The Constitution is a Living Document

[Jim]

president clinton has a comforting ring to it
 
But then again, you would have voted for Charlie Manson instead of Tump. so that comforting ring appears to be tinnitus...

[scott_free]

who is tump?  and kenyan the pig liar is lying again.  there is no way he voted for bill clinton and then within 4 years, when the economy and the stock market and the deficits and the budget had all reversed and started the longest consecutive economic bull market in our history, you would somehow have gone crazy and imagined lies coming from him or Hillary!!  what lies, you stupid piece of shit bitch?  all you can do is mumble the crazed right wing talking points over and over again like a retarded parrot without EVEN BEING ABLE TO NAME ONE, YOU IDIOT...what goddamn mythical lie are you talking about from either clinton, you lying asshole?  name one or admit what a punk ass liar you are, boy. 

[1965hawks]

in re: Whether the Constitution is a living document.

The claim that the Constitution is a living document directly contradicts the adamant belief of an icon of the right, 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/scalia-at-texas-tech-constitution-is-not-a-living-document/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/15/justice-scalia-constitution-is-not-living-organism.html

[scott_free]

words mean nothing.  scalia can talk about how much of an originalist he was, but when he actually rules that the Constitution somehow stated that corporations have the same constitutional rights as citizens, and that somehow the Constitution clearly states this, proves what a lying dumbass clown he was.  and how stupid his supporters are for believing that gigantic slimy corporate stooge was fair and impartial in his rulings.  he voted as a catholic, and he voted as a corporate stooge, no matter what the Constitution said.

[sweetwater5s9]

This basic structure of corporate personhood was carried forward into American law and confirmed in the first Supreme Court ruling to acknowledge it, Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819.

The law often “treats various nonsentient entities as ‘persons’ for certain legal purposes.” 

Personhood is merely the law’s shorthand way of saying that certain entities have legal rights. As a legal person, the corporation has the right to own property. It has the right to form contracts. If either of those rights is interfered with, the corporation has the right to sue in court. The second feature is separation of the entity from the stockholders. The company’s property is held in its own name and belongs to it, not to the investors. If the corporation breaches a contract, it’s the company, not the individual stockholders, that is responsible. If the corporation is harmed in some way, the individual investors are not allowed to sue. The corporation has to do it.

This conception of corporate personhood has profound and beneficial economic consequences. It means that the obligations the law imposes on the corporation, such as liability for harms caused by the firm’s operations, are not generally extended to the shareholders. Limited liability protects the owners’ personal assets, which ordinarily can’t be taken to pay the debts of the corporation. This creates incentives for investment, promotes entrepreneurial activity, and encourages corporate managers to take the risks necessary for growth and innovation. That’s why the Supreme Court, in business cases, has held that “incorporation’s basic purpose is to create a legally distinct entity, with legal rights, obligations, powers, and privileges different from those of the natural individuals who created it, who own it, or whom it employs.”

Justices said that corporations are “associations of citizens”—and those citizens who make up the corporation have constitutional rights.


This concept isn't new. In ancient Roman law, a corporation was considered a juristic person: a single, nonhuman entity that legally represented a group of many people [source: Sherman]. The idea makes sense; after all, a corporation is made up of people's financial contributions.

In fact, in the United States, corporations have the same protections under the Constitution that humans do.

[D2D]

Scott forgets Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to a balanced budget which he vetoed twice before finally signing it!

[scott_free]

dickhead dvd forgets i have forgotten more than he will ever remember about current events, and that CLINTON CAMPAIGNED ON BALANCING THE BUDGET AND STARTED BALANCING THE BUDGET AND CUTTING THE HUGE DEFICITS CREATED BY REAGAN AND PAPA BUSH FROM DAY ONE, WITH A DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY CONGRESS.....and yeah, the repubs finally came around 2 years later, and did pass a bill that tried to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class and working poor and the poor, which is always who the repubs try to make pay for any budget cuts, and clinton refused until newtie boy had to give in and compromise.  why are you so ignorant of the truth?

Clinton Accepts Nomination, Promises to Balance Budget ...www.wsj.com/articles/SB841369463506556500 The Wall Street Journal President Clinton vowed to "build a bridge to the 21st century" in his acceptance speech before the Democratic National Convention, stressing youth and the ...

[D2D]

A promise Clinton had no intention of carrying out!

Republicans dragged him kicking and screaming to a balanced budget and that was only reached on paper!

[scott_free]

go away, confused simpleton. 

[D2D]

Republicans dragged him kicking and screaming to a balanced budget and that was only reached on paper!

Obama also promised to balanced the budget!

Did he?

[omiaqt]

It would seem to me, that liberals are a confused lot.

[1965hawks]

in re: Reply #28

The Supreme Court still thinks the corporations are people.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/the-supreme-court-still-thinks-corporations-are-people/259995/