The Constitution is a Living Document

[KensanIV]

You've proven the point... YOU ARE A LOSER.

[1965hawks]

The only point you've proved here is the fact that you're an idiot who doesn't seem to realise that attacking me personally in no way at all refutes my argument.Take a seat and shut the fuck up, Knucklehead Ken.

[D2D]

Seems 1965hawks has no idea what he disagrees with or why!

[KensanIV]

Sounds as if he is on drugs.  A big loser with a big mouth.

[duke_john]

hawkie is a foreigner who gets off on pushing Americans around.

[sweetwater5s9]

Personhood is merely the law’s shorthand way of saying that certain entities have legal rights.

Justices said that corporations have constitutional rights.

[scott_free]

Personhood is merely the law’s shorthand way of saying that certain entities have legal rights. (merely?  that is a big ass step, dumbass...for the supreme court to wave a wand and MERELY GIVE A NON-LIVING ENTITY THAT EXISTS ONLY IN LEGAL DOCUMENTS HUMAN RIGHTS, THE SAME AS ALL REAL AMERICAN HUMAN BEINGS? MERELY?)

Justices said that corporations have constitutional rights.(?)

and corporations clearly do not, asshole, that is why we laugh at how fucked up that ruling was!!  how can you be so fucking stupid?  do cars have human rights?  they are run by people.  how about guns?  they are controlled by people.  what the fuck makes you morons think the Constitution somehow even mentioned corporations, much less wanted them to have the same rights as human beings? how can you make yourself believe such simple minded bullshit? 

[sweetwater5s9]

In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886), the Supreme Court held, ipse dixit, that the Fourteenth Amendment applied to corporations. Since then the Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this protection.

In 1818, the United States Supreme Court decided Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), writing: "The opinion of the Court, after mature deliberation, is that this corporate charter is a contract, the obligation of which cannot be impaired without violating the Constitution of the United States. This opinion appears to us to be equally supported by reason, and by the former decisions of this Court." Beginning with this opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court has continuously recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts.

The laws of the United States hold that a legal entity (like a corporation or non-profit organization) shall be treated under the law as a person except when otherwise noted. This rule of construction is specified in 1 U.S.C. §1 (United States Code),^[16] which states:

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.

[1965hawks]

sweetwater5s9: Personhood is merely the law’s shorthand way of saying that certain entities have legal rights. Justices said that corporations have constitutional rights.

sweetwater5s9,

What you posted above neither refutes nor debunks any point I've argued here. You're simply repeating evidence I've already provided to support my argument. (See reply #54.)

 

[scott_free]

why do you think recognizing corporations are subject to regulations and liable for damages if their corporate policies cause damage, and can, as a legal entity, create documents that have legal weight in court means THEY HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS?  you post shit and it actually proves the opposite of what you think it does BECAUSE YOU ARE SO FUCKING STUPID. 

[sweetwater5s9]

In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886), the Supreme Court held, ipse dixit, that the Fourteenth Amendment applied to corporations. Since then the Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this protection.

In 1818, the United States Supreme Court decided Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), writing: "The opinion of the Court, after mature deliberation, is that this corporate charter is a contract, the obligation of which cannot be impaired without violating the Constitution of the United States. This opinion appears to us to be equally supported by reason, and by the former decisions of this Court." Beginning with this opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court has continuously recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts.

The laws of the United States hold that a legal entity (like a corporation or non-profit organization) shall be treated under the law as a person except when otherwise noted.

This rule of construction is specified in 1 U.S.C. §1 (United States Code),^[16] which states:

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.

[scott_free]

In contracts.  so the fuck what, dumbass?  that is not saying they have constitutional rights.  how stupid are you?  when you get a loan from a bank, if you ever could, you are signing a contract with a corporation.  and they have legal rights to repossess your car or house if you do not make payments.  does that mean the bank has human rights as guaranteed by the Constitution?  why are you so stupid?