Corporations are people?

Message boards : Politics : Corporations are people?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 . . . 19 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 455
Credit: 2,422,890
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1541855 - Posted: 15 Jul 2014, 3:55:05 UTC - in response to Message 1541845.  

The Supreme Court holds the power to interpret laws and declare them unconstitutional under the principle of judicial review. While Congress doesn't technically have the power to overrule a Supreme Court decision, it can take actions to lessen, or even negate, the effect of a court ruling. Congress can thereby render the court's interpretation obsolete, either by passing a new law or amending the old law to better achieve its original intent.
ID: 1541855 · Report as offensive
Batter Up
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 May 99
Posts: 1946
Credit: 24,860,347
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1541863 - Posted: 15 Jul 2014, 4:09:32 UTC - in response to Message 1541855.  

Congress can thereby render the court's interpretation obsolete, either by passing a new law or amending the old law to better achieve its original intent.
If they did that the new law would be struck down 9-0. Anyway congress knows better than to try it as it would lead to a "constitutional crises".
ID: 1541863 · Report as offensive
Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 455
Credit: 2,422,890
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1541870 - Posted: 15 Jul 2014, 4:26:50 UTC - in response to Message 1541759.  

United States Constitution wrote:

"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."


translation...

Congress, shall not establish a Faith at the federal level, or disallow a state to have theirs, the federal government shall not disallow any individual the right to speak and address congress and the same applies to the press, the people have the right to join together in any form they seem to want or need, and the one as well as a whole state can fully address the federal government to make or remove laws as seen fit by the people or group of people.

Do I believe a group of people are one person? No. Do I agree with laws that allow a corp to say it's a person? No.

Do I agree a group of like minded people can band together and make a law? Yes. Do I agree with a laws that allow a group of people to band together and make a allow? Yes.

I have been very clear as to what a human being is and is not. A person is a person from conseption to natural death.

Your B*llsh!t arguments and putting words into my mouth that I did not use is just what I have stated, B*llsh!t... Hollow arguments with no logic and the placing of bad ethics along with poor science is the topping on this roadapple pie you have all made. The Causal Agent always shockes me with new people that have the art of stacking sh!t higher and higher. I assume there is a limit of this stacking but as of yet I see no end.

Where the left goes wrong with this wacky logic is how to define what life is. It must to the far left look like a human. They banter the word racism all the time but are racist to life itself, you must look human to be human, racism of HUMAN LIFE, because of LOOKS?!!

The right goes wrong by putting that human life at risk for no reason. With no regard for rule of law, we have national interests overseas that we must attend to by killing others for our cause of exporting our ideals, of, rule of law! LMAO! Yes, bin laden needed lead to the head, no doubt. But it would have been better off for all of us if we did it like the IDF after the olympic killings of the Jewish people. We have NO INTEREST overseas other then free and open trade, our first president was very clear about this with his goodbye speech after his second shot at the big seat. Follow your founders and you wont go wrong as many times as we have of late...

So, here I am once again in the center, clingging onto life and what a life is. I'm center, you are either left or right of me but you for sure are not center with me. I don't go for the shell game, or three card monty. I go for the sure bet everytime. I make no mistake when life matters. I side with life and that makes me center and you with the wacky ethics of either side, on the wrong side of the argument. Try morals, look into your heart, the morals you was born with. And don't give in to bad science and ethics of the day.



the argument of when life starts is one of the oldest arguments in human history. it is not going to be decided in this thread. your view is contrary to nature or if you prefer casual agents design since over 70% of fertilized eggs are never implanted in the uterine wall or are at least naturally miscarried during the next menstrual cycle.

you are saying that we are either in left field or right field while you are center field. the problem with that is that you are playing baseball when everyone else is playing football.

as to you mistranslating the first amendment it was purposely written in plain english that anyone with a 5th grade reading skill would not miss interpret it.
your translation left out any thing having to do with the "free practice of"
why is that?
ID: 1541870 · Report as offensive
Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 455
Credit: 2,422,890
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1541873 - Posted: 15 Jul 2014, 4:32:17 UTC - in response to Message 1541863.  

Congress can thereby render the court's interpretation obsolete, either by passing a new law or amending the old law to better achieve its original intent.
If they did that the new law would be struck down 9-0. Anyway congress knows better than to try it as it would lead to a "constitutional crises".


==============================================================
Congress can't eliminate court precedent. While Congress may pass a new law that changes the impact of the court's decision, the precedent remains in effect. For example, in 1986 the Supreme Court ruled that a federal civil rights law that protected people with disabilities from discrimination did not apply to the airline industry. However, Congress meant for that law to apply to airlines. Congress responded to the decision by passing a new law, the Air Carrier Access Act, that applied specifically to air travel. While this had the effect of protecting the rights of disabled people traveling by air, it didn't overturn the court's decision. The earlier law still doesn't apply to the airline industry.
===================================================================

as you can see it has happened before without causing a constitutional crisis
it will happen again it is part and parcel of the checks and balances that our constitution was created with
ID: 1541873 · Report as offensive
Batter Up
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 May 99
Posts: 1946
Credit: 24,860,347
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1541874 - Posted: 15 Jul 2014, 4:47:10 UTC - in response to Message 1541870.  
Last modified: 15 Jul 2014, 4:54:31 UTC

the argument of when life starts
The sperm and egg are alive the question is when do they become human.
For example, in 1986 the Supreme Court ruled that a federal civil rights law that protected people with disabilities from discrimination did not apply to the airline industry.
I'm not familiar with that case but it most likely was a technicality, like overturning the "net neutrality" rules. Congress can't make a law telling the family who ownes Hobby Lobby what they should believe.

Are you suggesting the thought police should be legal? This is all academic because the Republicans will control both houses in January.
ID: 1541874 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1541965 - Posted: 15 Jul 2014, 10:14:34 UTC - in response to Message 1541874.  

I'm not familiar with that case but it most likely was a technicality, like overturning the "net neutrality" rules. Congress can't make a law telling the family who ownes Hobby Lobby what they should believe.

You should read what this bill actually does. It does not tell the Hobby Lobby owners what to believe, it amends or specifies in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that for profit organizations cannot use it to claim religious exemption. This way it would not overrule the SCOTUS decision because that ruling was based on the current interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. By changing what that act does, they simply make the SCOTUS decision obsolete.
ID: 1541965 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1541997 - Posted: 15 Jul 2014, 11:54:56 UTC - in response to Message 1541991.  
Last modified: 15 Jul 2014, 11:55:54 UTC

Perhaps that how it works in Europe. Not The US.

Then do tell, how does it work in the US? Does congress not have the power to update, remove or amend laws?
ID: 1541997 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1542009 - Posted: 15 Jul 2014, 12:25:11 UTC - in response to Message 1542005.  

Perhaps that how it works in Europe. Not The US.

Then do tell, how does it work in the US? Does congress not have the power to update, remove or amend laws?

Not Constitutional Issue's (SCOTUS Decision's).

The US Constitution must be Amended.

Yeah but this does not involve a constitutional issue. This isn't about the First ammendment, this is about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, its not part of the constitution so congress can do with it whatever it wants to do with it.
ID: 1542009 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1542038 - Posted: 15 Jul 2014, 13:19:47 UTC - in response to Message 1542019.  

Negative. But of course, you studied American Constitutional Law in College.

You don't need to have studied US constitutional law to know that the RFRA is not part of the constitution but is simply a federal law that applies to other federal law. The kind of law congress can adapt, expand, decrease or amend in any way it likes. Of course, the SCOTUS can later on decide that what congress did in some other way is unconstitutional, but the act of changing aspects of the RFRA is not unconstitutional.
ID: 1542038 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1542070 - Posted: 15 Jul 2014, 14:51:21 UTC

In order to understand American Constitutional Law you must understand the people have the last word, no damn court system, elected, or president with a pen and phone.
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1542070 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1542090 - Posted: 15 Jul 2014, 15:10:01 UTC - in response to Message 1542075.  
Last modified: 15 Jul 2014, 15:11:08 UTC

In order to understand American Constitutional Law you must understand the people have the last word, no damn court system, elected, or president with a pen and phone.

Also a negative.

The Constitution has 'The Last Word', unless Amended (long hard process).

Until then. SCOTUS has 'The Last Word'.

NO JOY--NO JOY--NO JOY!

Incorrect and a quote from a founder to prove it..."Here, sir, the people govern; here they act by their immediate representatives."~ Alexander Hamilton
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1542090 · Report as offensive
Batter Up
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 May 99
Posts: 1946
Credit: 24,860,347
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1542176 - Posted: 15 Jul 2014, 20:02:07 UTC - in response to Message 1541965.  
Last modified: 15 Jul 2014, 20:06:44 UTC

By changing what that act does, they simply make the SCOTUS decision obsolete.
You people are barking up the wrong tree blinded by your agenda. The true evils are the Wal*Marts who supply no health coverage. Would you rather Hobby Lobby not pay for three items or drop all health care? That is what you are demanding whether you know it or not.

The Hobby Lobbies are learning no good deed goes unpunished.


The Constitution has 'The Last Word', unless Amended (long hard process).
The states can call for a constitutional convention where amendments can be made on the fly. There has only been one but it is on the books. Amendments are hard but they can be quick.
ID: 1542176 · Report as offensive
Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 455
Credit: 2,422,890
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1542227 - Posted: 15 Jul 2014, 21:30:35 UTC - in response to Message 1541874.  

the argument of when life starts
The sperm and egg are alive the question is when do they become human.
For example, in 1986 the Supreme Court ruled that a federal civil rights law that protected people with disabilities from discrimination did not apply to the airline industry.
I'm not familiar with that case but it most likely was a technicality, like overturning the "net neutrality" rules. Congress can't make a law telling the family who ownes Hobby Lobby what they should believe.

Are you suggesting the thought police should be legal? This is all academic because the Republicans will control both houses in January.



no the government cant and shouldn't even try to tell anyone what to believe but they can and should make perfectly clear where their rights end and other peoples rights begin

i have read that the owners of hobby lobby start all managerial meetings with a prayer that is not them exercising their right to practice it is a blatant attempt to force their employees to to practice the same

they are a for profit business as such they cannot discriminate in their hiring practices based on religion and forcing their employees to involve themselves in their prayers or involve their employees in their religious practices such as not taking day after pills.
ID: 1542227 · Report as offensive
Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 455
Credit: 2,422,890
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1542228 - Posted: 15 Jul 2014, 21:33:58 UTC - in response to Message 1541991.  

I'm not familiar with that case but it most likely was a technicality, like overturning the "net neutrality" rules. Congress can't make a law telling the family who ownes Hobby Lobby what they should believe.

You should read what this bill actually does. It does not tell the Hobby Lobby owners what to believe, it amends or specifies in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that for profit organizations cannot use it to claim religious exemption. This way it would not overrule the SCOTUS decision because that ruling was based on the current interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. By changing what that act does, they simply make the SCOTUS decision obsolete.

Perhaps that how it works in Europe. Not The US.



Actually it does work that way in the US.

I learned that in 7th grade government class.
ID: 1542228 · Report as offensive
Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 455
Credit: 2,422,890
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1542229 - Posted: 15 Jul 2014, 21:39:43 UTC - in response to Message 1542005.  

Perhaps that how it works in Europe. Not The US.

Then do tell, how does it work in the US? Does congress not have the power to update, remove or amend laws?

Not Constitutional Issue's (SCOTUS Decision's).

The US Constitution must be Amended.



Congress can change either the law in question or other law to render the decision moot though the precedent remains.
ID: 1542229 · Report as offensive
Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 455
Credit: 2,422,890
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1542241 - Posted: 15 Jul 2014, 21:58:21 UTC - in response to Message 1542056.  

Negative. But of course, you studied American Constitutional Law in College.

You don't need to have studied US constitutional law to know that the RFRA is not part of the constitution but is simply a federal law that applies to other federal law. The kind of law congress can adapt, expand, decrease or amend in any way it likes. Of course, the SCOTUS can later on decide that what congress did in some other way is unconstitutional, but the act of changing aspects of the RFRA is not unconstitutional.

Constitutional (SCOTUS) Decisions effect's EVERY Law. Past/Present/Future. RFRA included.

Yes. One does need to study US Constitutional Law.



All law has standing until the SCOTUS deems it unconstitutional this decision now has standing in law but any change in the law or new law may render this standing obsolete, because the decision of the SCOTUS was based on particulars that can no longer happen or are no longer there.
ID: 1542241 · Report as offensive
Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 455
Credit: 2,422,890
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1542252 - Posted: 15 Jul 2014, 22:16:17 UTC - in response to Message 1542176.  

By changing what that act does, they simply make the SCOTUS decision obsolete.
You people are barking up the wrong tree blinded by your agenda. The true evils are the Wal*Marts who supply no health coverage. Would you rather Hobby Lobby not pay for three items or drop all health care? That is what you are demanding whether you know it or not.

The Hobby Lobbies are learning no good deed goes unpunished.


The Constitution has 'The Last Word', unless Amended (long hard process).
The states can call for a constitutional convention where amendments can be made on the fly. There has only been one but it is on the books. Amendments are hard but they can be quick.



======================================================================

First of full time employees are counted (in regards to the ACA)by the total number of hours worked divided by 40 divided by 52 ie 2 20h/w worker = 1 40h/w worker you must have 50 or more full time (40/w workers) to have to have insurance i guarantee that walmart has to provide insurance under the ACA.


and while the states can call for a constitutional convention this brings the entire constitution up for review and amendment and no one in thier right mind would trust congress to do that it is never going to happen!
ID: 1542252 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30593
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1542283 - Posted: 15 Jul 2014, 23:10:09 UTC - in response to Message 1542252.  

and while the states can call for a constitutional convention this brings the entire constitution up for review and amendment and no one in thier right mind would trust congress to do that it is never going to happen!

You are right, no one would trust congress, not even the authors of the constitution.
ID: 1542283 · Report as offensive
Batter Up
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 May 99
Posts: 1946
Credit: 24,860,347
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1542319 - Posted: 15 Jul 2014, 23:57:07 UTC - in response to Message 1542252.  
Last modified: 16 Jul 2014, 0:54:00 UTC

have read that the owners of hobby lobby start all managerial meetings with a prayer that is not them exercising their right to practice it is a blatant attempt to force their employees to to practice the same
It is one family praying together, the key to this decision is "a closely held company".
This is nothing new really. A landlord can discriminate if her property is small and she lives there. If she doesn't want to have a man living on her property she doesn't have to.

and while the states can call for a constitutional convention this brings the entire constitution up for review and amendment and no one in thier right mind would trust congress to do that it is never going to happen!
Congress, POTUS and SCOTUS have no say if 34 states call for a constitutional convention. The House and Senate MUST meet with representative of the 50 states and normal rules for changes apply except they all vote then and there. Will that happen probably not but it is the law.

Edit: Upon further review we may be closer than we think; the question is can a state rescind its calling for a convention. If not it's time to rent a hall. Accidental history: How Michigan may have triggered convention to amend U.S. Constitution
ID: 1542319 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30593
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1542343 - Posted: 16 Jul 2014, 1:09:24 UTC - in response to Message 1542319.  

The House and Senate MUST meet with representative of the 50 states and normal rules for changes apply except they all vote then and there.

Better go for an eye exam.
ID: 1542343 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 . . . 19 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Corporations are people?


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.