The single greatest thing I've ever heard discussed in a presidential debate

I'm learning a lot from this thread. This topic needs to become a core political issue.

More from http://www.ratical.org/co...

Once corporations were legally defined as "natural persons", they automatically were endowed with the same "Bill of Rights" as human beings, and so came to possess and then exploit with devastating consequences, the same "rights" of the freedom of speech, and the ability to participate in elections and lobby elected officials.

Many assert (and I tend to agree) that the 14th amendment created a new class of Federal citizen, and it is this class of "citizenship" that the Santa Clara County ruling gave to corporations. It may also offer a way for those who know how to assert their de jure state citizenship to combat corporate abuse. I'd be interested to hear Mr. Nader's opinion on this.

It is essential to understand how corporations prior to the Civil War were legislatively defined, so we may better appreciate what we can discover and make use of today, using the sections still present in our state constitutions -- as well as reinstating and strengthening in favor of nature, citizens, and communities, many sections that have been repealed by corporate groups seeking to make incorporation laws more "corporate friendly" -- to overthrow corporate authority, and reinstate the authority of we the sovereign people. Up to the mid-1800s:

• Corporations had limited duration, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years -- they were not given forever, like corporate charters are given today.

Sounds reasonable enough to me, as long as well behaving corporations have the right to renew their charter.

• The amount of land a corporation could own was limited.

This is tricky. On one hand, it goes against property rights. On the other hand, it has the potential to turn into "economic democracy"... the "two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner" parable comes to mind.

• The amount of capitalization a corporation could have was limited.

So the number of people who contract with them with their names in ALL CAPS would be limited...;-)

• The corporation had to be chartered for a specific purpose -- not for everything, or anything.

This seems nebulous. It would seem to stifle innovation. Can't say I'd agree.

• The internal governance was very different --

shareholders had a lot more rights than they have today, for major decisions such as mergers; sometimes they had to have unanimous shareholder consent.

Sounds good to me. If you're going to invest in a company, then you ought to have a say in how it's run when it comes to major decisions.

• There were no limitations protections on liability -- managers, directors, and shareholders were liable for all debts and harms and in some states, doubly or triply liable.

This gets sticky. You can't have a shareholder vote for every step of production, so how can hold them all personally accountable? I do agree with personal liability for managers and directors, but I don't think shareholders should be on the hook for every decision made by management. Losing all your shares would be bad enough if management put the company into a situation of losing a major court case.

• The states reserved the right to amend the charters, or to revoke them -- even for no reason at all. [5]

Ok, this goes WAY too far. Revoking charters for NO REASON AT ALL? Corporations have to have the flexibility to amend their charters as long as the amendment is within any legal framework set forth by congress.

Today, is it critical for all of us to "examine the fundamental difference over what is a decision for the civil society that needs to be conducted in an open way, through the constitutionalized process, and what are decisions that are the private domain of the corporation?"

Agreed. So let's get started. It won't happen overnight, but we can start by getting educated and making it a regular part of political conversation.

BTW, here's a great antidote to corporate abuse:
http://www.youtube.com/wa...

************
http://www.pyrabang.com - the Patriot newsfeed machine that will take a huge bite out of Google's ad profits and put them in your pocket!

Note: I fixed the link in the original post. I originally tried to link to the PyraBang post where I first found the info, but for some reason it didn't work.

Anyhow, I dug a little deeper into the signature issue, and while there are those who assert that the microprint "AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE" which makes up the signature line is just for security, that begs the question "why doesn't it also say AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE in larger readable type below the signature line (like it apparently does on corporate checks)."

Furthermore, why the tiny "MP" on the right end of the signature line, which is supposed to let everyone know in clear terms that this is "microprint"? From the website of Data Management Corp.:

"The signature line isn't a line it's actually the words "Authorized Signature" repeated in tiny, tiny type. The printing is so small, the letters blur to a dotted line when copied or scanned. The distinct "MP" near the signature line alerts the recipient to look for legible little words."

Doesn't look too "distinct" to me. Something smells rotten in Denmark.

************
http://www.pyrabang.com - the Patriot newsfeed machine that will take a huge bite out of Google's ad profits and put them in your pocket!

this was the best debate i have ever seen between presidential candidates, hopefully alot of people watched this on cspan and will join the nader, baldwin, or c4l

This was one of the best political debates I've ever seen. It's exciting seeing two honest, intelligent men squarely address real issues in an open forum.

I much prefer Baldwin over Nader, but Nader was impressive, too.

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

Is there a Youtube?

Does anyone have a Diggable link? I tried submitting this post, but apparently the DP has been blacklisted on Digg. :)

Corporations should not be regarded as a different individual, but as a group of cooporating individuals. Corporations should have the same rights as any group of people, whose rights derive from the individual members of that group.

I wanted to see that, it's some darn small text!

Ron Paul's Convention Speech

quote~"in the Constitution it is written We The People and not we the corporations"

http://www.votenader.org/...
http://www.flickr.com/pho...

Vince. Except for Ron Paul's blowback explanation, this question was the best moment from any Presidential debate in my lifetime. Not because of the back and forth between Nader and Baldwin, but because of the discussion. You won't see McCain and Obama talking about these things.

Anyway you need to visit here more often. Great post.

informed Mr. Nader that the principle laid out in that decision was modified years later in Hale :vs: Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906). Corporations are "creatures of the State" and exist at the behest of the State and, therefore owe their allegience to the State. The individual is God created. His rights are such as existed long before the organization of the State and can only be taken away from him via the due process of law.

"Conceding that the witness was an officer of the corporation under investigation, and that he was entitled to assert the rights of corporation with respect to the production of its books and papers, we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that a state, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not, in the exercise of its sovereignty, inquire how these franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of the corporate books and papers for that purpose. The defense amounts to this: That an officer of a corporation which is charged with a criminal violation of the statute, may plead the criminality of such corporation as a refusal to produce its books. To state this proposition is to answer it. While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute, it does not follow that a corporation, vested with special privileges and franchises, may refuse to show its hand when charged with an abuse of such privileges."

_________________________________________
"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."

your paragraph "This leads us down some wacky rabbit holes..." Neither link works.

Then it should be equal before the law, in criminal matters as well as civil matters.

This means, that if a corporation is found culpable in a capital crime (like murder, espionage or treason), then it should face the death penalty: its charter should be revoked, and all of its assets liquidated to pay restitution to its victims or their families, or deposited into the public treasury if the crime is treason.

-jcr

YES this is a very hidden fact in U.S. policy shift ....THIS was a point which deserves major attention...... Nader is a well versed man on quite a few subjects....I was impresed with him & Baldwin ....This topic is never discussed by the media ,it's probably over their head ,anyway ...Thanks Ralph for the heads up ....
weee

This is the sort of political topic we ought to debate and then maybe put the might of the CFL behind.

Could this decision be overturned? Modified?

Tactics?

brought out hidden truths in such a way that would shake everyone up, then it might get out for open discussion in the media. Like the corporation THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and the fact that it operates in a 10 mile radius and runs The United States of America. Our government was stollen by this unconstitutional corporation.