News The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[Al68]

Aren't corporations more like states than individuals?

No, they're like individuals for these purposes, since they have no political power, only power over their own resources just like any individual.

Maybe they should be governed by the constitution as states.

I'm not sure what this means, since states are not governed by the constitution, the constitution is the legal document in which the federal government is chartered by the states, and governs the federal government. Although the constitution does transfer some power from the states to the federal government, it is not the source of the power of the states like it's the source of all legitimate federal government power.

From the way some politicians act, one might think the states were political subdivisions of the federal government, but this is not the case. The federal government is a creation of the states, and its legitimate powers are determined by the states via the (amendable) constitution.

 

[Gokul43201]

C'mon y'allz! The Tea Party just had what was probably their biggest rally ever and you're debating the personhood of corporations (a half-year-old issue)??

Get with the times!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

C'mon y'allz! The Tea Party just had what was probably their biggest rally ever and you're debating the personhood of corporations (a half-year-old issue)??

Get with the times!

Not to mention that it was more a religious rally, than a political one. It appears that Beck is trying to position himself as the next Jerry Falwell... with Sarah Palin at his side.

Those attending wanted red meat, but instead they got a red herring.

 

[Gokul43201]

I have wondered when the anti-intellectual moron worshipers that demand a return to America's Christian roots will get the memo that their other alleged heroes (Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Madison, Paine, etc.) were mostly intellectuals who were unswayed by Christianity (and that's putting it mildly).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have wondered when the anti-intellectual moron worshipers that demand a return to America's Christian roots will get the memo that their other alleged heroes (Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Madison, Paine, Henry, etc.) were mostly intellectuals who were unswayed by Christianity (and that's putting it mildly).

The new catch phrase is that tea partiers are just like the founding fathers. Nevermind that their objections are mostly fantasy.

Yes, Beck specifically wants to see more religion in politics. The tea party is quickly becoming a religious movement - and an anti-Constitutional one at that!

 

[mheslep]

I have wondered when the anti-intellectual moron worshipers that demand a return to America's Christian roots will get the memo that their other alleged heroes (Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Madison, Paine, etc.) were mostly intellectuals who were unswayed by Christianity (and that's putting it mildly).

Unswayed? No, Paine maybe. Not the rest in that list.

The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams

 

[Al68]

I have wondered when the anti-intellectual moron worshipers that demand a return to America's Christian roots will get the memo that their other alleged heroes (Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Madison, Paine, etc.) were mostly intellectuals who were unswayed by Christianity (and that's putting it mildly).

I have to differ greatly with that, I think they were greatly "swayed" by Christianity, but in a much different way.

I would say that it was their religious beliefs that led them to oppose state sanctioned religions for at least two reasons: First, Christians were historically often the victims of religious persecution, and second, they didn't want their religion to be corrupted by government. We shouldn't forget that they had a vastly different idea of what the role of government should be, and controlling, shaping, regulating, or even influencing society in general wasn't it.

The intended recipients of government force were criminals and invaders, not peaceful citizens. This is a very Christian ideal, or at least it was to them.

 

[Gokul43201]

Maybe I should clarify what I meant by 'unswayed'. Most of those people did not, to pick a simple illustrative example, believe in the divinity of Christ¹. They probably all agreed that it had some redeeming moral/philosophical value, but that's a far cry from the Christianity espoused by the Palins and the Becks. Adams, for instance, considered organized Christianity of his time to be a superstition propagating fraud² (and he was probably the one of the most sympathetic towards Christianity among that lot).

1. This is from memory of a documentary on, I think, PBS a long time ago. Probably wikiable - will look for ref if needed.
2. See wiki page linked a couple posts up

 

[jwxie]

The march to WH this past weekend was silly.

Why? What they said were false claims. Come on lo. Traditional American value? I thought the value was equated with the American dreams. HAHAA

To me the march is another political rally. Look, you got Sarah Palin. Hahahahahaaaa

 

[SixNein]

You have repeatedly failed to explain that

People of foreign nations do not have constitutional rights (outside of those with dual citizenship).

Another and different example is that states often extend special privileges to large corporations. The corporations are in turn using the funds created by these special privileges in politics.

, and again here.Limited how? To civil and contractual cases like I have been saying?

Corporations should not be able to participate in politics.

But you can't have it both ways in criminal cases. If you want to take any action against the stockholders of a corporation via the corporate entity, then the stockholders have rights via the corporate entity. Either the corporate entity is a person or not a person. If it is, then it is subject to legal action against its stockholders and has their rights by proxy. If it isn't then it has no rights and is not subject to legal action.

My position is that limited liability protection should not be covering criminal issues. Again, I'm for limiting the idea of person-hood of corporations. I would be perfectly happy if the courts just called it a "tool" instead of a "person."

Another way of putting it is that if a corporation is not considered a person, then it has no need for rights. Why would a tool need rights?And this is why they should not be punished for a crime they didn't commit while the actual criminal gets away with it.In the three cases you referenced, no real person had any legal protection from criminal prosecution. The prosecutor just chose to take action against their tool instead.

There isn't. A prosecutor choosing to prosecute a tool instead of its user isn't a legal protection, its a lazy prosecutor.I've been saying that all along, but what about crimes other than murder? Should stockholders instead of the commiter of the crime be punished?Again, only by proxy. Fining a corporation is depriving people of their property. Real people (stockholders). It's pretty twisted logic to suggest that requiring due process to deprive real people of their property is unnecessary because the corporation itself isn't a person, after claiming it was a person for the purpose of justifying the action taken against the stockholders via the corporation.

I don't care if the prosecutor is lazy or hardworking. I only care about the fact that law allows the prosecutor to do it.

 

[Al68]

People of foreign nations do not have constitutional rights (outside of those with dual citizenship).

I agree, but that doesn't explain how a corporation is granted special rights, it only explains how some foreign citizens may be granted special rights, ie treated as if they were U.S. citizens. If that's what you meant by "granted extra rights, then I'll agree.

Another and different example is that states often extend special privileges to large corporations.

That's not a consequence of personhood, it's a consequence of corrupt state legislators. You seem to be mixing up different issues here.

Corporations should not be able to participate in politics.

Again, you are assuming personhood. The question is whether or not real people should be permitted to participate in politics, using corporations as tools.

My position is that limited liability protection should not be covering criminal issues. Again, I'm for limiting the idea of person-hood of corporations. I would be perfectly happy if the courts just called it a "tool" instead of a "person."

That's what I've been saying.

I don't care if the prosecutor is lazy or hardworking. I only care about the fact that law allows the prosecutor to do it.

A hardworking prosecutor would prosecute criminals instead of their tools.

 

[brainstorm]

People of foreign nations do not have constitutional rights (outside of those with dual citizenship).

If it is truly self evident that ALL people are created equal, then why wouldn't the INALIENABLE rights of the constitution not apply to all people everywhere?

It seems that at some point, some people decided that it would be a lot more difficult to exploit people if you recognized their rights and freedoms so they had to figure out a way to define some people as being excluded from those rights and national citizenship became the defining factor.

Why shouldn't anyone anywhere be able to declare independence from colonial rule and establish a constitution that enumerates rights and protections for free citizens? If the constitution is not a copyrighted document, why can't they simply make reference to it?

 

[Evo]

If it is truly self evident that ALL people are created equal, then why wouldn't the INALIENABLE rights of the constitution not apply to all people everywhere?

It seems that at some point, some people decided that it would be a lot more difficult to exploit people if you recognized their rights and freedoms so they had to figure out a way to define some people as being excluded from those rights and national citizenship became the defining factor.

Why shouldn't anyone anywhere be able to declare independence from colonial rule and establish a constitution that enumerates rights and protections for free citizens? If the constitution is not a copyrighted document, why can't they simply make reference to it?

This makes no sense. The US constitution applies to the US. If other countries want to use the same ideas, they can, but it wouldn't the the US Constitution.

 

[brainstorm]

This makes no sense. The US constitution applies to the US. If other countries want to use the same ideas, they can, but it wouldn't the the US Constitution.

To me, this is like saying that the bible, the q'ran, or the lord of the rings only apply to Jews/Christians, Muslims, or Hobbits. In reality these are books/documents that express certain ideas about human nature, rights, and power. Anyone with the literacy skills to do so can read any of these books and claim to recognize their truth. That doesn't mean anyone will recognize their authority to claim that truth, but neither did the British authorities and so the colonists fought to establish recognition of their truths and rights.

I don't think that the US constitution is a collective instrument in the way you say "if other countries want to use the same ideas." The reason I say that is because it implies that if a subject of the UK monarchy recognizes that the rights of the US constitution applies to them, and the UK government denies that, then that person is in a similar situation to the colonists who rejected the UK government in favor of the ideas in the constitution.

So why would someone who believes in the US constitution condemn a UK citizen to subjugation under monarchy just because they're not a US citizen? If you believe in the rights and freedom of a republic, why wouldn't you recognize everyone's right to pursue the same freedoms and rights?

 

[Office_Shredder]

So why would someone who believes in the US constitution condemn a UK citizen to subjugation under monarchy just because they're not a US citizen? If you believe in the rights and freedom of a republic, why wouldn't you recognize everyone's right to pursue the same freedoms and rights?

What specifically do you think the US government should do about that? Take over the UK so that the person's right to free speech is established?The constitution is generally a set of ideals that are intended to be applicable to everyone, but the US only has authority over the US, so that's where its boundaries are.

On that note, if a non-citizen comes to the US, they still have all the protections under the constitution that a citizen would have, except for the possibility of deportation

 

[brainstorm]

What specifically do you think the US government should do about that? Take over the UK so that the person's right to free speech is established?

I think this is exactly the question that has to be dealt with regarding the role of US power globally. US authorities have to decide which regimes to legitimate or challenge and which insurgents to recognize as freedom fighters and which as terrorists interested only in replacing freedom with rule by fear. Also, what methods should be advocated and/or supported? Should the US support full scale revolutions or negotiations with more authoritarian governments that allow for freedom-seekers to migrate either to a US state or some other region where freedom and democracy are being expanded?

The constitution is generally a set of ideals that are intended to be applicable to everyone, but the US only has authority over the US, so that's where its boundaries are.

It's not a question of legitimate authority but of power and goals. The British colonial authorities controlled the jurisdiction claimed by the US insurgents, but the insurgents decided to question that authority and declare independence from it. So the question is who has the power to declare independence from whom and how, imo.

On that note, if a non-citizen comes to the US, they still have all the protections under the constitution that a citizen would have, except for the possibility of deportation

That is logical, since the constitution was established as a general ideology of governmental restraint against curtailment of rights and freedoms of individuals. However, the issue of how deportation and hence cooperation with less democratic governments fits with the constitutional ideology should be discussed, imo. For example, I read that several refugees from Cuba were recently picked up and returned to the island. I wonder how much sense it makes for US military authorities to be cooperating with a regime that is being embargoed. On the other hand, if the refugees best hope for freedom is to remain on the island and work toward freedom, perhaps that was the best place for them to have been brought. The bigger issue, however, is why policing national territories against migration has become more important than supporting the pursuit of freedom and democracy.

 

[Office_Shredder]

The bigger issue, however, is why policing national territories against migration has become more important than supporting the pursuit of freedom and democracy.

You make it sound like sound like this is a change in policy or something. The US has never been involved in actively spreading democracy until recently after WWII

 

[brainstorm]

You make it sound like sound like this is a change in policy or something. The US has never been involved in actively spreading democracy until recently after WWII

I think people who wanted democracy/freedom just moved to one of the states prior to that - and there were new states being created as well. Monroe doctrine comes to mind as a curtailment of expansion but I can't remember the details. Certainly there is a long history of global politics regarding the expansion of US ideology and how/why or why not.

 

[Evo]

I think people who wanted democracy/freedom just moved to one of the states prior to that - and there were new states being created as well. Monroe doctrine comes to mind as a curtailment of expansion but I can't remember the details. Certainly there is a long history of global politics regarding the expansion of US ideology and how/why or why not.

What in the world does any of this have to do with the topic of this thread?

The original Tea Party was based on "taxation without representation", this is not the topic of this thread. Please get back to the topic.

 

[mheslep]

Maybe I should clarify what I meant by 'unswayed'. Most of those people did not, to pick a simple illustrative example, believe in the divinity of Christ¹. They probably all agreed that it had some redeeming moral/philosophical value,

Agreed

but that's a far cry from the Christianity espoused by the Palins and the Becks.

You know this how? For all I know Beck's a Deist in the Adams mode, and could have easily made a modern version of that Adam's quote above. The mistake Beck's making here in my view is not per se his particular view of religion, but in his casual mixing of it with politics - something the New Testament warns against in its parables.

Adams, for instance, considered organized Christianity of his time to be a superstition propagating fraud² (and he was probably the one of the most sympathetic towards Christianity among that lot).

I think that needs a caveat in that Adams considered some of the tenets and aspects of organized Christianity of his time to be superstition propagating, just like aspects of today's organized religion. See, e.g., Jefferson's bible. Jefferson did not throw out the New Testament as total hogwash, he spent some considerable time going through it line by line to remove the supernatural aspects and published the remainder.

 

[mheslep]

I don't think that the US constitution is a collective instrument in the way you say "if other countries want to use the same ideas."

Someone already pointed out - you're conflating the Declaration of Independence with the US Constitution. The former states first principles, the latter is a legal frame work for government based in part on the former. The issue is confused by using them interchangeably.

 

[mheslep]

I consider every step forward for the Tea Party, and every primary Republican win for so-called grassroots leaders who appeal in particular to the tea drinkers, to be just more nails in the coffin for the GOP.

Another nail in the coffin:

"[URL Takes Unprecedented 10-Point Lead on Generic Ballot
[/URL]

 

[Al68]

Why shouldn't anyone anywhere be able to declare independence from colonial rule and establish a constitution that enumerates rights and protections for free citizens? If the constitution is not a copyrighted document, why can't they simply make reference to it?

They can, but the U.S. constitution is a legal contract between the states and federal government. Of course outside states can join, that's how the number of member states got to 50.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Another nail in the coffin:

"[URL Takes Unprecedented 10-Point Lead on Generic Ballot
[/URL]

Completely expected given the circumstances. The Republicans did far more damage to the economy than was hoped; and the republican and independent voters cannot yet accept that fact. With the failure of free-market capitalism, supply-side economics, and the devestating consequences of maximized deregulation in the financial markets - to root causes of our problems - the Republicans literally have no credible platform left. But they are good at smoke and mirror shows, which is how they are getting by for now - a gullible public

The liberals are ticked because Obama really isn't a flaming liberal, just as I've always argued.

In his second year, Reagan looked much like Obama does now.

 

[Office_Shredder]

In his second year, Reagan looked much like Obama does now.

Black?

 

[mheslep]

Completely expected given the circumstances. ...

Not according to your OP. You didn't say everyone would be fooled by "smoke and mirrors", instead you forecast doom for the GOP, i.e. "nails in the coffin" and "certain death for the foreseeable future".

 

[Gokul43201]

You know this how? For all I know Beck's a Deist in the Adams mode, and could have easily made a modern version of that Adam's quote above.

For all you know. Did you not know that Beck is a Mormon? That's a little ways down the road from being a Deist in the mould of Adams.

To dispel any doubts read An Unlikely Mormon: The Conversion Story of Glenn Beck by Glenn Beck. If, like me, you don't feel inclined to read the whole book, maybe this blurb (from above link) will suffice:

Glenn Beck is not the man he used to be. “My life changed,” says Glenn. “I may look the same. I may sound the same. But I am not the same man. . . the healing power of Jesus Christ transformed me.”

In this presentation, Glenn Beck tells an audience of nearly 7,000 about his conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His story is both stirring and sobering. Glenn bears his testimony about home teaching, tithing, and the transforming power of the Spirit. He talks about his addiction to alcohol, the miracle of the Atonement, and the reality that God does answer prayers. In particular, he acknowledges God's hand in how he met his wife, Tania, and in their family's spiritual quest for faith and religion. Funny and inspirational, Glenn's story will strengthen the testimony of any Latter-day Saint. In addition, An Unlikely Mormon will be an ideal missionary tool.

I suspect you have a better idea about Palin's Christianity.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think that needs a caveat in that Adams considered some of the tenets and aspects of organized Christianity of his time to be superstition propagating, just like aspects of today's organized religion. See, e.g., Jefferson's bible. Jefferson did not throw out the New Testament as total hogwash, he spent some considerable time going through it line by line to remove the supernatural aspects and published the remainder.

Jefferson did a whole lot more that just edit out the supernatural parts, but in any case, that's not inconsistent with my reading that these people considered the Bible/Christianity to have some redeeming moral/philosophical value (at least the NT part of the Bible - Jefferson considered the God of the OT to be cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust).

 

[Evo]

For all you know. Did you not know that Beck is a Mormon? That's a little ways down the road from being a Deist in the mould of Adams.

To dispel any doubts read An Unlikely Mormon: The Conversion Story of Glenn Beck by Glenn Beck. If, like me, you don't feel inclined to read the whole book, maybe this blurb (from above link) will suffice:

I suspect you have a better idea about Palin's Christianity.

Does anyone else feel truly frightened when they read stuff like this from people that are trying to hold positions of power?

 

[Gokul43201]

Check out this Apocalyptic message from Beck this week (from the wiki on Beck):

"I believe we're approaching a last call, all aboard. I had nightmares last night, because I felt maybe I wasn't clear enough. The message I feel I'm supposed to give you is get behind the shield of God."​

Or Beck's insistence that a flock of geese flying over his rally was a miracle from God ...

Juxtapose that with Thomas Paine, who Beck refers to as the Glenn Beck of the Revolution.