us and the political speakers mislead us…Money rules. Mary Elizabeth Lease, 1890
The Supreme court simply undid an unconstitutional act that congress previously passed. So under color of law people were restricted from freely speaking. I'm not sure when congress passed the acts that were struck down. Mid 20th century?
So you don't have to worry about a building speaking. Only people can speak and they can say whatever the F they want to. Your position is that of Chinese communists.
speech (spch) n. 1. a. The faculty or act of speaking. b. The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words. 2. Something spoken; an utterance. 3. Vocal communication; conversation. hmmm, where did that come from Does a corporation have a brain, and thus thoughts or feelings to express? What physical structure does a corporation use to produce an utterance? If I wish to ask Bank of America how it is feeling today, how would I do that? I guess in his in his delusional mind, pieces of paper issued by a state are capable of independent thought and verbal skills. I wonder if my car registration has the same abilities.
"ROTFLMAO... Perfect! She longs... for someone to Teabag her. a man that squats on top of a women's face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" She aches for it"... ~~~JWpegler. Head Tea Bagger and Tea Party supporter extraordinaire, explicitly expressing his fantasies in public about other posters.
When a building talks get back to me.
You already believe that a piece of paper can talk so why not a building especially if it's owned by that piece of paper?
"ROTFLMAO... Perfect! She longs... for someone to Teabag her. a man that squats on top of a women's face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" She aches for it"... ~~~JWpegler. Head Tea Bagger and Tea Party supporter extraordinaire, explicitly expressing his fantasies in public about other posters.
So then a corporation is a building.
Wall Street owns the country…Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags. The [political] parties lie to us and the political speakers mislead us…Money rules. Mary Elizabeth Lease, 1890
Where have I advocated robbing people of free speech?
Wall Street owns the country…Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags. The [political] parties lie to us and the political speakers mislead us…Money rules. Mary Elizabeth Lease, 1890
The Supreme court simply undid an unconstitutional act that congress previously passed. So under color of law people were restricted from freely speaking. I'm not sure when congress passed the acts that were struck down. Mid 20th century? Certainly you would have that info handy as a basis for your argument since you so virulently support their decision and classify it as a returning to a historically conservative, constitutional concept, created and practiced by our founders.
"ROTFLMAO... Perfect! She longs... for someone to Teabag her. a man that squats on top of a women's face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" She aches for it"... ~~~JWpegler. Head Tea Bagger and Tea Party supporter extraordinaire, explicitly expressing his fantasies in public about other posters.
a.) They can make whatever law they want b.) The law can be challenges in the courts and if the challenge is successful, it can be overturned
The use of the word "persons" in the 14th Amendment (1868) opened the way for corporate personhood and a court reporter ran with it. Wikipedia: The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), headnotes are defined as "not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."[3] The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."[4] In other words, the headnote indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons.[5] However, this issue was not decided by the Court. Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct: Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.[6] Waite replied: I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.[6] C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports...had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases."[7] Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself. Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.[8] So before 1868 corporations were not persons and were not entitled to free speech.
Wall Street owns the country…Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags. The [political] parties lie to us and the political speakers mislead us…Money rules. Mary Elizabeth Lease, 1890
So you agree with NAMBLA's position that it should be able to publish child pornography...
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
No. It isn't speech either.
It's Press. Do you even KNOW what's in the first amendment?
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
Do you even KNOW what's in the first amendment? We will just have to disagree on this one. You can support NAMBLA and say they have first amendment rights to publish child porn. I disagree. The constitution specifically mentioned speech. I would agree that freedom to publish pictures that go along with stories would be covered. Just not in this case. It isn't speech.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Man can never make a perfect document to govern us.
It also specifically mentions "Press". "Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." How about if I form a religion that worships the killing of the God(s) of other religions?
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
An argument could be made as to what you suggest. Is this in fact an admission by you that sometimes you or others substitute their own sense of right and wrong and call that constitutional?
A) You've already made the argument..."what does "no law" mean? B) I'm not "suggesting" anything. Your logic MANDATES that any material is free to be published and the Congress is powerless to stop it. It means that I can start a religion that worships those who laugh at the "false Gods" like the ones in the Hebrew/Christian bible. NO LAW MEANS NO LAW.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
#2. To: Abcdefg (#1)
Of course they can. They do it all the time. I don't like it, but what can I do about it?
#3. To: Abcdefg (#1)
#4. To: A K A Stone (#3)
#5. To: A K A Stone (#0)
#6. To: war (#5)
#7. To: war (#5)
#8. To: A K A Stone (#6)
#9. To: war A K A Stone (#8)
When did Exxon ever converse with Shell?
#10. To: war (#8)
When did Exxon ever converse with Shell?
#11. To: mininggold, war (#9)
The founders got rid of that concept and now the dummy
#12. To: A K A Stone (#2)
I don't know what we can do about it. Complain on some obscure website maybe? :)
#13. To: A K A Stone (#10)
?????
#14. To: Fred Mertz (#13)
#15. To: A K A Stone (#14)
Fred show me a talking building.
#16. To: A K A Stone (#11)
Liar Liar your pants are on fire!
#17. To: A K A Stone (#11)
But lying does have a definition. You know it was wars position that corporations didn't exist back then so there was no prohibition. War can correct me if I am not exactly right on what he said.
#18. To: mininggold (#16)
Show me where it was commonly practiced before the SCOTUS decision.
#19. To: lucysmom (#17)
Does a corporation have a brain, and thus thoughts or feelings to express?
#20. To: lucysmom (#17)
Speaking of definitions
#21. To: lucysmom (#17)
What physical structure does a corporation use to produce an utterance?
#22. To: A K A Stone (#21)
When a building talks get back to me.
#23. To: A K A Stone (#21)
When a building talks get back to me.
#24. To: A K A Stone (#19)
Only people can speak and they can say whatever the F they want to. Your position is that of Chinese communists.
#25. To: A K A Stone (#18)
Show me where it was commonly practiced before the SCOTUS decision.
#26. To: A K A Stone (#0)
If congress is forbidden to make a law. Can they go ahead and make that law anyways?
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure
#27. To: A K A Stone (#18)
The Supreme court simply undid an unconstitutional act that congress previously passed.
#28. To: A K A Stone (#11)
#29. To: war (#28)
So you agree with NAMBLA's position that it should be able to publish child pornography...
#30. To: A K A Stone (#29)
#31. To: war (#30)
It's Press.
#32. To: war (#30)
#33. To: war (#30)
#34. To: A K A Stone (#31)
The constitution specifically [mentions] speech.
#35. To: war (#34)
#36. To: A K A Stone (#35)
(Edited)
An argument could be made as to what you suggest.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]