9 votes

"A Corporation Is Not A Person!" Senator Sanders Offers A Constitutional Amendment!




Like this article? Get DP delivered to your inbox daily. Subscribe here:

E-mail address:  

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

He's just trying to get

He's just trying to get elevated to Colonel.

Ron Paul or Bust

fukc.. no one cares about what sanders says

this doesn't belong on the same active list as ron paul's great debate performance.. get this shtt out of here

if we had to amend the constitution for every puny issue of the decade, and we still have issues such as drug prohibition, constitution will be filled with trash.. we don't even have a constitutional amendment on the fed, but there should be some trash line defining a corporation?

just something for stupid brains to ponder, but that's besides the point i mention, this isn't worth of discussion in the first place, neither is the baldy shtt-head communist

Isn't it great we still live in a society that we can have

healthy debates and not be hauled off to a camp for doing it!

Ron Paul 2012!!

Take these www.3StepsTowardFreedom.com to assist Ron Paul in becoming our next Commander In Chief. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-480OMya3U

True...

And it is great that we can change our minds by thinking things through. Maybe a corporation isn't such a bad thing after all. I got to thinking about Ayn Rand and I realize that I too want to achieve as much as possible. I want it all, and I want it now, and I need a corporation to protect my wealth. I need to take care of me. Who in their right mind would go up to their fellow man and say: "Sir, I wronged you, here is monetary compensation"? Nobody.

So, I like to drink and drive. It lifts my spirits to drive drunk. It makes me a better person, so I want to run for office, so I can create a bill which permits me to buy a license that allows me to drink and drive. And when I kill someone, I will be immune from any liabilities and penalties. Yes, the corporation thingy is starting to make more and more sense.

So yes, we need to enjoy debate while we can still do it.

"I support the Declaration of Independence and I interpret the Constitution."

Interesting take on drinking and driving.

How that relates to the Corporations and not drinking and driving....hmmm. I know that we have laws against killing people and there is punishment for that. hmmm.

Take these www.3StepsTowardFreedom.com to assist Ron Paul in becoming our next Commander In Chief. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-480OMya3U

My focus is "liabilities", and I don't want any liabilities

I want to be "liability free". Look at British Petroleum. They murdered people on that oil rig. Did the corporation go to jail? No. So, yes, there are laws against killing someone, but if we could get a law passed that would allow me to drink and drive and then kill someone, and I will not be held liable, I could then pursue my goals unhindered. Mind you, I am all for obeying the law, so it is imperative that we use the system and change the laws.

"I support the Declaration of Independence and I interpret the Constitution."

Bottom line is with Freedom comes Responsibility

that just makes sense. If we all could remember the Golden Rule we would live in a much better society. instead of being a nation of limited individual freedom, we would be a nation of responsible for our own actions and consequences to those actions. If we continue to reward bad behavior we will get more of just that. We continually do this and I could list 100's of examples.

More laws do not create a "good and moral" society. In fact, they have shown that is does just the opposite. If you want us to be a nation like those before that had tyrants rise up just to be knocked down create a nation that is full of fear. We could in this country just start hacking off fingers when they steal and sewing lips together when they lie.

Have we not evolved?

Take these www.3StepsTowardFreedom.com to assist Ron Paul in becoming our next Commander In Chief. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-480OMya3U

Yes, it is.

I totally agree.

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." - Benjamin Franklin

Something else...

that troubles me with the assumptions and assertions made in some of these posts and I believe needs pointed out is that people freely choose to enter into contract with corporations.

I mean, if and when you purchased their goods and/or services, you DID agree to the terms at some point. In other words, you chose. No one forced you.

Taking this fact into consideration, how is it that when some unfortunate event occurs, you then believe THEY failed and are liable over and above the contractually agreed to terms?

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." - Benjamin Franklin

You are correct

And in the event the company commits fraud or some other illegal act, they are indeed liable. I think the pervasive ignorance on corporate structures and laws stem from a lack of business experience.

Agreed....

but I believe the pervasive ignorance lies in more than a lack of business experience.

I don't believe the dissenters have thought their arguments out very well and they lack cogency.

Furthermore, I believe one has the intellectual responsibility to ask exactly why Sen. Sanders wants this amendment created AND to think through what some of the consequences or trade-offs of it would probably be if it passed.

I hate to commit a non-sequitur, but he is an avowed socialist for crying out loud.....not the types known for personal freedom absent the states violence and force, you know? Lol!

I believe this has high potential to come back and bite "the grassroots" in the butt later. It will be exponentially more difficult to repeal the amendment than it was to pass it....

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." - Benjamin Franklin

Further food 4 thought

www.lewrockwell.com/north/north408.html

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." - Benjamin Franklin

Just out of curiosity....

How many of you are Christians that believe in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, yet oppose a corporation being given the designation of "person"?

I'm asking because God is a non-corporeal being, yet He is called a "person". How do you reconcile this dilemma?

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." - Benjamin Franklin

Wouldn't God just be called a

Wouldn't God just be called a god, not a person? Only Jesus, 1/3 of the trinity, would be considered a person. Otherwise, I'd just go with god. Then again, I'm not all that religious.

No.

Just FYI, in orthodox Christian theology the doctrine of the Trinity basically states that God is one God existing in three persons in regards to essence, or nature.

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." - Benjamin Franklin

You must be using a different

You must be using a different definition of person. The usual definition is that a person is a human being. Only Jesus took a human form. As a whole, the trinity forms one god.

No,

I am 100% correct on the orthodox Christian definition of the Trinitarian formula.

My step-father has a PhD in Greek and New Testament theology and I also referred to him for further assistance in the matter.

Check it out for yourself.

My question still stands....

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." - Benjamin Franklin

You have totally lost me...

..could you please ask the question in another way that would make it relevant to this topic?

"I support the Declaration of Independence and I interpret the Constitution."

It is totally relevant.

It is meant to be a doorway to open the discussion to show that one need not have a physical body (i.e. non-corporeal) to be considered to exhibit attributes of "person".

Are you with me now?

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." - Benjamin Franklin

Yeah, I see your point

Keep going, because I like this corporation thing. You see, I don't want to be liable for anything. I don't want to lose my wealth, so all this Libertarian talk about "suffering for the poor choices we make" stuff is apparently a bunch of poop. I agree with Ayn Rand: I want it all, and I want it now! I don't want anyone, nor anything to interfere with me achieving my goals, and my goals are to make as much money as possible, and to protect my wealth at all costs. Hang in there, I'm coming around!

"I support the Declaration of Independence and I interpret the Constitution."

It's also meant to

show that a group under the guise of one is not inconceivable or foreign conceptually (i.e. many people comprising one corporation exhibiting the attributes of "person").

Note: For all of you orthodox Christians reading this I AM NOT saying here that there are 3 Gods in 1 God. I fully understand the Trinitarian formula.

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." - Benjamin Franklin

We could call it "God Inc."

Just saying.

"I support the Declaration of Independence and I interpret the Constitution."

How old are you?

12?

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." - Benjamin Franklin

According to law which Judge

According to law which Judge Napolitano supports, a Corporation is an individual and has constitutional rights( First Amendment, fourth amendment, sixth amendment ). They first did this by using the 14th amendment, since it was adopted in out of the hundreds of lawsuits filed for equal protection only a handful of them were from former slaves the rest were from corporations. So after achieving equal protection they then were granted constitutional rights. I do not agree with this but they do deserve certain protection( privacy, due process ) just not equal protection.

I have no problem with equal protection if it EQUALS

liability.

But then they actually lobby and receive special added protections as they grow and become "too big to fail".

What the hell is that? So each of us a single person is expendable on our own, but as a WHOLE we certainly should not be- and we ARE- already have been UNITED- under the contract of the Citizens of the United States. Hence we should already have the exact same protections from liabilities.

Why has no one used this before?

WE are too big to fail. WE make the decisions for OUR "corporation". WE ARE the shareholders. WE ARE the voting stake. WE CAN get rid of the BOARD if they are mishandling OUR TRUST.

How liable

do you believe they should be? Do you believe the people who comprise them should be held, in essence, as slaves for life when damages occur?

And since lobbying is a political problem, not a corporate one, get rid of government and it "lessens the blow" on society.

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." - Benjamin Franklin

I Believe

When any corporation or person within one who is responsible
for the position of representation to the persons owning stock/shares and selling/speaking of it's true value to the public knowingly misrepresents, falsifies, leaves out, or refuses to admit known possibilities/probabilities in order to make gain (especially for themselves in many cases when the company may actually be sinking), that THAT person is liable to the shareholders and to the general public who use its services for liabilities. WHY do they protect these persons? Because to not do so hurts themselves. His/Her liabilities ARE their liabilities. See how that works? Yet they can only be liable up to the potential worth of the "corporate" entity, not the individual assets of each shareholder.

So everyone LIKES the benefits of incorporation and the bigger and more diverse you are the more immune to liability you are. Then goodness if you can use pooled monies and start "hedging" and can insure and blah blah blah, you really CANNOT lose. Until someday maybe you truly INcorprate and ASSimilate everything on down the line (absorb all competition).

Again, how does this promote MORE competition? You can remove government if you want, But until the asset(abilities)/liabilities are the same for all PERSONS- which a corporation has been declared, people will always be LESS equal to protect their own assets because they are not incorporated and have more direct personal liability of their wealth and all assets with no redress to the (now corrupted) courts who have taken away the right to many of the bankruptcy laws which in fact DO make many persons slaves to their indebtedness forever and unable to escape.

So yes, WHEN these laws finally get back to EQUAL, then it shall be RIGHT. If you don't like the way this sounds then maybe you need to check your own premise.

Lets see, A corporation is a person. A corporation is equal to an individual Me and You or a me and you together. A Union is then equal to a corporation. A special interest group is then equal to a union. Hell you can say the Mob is a special interest group, or even a Church but here is the problem, many if not all of these entities use FORCE, corruption, collusion or deception to gain their members and then retain them.

Try to bring down any of these house of cards (with truth) and what happens?

Are we still Equal?

My discussion here in this thread is for thought provocation only. Each person must choose their own beliefs and be able to follow through with them. If you can't take them all the way through then something isn't "right".

Which thing is it? If it is the government here, fine. Explain how and why and what has to be taken BACK, just don't say, get the government out. Because if you get the government out and things stay as they ARE, we are locked into a fascist corporate state, forever.

I think THIS is why so many become afraid to join these forums and Dr Pauls supporters is because they don't see the follow through that is going to lead to the freedom they are dreaming of!

SHOW the way fellow supporters. When you are asking others to understand concepts they don't yet understand, you have to walk down the road and explain the direction signs. Or explain which ones they should be ignoring, but WHY.

Peace~

A corporation did not sign the Declaration of Independence.

A corporation did not fight and die in the American Revolution therefore corporations do not have Constitutional rights that American citizens do.

The Red Coats are now Middle Managers in Foreign Owned Corps

They no longer have to wear Red Coats to exercise their power and influence as our masters.

Some wear blue suits, some are business casual.

The high level corporatist industry BARONS/bankster BARONS/media BARONS (BARONS) at the direction with their queens and kings.

The corporation since just after the civil war era has been given more and more status promoted by foreign powers, the kings and financiers of Europe in order that they could covertly inject themselves and direct the direction of our nation.

Today they own the lobbyests in Washington, at your State House and depending on what global businesses are local to you even your city/county councils.

Foreign controlled corporations operating under US State chartered LLC's and Corp names are a menace, a cancerous desease, that require extermination if our Republic is to be saved.

It is their lobbyests that continually seek to undermine our great constitutional frameworks and trick us into accepting the ruthless and oppressive global governance of the evil queens and kings of this world.

.