An Interesting Poll

:laugh: If you say so.

It doesn't mention unions, 527s , or lobbying associations, either.

 

If you say so. :laugh:

 

:laugh: If you say so.

 

Why would that bother you? You are willing to give a non-citizen terrorist the rights of American citizens...I'd rather neither have it...but your opposition to a corporation, while arguing for a terrorist...well, now, that's just inconsistent right there...

 

That's my whole point- Carpro wants to give all of these rights to corporations, but not real people. Also, the phrase "rights of American citizens" is not my phrase, but rather that of the connies on this board who don't want to try terrorism defendants in Article III courts.

I'm not being inconsistent because American jurisprudence has never recognized legal persons, such as corporations, as having all the rights of a natural person.

 

That's a lie. The subject is 1st Amendment rights. I believe you are intentionally mischaracterizing what I said.

Corporations are composed of "real people". Just as much as unions, PAC's and 527s and deserve the same 1st amendment rights to political free speech that they have. Now the playing field is even..

As it should be.

 

Actually, you've clearly stated that you believe "real people" (are there artificial ones around?) should have Constitutional rights. That's not guaranteed (nor should it be) in the US Constitution. Human rights? Of course...but don't mirandize these losers...just like you don't mirandize Coca-Cola.

I'm sorry, I have this antiquated idea that our country was worth protecting from those that would do it harm. I guess you deem it more important to "feel validated" than having them tried in a military tribunal--safe, secure, cheaper, and (most of all) they get a fair trial...but not the rights which they do not earn. They get the "inalienable rights" as defined by the DoI, but not the various rights to which the Constitution refers.

Where does this "natural person" thing come from? Are they a regular person who drinks Natural Light beer? Are they a person who grows toward the light and must be watered daily? Are they cheaper to buy than "silk persons," or "polyurethane persons?"

Oh, and for good measure...here's the atom bomb:

Dang, it must hurt to be wrong. Let me know how it feels...it's been so very long...

 

They do have constitutional rights.

Sorry, bub. We don't earn rights in this country.

"Natural person" is a legal term. Natural persons are those which have a physical existence. For example, if I'm wondering if I'm a natural person or a mere legal construct, one way I can check is by looking at myself in a mirror. I can see my green eyes, look at my brown hair, touch my nose, etc. If I'm still in doubt I can check my pulse and feel my bleeding liberal heart pumping blood throughout me. I can wiggle my toes, move my arms, etc. I can breathe and make air go in and out of my lungs. I can make sound with my second tenor vocal cords. That's how I know I'm a natural person.

Natural persons also have souls, unlike corporations, but from a legal perspective, we can just deal with the physical aspects of one's being to determine natural personhood.

Try reading it again. It makes a distinction between persons and citizens.

Tell me about it.

 

Paul, what is there to say? You are taking the Constitution and making it say something it doesn't. I'm sure that you "feel" right.

But in this matter, you're so far out in left field, I doubt Pujols could hit one to you.

 

Somebody Read this and answer me a couple of questions.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I don't see anything in the First Amendment about contributing to Political Campaigns. Am I right?

Now tell me why my Church can't financially support a Candidate for office and Speak out on His or Her Behalf to the Exclusion of all other Candidates?

If I do this I'm told that I violate the law and will loose the tax exemption status of the church.

This is nothing but Government Bullying at its worst!

I applaud the recent SCOTUS ruling but it didn't go far enough. It needed to include Churches as well.

 

Emphasis added.

PERSONS refers to any human being. CITIZENS refer to those who have become CITIZENS of the United States, either through birth or naturalization. There is a distinction between them that is purely legal in that CITIZENS are under the umbrella of both the Constitution and the laws of the nation and state.

PERSONS, while afforded the protection from loss of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" or the denial of "the equal protection of the laws", are not CITIZENS. Since they are not CITIZENS they are not entitled to the rights and privileges of CITIZENS.

Civilian courts can be and often are used to try PERSONS who are not CITIZENS, but even then they are not allowed access tot he rights of CITIZENS. But, now, our dictator-in-chief, King Zero, wants to take these PERSONS who orchestrated the deaths of thousands of CITIZENS, give them the exact same rights as the very CITIZENS they killed, and try them as CITIZENS.

Do you not see a problem with this, Paul? Or any other bleeding heart liberal on here? These PERSONS should never be given the rights of US CITIZENS for any reason whatsoever. While I would be in favor of a single bullet kind of trial as far as I see them, but a military tribunal, just like those used for war crimes (which this was), would be more than sufficient. There's no need for any kind of railroading or trumping up charges as the evidence speaks for itself.

 

Then why fear due process? You cannot take non-citizens and just shoot them without proof of wrongdoing. Such would cause the breakdown of international cooperation. You could not travel anywhere without fear of a foreign government doing the same to you. I understand your anger at terrorists. I share it. But we do not defeat terrorism by abandoning our principles.