Koko and I timed our walk perfectly this morning, going out into the world in that special period that marks the passage between night and day. The sky was all a glitter and the crickets performed a symphony as we headed down the road, and at one point I turned to see a star shooting across the sky, headed for Anahola.
Slowly, the day began to brighten, turning first soft blue, then lavender, then growing orange all around the edges. Mars persisted as the stars slipped from view, until finally, even its brightness was no match for the forces of day, which arrived in a soft shimmer of pink that revealed the sweetest, most delicate draping of clouds atop Waialeale.
In the midst of all this splendor we ran into my neighbor Andy, much to Koko’s delight, as he was away for a few days, which meant no biscuit treats or head rubs for the poor, deprived pooch.
We got to talking about the threat to sue KIUC over the ongoing deaths of Newell’s shearwaters, which I wrote about for The Hawaii Independent. Andy said he had mixed feelings about it, wondering if KIUC really was primarily to blame, and the science that had provided that conclusion.
The science was actually done by some of the world’s leading experts on seabirds in research that was financed by the utility itself, and it showed that KIUC is, indeed, the single largest contributor to mortality among the now rare birds.
The lights at Princeville Resort are another big killer, as are the lights at county sports facilities. The state has a program that is working on light mitigation, but KIUC is being targeted for the lawsuit because it’s applying for a permit to to keep on killing the birds rather than adopt some of the measures that its own studies recommended to protect them years ago.
“Well, if the birds are too stupid to avoid power lines….” Andy started, and I made a sad/mad face and he stopped.
“I know you’re only trying to provoke me,” I said, and he said yes, he was, kind of.
“Most of the deaths have occurred since Iniki, when they strung all these lines on high poles in configurations that are especially dangerous,” I explained. “Eighteen years is a short time to adapt for a species that spends most of its life at sea.”
“But even if the power lines are changed, won’t the birds still have to adapt because they’re facing so many threats — dogs, habitat loss, lights?" Andy asked. "Won't they have to be constantly protected?” .
“So then do we just knowingly let the species disappear?” I asked. “The Endangered Species Act doesn’t really allow us to do that.”
And for me, there’s something terribly tragic about our own species if we’re willing to let another species that was in existence long before we were go extinct because we can’t be bothered to change our own behavior to live in harmony with it.
Andy softened a bit when I told him that some of those involved in the pending litigation have been meeting with Hawaii’s Congressional delegation to find funding for changing the power lines so the burden doesn’t have to fall on the ratepayers. They were getting a good reception, and apparently KIUC hadn’t been seeking such assistance.
“Well, then they deserve to be sued,” Andy said, before adding, “Ah, the bleeding heart Joan.”
I am, I’ll admit it, especially when it comes to animals and nature. But I’ll take a soft heart over a hard heart — or no heart — any day.
Speaking of which, if corporations didn’t have enough influence over our government already, the Supreme Court has opened the door even wider with its 5-4 decision to allow them to spend unlimited amounts of money in electoral campaigns.
What’s really creepy about this, aside from totally undermining the ability of citizens to effect the electoral process, is the way it further reinforces the ominous trend of giving corporations rights that have previously been reserved for real people.
As Jamin Raskin, an author, professor of constitutional law at American University and Maryland state senator, noted in a Democracy Now! interview:
The question here is the corporation, OK? And there’s an unbroken line of precedent, beginning with Chief Justice Marshall in the Dartmouth College case in the 1800s, all the way through Justice Rehnquist, even, in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, saying that a corporation is an artificial creation of the state. It’s an instrumentality that the state legislatures charter in order to achieve economic purposes. And as Justice White put it, the state does not have to permit its own creature to consume it, to devour it.
And that’s precisely what the Supreme Court has done, suddenly declaring that a corporation is essentially a citizen, armed with all the political rights that we have, at the same time that the corporation has all kinds of economic perks and privileges like limited liability and perpetual life and bankruptcy protection and so on, that mean that we’re basically subsidizing these entities, and sometimes directly, as we saw with the Wall Street bailout, but then they’re allowed to turn around and spend money to determine our political future, our political destiny. So it’s a very dangerous moment for American political democracy.
Indeed it is. We are, quite frankly, up against a monster of our own making. And resisting the growing control of corporate power and corporate interests is one very important part of the Revolution of Values.
And finally, if you have thoughts about the newest proposal for the bike path route through Wailua, best get cracking, as Jan. 25 is the deadline. It's supposedly the “last chance” to give comments to the county, as well as state and federal transportation officials, who are especially interested in cultural and historical issues and were reportedly surprised to learn that the Hawaiians and other citizens weren’t on board with the mayor’s latest plan.
You can call Ray McCormick of the state DOT office at 241-3006 or Paul Harker of the federal DOT at 808-541-2309. The county email for comments is csimao@kauai.gov.
I keep wondering why the option of the existing paved road along the canal isn’t on the table. Apparently OHA officials weren’t even aware of it until they were taken there a week or so ago. It would take the path off the beach and the highway, and since it’s already paved, the likelihood of disrupting burials should be minimal.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
53 comments:
Corporations are not people. They are artificial creatures that have been given the right of free speech previously and rightly reserved for people. Kinda tired of Obama's rhetoric. Next thing I want to hear out of his mouth is "I advocate a constitutional amendment simple stating "Corporations are not people".
"This is the story of the Frankenstein monster come full circle, to the point where it is succeeding in forcing its human creators to serve it, even if they become beggars or corpses by doing so. It is un-American. It is ungodly. It is inhuman and it is disgusting. And it is continuing. Only the American people are likely to stop it, and then only if they wake up, get informed, get angry, get organized and get going."
http://www.yuricareport.com/Corporations/CorporationsWillEatYourSoul.html
Agreed, Ed.
One factor to consider in disqualifying a corporation as a person is the fact that a person is not capable of living for centuries.
Taking that into consideration, there is undeniable proof that it can in no way be classified as a living, breathing, human being. It is unfair and discriminatory to pit a corporation against a human being. They are not equal.
I would like to research any past challenges to the corporate personhood. It is just unbelievable that itʻs ʻconstitutionalʻ rights have survived so long.
Jack, If you haven't seen this it may help highlight past challenges. See full online documentary "The Corporation" with French subtitles.
http://freedocumentaries.org/theatre.php?filmID=102
But the corps do pay taxes and as such should have a voice in how they are spent.
"the business of America is business"
The problem with this restricted view of the first amendment right to free speech is that newspapers and magazines such as the NY Times, Honolulu Weekly, The Nation, Mother Jones, etc do not have any constitutional right to free speech but have only a limited license to speak freely bestowed by an act of congress.
The law that was overturned carved out an exception to the restriction on corporate political speech for media corporations. Implicit in this exception for media companies granted by congress is the power of the government to revoke at will the free speech rights of newspapers and magazines (at least those organized under a corporate charter - that is to say, pretty much all of them).
Under such a limiting view of who enjoys first amendment protection, the government could conceivably prevent the media from reporting on, say, the Guantanamo detainees (or, for those of you who remember back far enough, the Pentagon Papers). The idea that the media's right to speak (or print, or broadcast) is not enshrined in the constitution but is had only at the beneficence of the government is wrong, wrong-headed, ahistorical, and dangerous.
With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century. Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court’s conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding....
As a result of Thursday’s ruling, corporations have been unleashed from the longstanding ban against their spending directly on political campaigns and will be free to spend as much money as they want to elect and defeat candidates. If a member of Congress tries to stand up to a wealthy special interest, its lobbyists can credibly threaten: We’ll spend whatever it takes to defeat you....
The majority is deeply wrong on the law. Most wrongheaded of all is its insistence that corporations are just like people and entitled to the same First Amendment rights. It is an odd claim since companies are creations of the state that exist to make money. They are given special privileges, including different tax rates, to do just that. It was a fundamental misreading of the Constitution to say that these artificial legal constructs have the same right to spend money on politics as ordinary Americans have to speak out in support of a candidate.
The majority also makes the nonsensical claim that, unlike campaign contributions, which are still prohibited, independent expenditures by corporations “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” If Wall Street bankers told members of Congress that they would spend millions of dollars to defeat anyone who opposed their bailout, and then did so, it would certainly look corrupt....
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens warned that the ruling not only threatens democracy but “will, I fear, do damage to this institution.” History is, indeed, likely to look harshly not only on the decision but the court that delivered it. The Citizens United ruling is likely to be viewed as a shameful bookend to Bush v. Gore. With one 5-to-4 decision, the court’s conservative majority stopped valid votes from being counted to ensure the election of a conservative president. Now a similar conservative majority has distorted the political system to ensure that Republican candidates will be at an enormous advantage in future elections.
-- "The Court's Blow to Democracy"
New York Times Editorial
January 22, 2010
Full text at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22fri1.html
Dawson, I saw that NY Times editorial. It struck me as incredibly unreflective since two of the greatest first amendment cases in history, New York Times Co v. Sullivan and New York Times Co v. United States (the Pentagon Papers case) are premised on the New York Times Co.'s first amendment rights. Under the paper's editorial, those cases would be overturned.
ya can thank w. chamber of commerce sure got a good return on their '04 funding
dwps
Foster said "The problem with this restricted view of the first amendment right to free speech is that newspapers and magazines such as the NY Times, Honolulu Weekly, The Nation, Mother Jones, etc do not have any constitutional right to free speech but have only a limited license to speak freely bestowed by an act of congress."
I don't see any problem. Nothing is preventing any of the people working for those organizations from speaking as individuals.
Well to think that they have just opened the door and welcomed foreign corporations to purchase congress... Well, Iʻm going to have to take some time to hover my head over the toilet bowl.
Thatʻs quite a documentary:
http://freedocumentaries.org/theatre.php?filmID=102
Long one. Have to watch in segments.
Thanks Ed.
i believe ~ "foreign corps" (like foreign nationals) are still barred from contributions (recall clinton getting heat for same re asian corps)
wonder what that means for former US corps now based out of bahamas, etc. probably some interesting info there
dwps
I don't see any problem. Nothing is preventing any of the people working for those organizations from speaking as individuals.
That doesn't really solve the dilemma because while Joan, for instance, enjoys a constitutional right to write, once the corporate funds of, say, the Honolulu Weekly are used to publish her words, the published end product would no longer enjoy the heightened protections provided by the first amendment. (The work would not enjoy the protection against prior restraint, for instance, and the government could ban the paper from publishing it).
The Supreme Court case was about a movie that was critical of a public figure. While the film makers enjoyed a constitutional right to make the movie, under the law the government was able to restrict when the movie could be shown to the public.
Foster said: "That doesn't really solve the dilemma because while Joan, for instance, enjoys a constitutional right to write, once the corporate funds of, say, the Honolulu Weekly are used to publish her words, the published end product would no longer enjoy the heightened protections provided by the first amendment."
I still don't see any problem (except for corporate entities). Joan's blog goes worldwide with no corporate entity involved. Joan is human. The "heightened protection" now afforded to a "psychopathic person (a corporation)" was never intended. Your thinking is limited to what we now have, not what could be. The corporate fiction now feeding off living people is not a fact of nature but a poor choice gone mad.
BTW - If you have any doubts corporations are psychopathic please refer to the DSM-IV and check the characteristics, symptoms, and make your own diagnosis.
I still don't see any problem (except for corporate entities). Joan's blog goes worldwide with no corporate entity involved. Joan is human.
I disagree. The pinched view of Joan's first amendment rights - that they can be infringed if Joan uses corporate funds to publish her writing - is very much a problem for Joan. Why should her first amendment rights be determined by how publication of her writing is funded? The artificial disqualification of free speech rights based on who funds the publication of the speech very much harms the individual human writer.
I again disagree. What was intended was that congress MAKE NO LAW abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. There was no intent that, if modern corporations come into existence, that their funding of speech should somehow magically grant congress the power to abridge the freedom of speech and the press after all. You are the one announcing bizarre new theories of speech rights. Not me.
Finally, don't forger, some of the corporations benefiting from this recognition that congress can't stomp on the freedom of speech just because of how it is funded are Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and the Sierra Club.
"There was no intent that, if modern corporations come into existence,"
-- and dutch east india corp was well known -- as was its power -- prior to drafting. just saying
but this case still strikes me as bad public policy
plus, people are bound to think "hey, bill of rights (congress shall make no law etc etc) was RE gov - rules on it etc - and RE people ....it did not pertain to 'artificial people' (corps)"
dwps
plus, people are bound to think "hey, bill of rights (congress shall make no law etc etc) was RE gov - rules on it etc - and RE people ....it did not pertain to 'artificial people' (corps)"
I still disagree. Freedom of the press referred literally to the printing press and it protected political diatribes and criticism of political leaders from the reach of the government. I don't think it matters who pay for the speech. I think the founders would be shocked to learn that congress felt they could pass a law preventing anyone from publishing a pamphlet or book about political subjects no matter where the funding for the publication came from.
"no matter where the funding for the publication came from."
-- i bet they would be OK with our keeping "foreign" source funding out
dwps
Foster keeps disagreeing but fails to deal with the inherent psychopathology of corporations. The constitution was not meant to be a suicide pact. Individuals on a biological level "speak". The founders wanted to protect individual speech not some artificial fictitious composite. Show me the word corporation anywhere in the constitution or bill of rights for that matter. I have no problem with your sacred Sierra club or ACLU being barred from speaking. Throw in the KKK and Nat Rifle Assoc as well.
The founders wanted to protect individual speech not some artificial fictitious composite. Show me the word corporation anywhere in the constitution or bill of rights for that matter.
The word "wiretap" also appears nowhere in the constitution, but that doesn't mean the unwarranted wiretapping of your phone doesn't violate your fourth amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure.
The founders sought to protect speech. Especially political speech. Of course corporations can't speak. Only individuals are capable of that. Individuals made the film that was banned under the law. Individuals write the ads and pamphlets and books that fall under the law's restrictions. What the artificially pinched view of free speech rights advocated here does is impinges on the right to publish speech based on how its publication is funded. That is what would offend the founders - the idea that speech can be restrained based on who or what pays for its publication.
I suppose I fail to deal with the theoretical "inherent psychopathology of corporations" because, admitting the theory's correctness for the sake of argument, it would be as irrelevant to the discussion as the inherent psychopathology of some criminals whose constitutional rights are also protected. In fact, this argument against speech based on corporate funding is distinctly Nixonian in its vilification of "undeserved" recipients of constitutional protections.
Foster said "In fact, this argument against speech based on corporate funding is distinctly Nixonian in its vilification of "undeserved" recipients of constitutional protections."
Really cheap shot to include corporations into a class of "undeserved recipients". Same kind of twisted logic Corporations used to subvert the 14th Amendment to include themselves. I suppose your are also a big advocate of federal asset forfeiture laws as well because "the property allowed itself to be used in the commission of a crime".
No mention of corporations in "McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n (93-986), 514 U.S. 334 (1995)" which affirmed anonymous free speech (for PEOPLE) was (and is) protected speech.
"Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution. The First Amendment affords the broadest protection to such political expression in order `to assure [the] unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.' Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484 (1957). Although First Amendment protections are not confined to `the exposition of ideas,' Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 510 (1948), `there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs, . . . of course includ[ing] discussions of candidates . . . .' Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966). This no more than reflects our `profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open,' New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964). In a republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices among candidates for office is essential, for the identities of those who are elected will inevitably shape the course that we follow as a nation. As the Court observed in Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 272 (1971), `it can hardly be doubted that the constitutional guarantee has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office.' " Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1976)."
"the inherent psychopathology of some criminals whose constitutional rights are also protected."
Criminals are "people" too.
I think it is the opponents of "corporate free speech" who are operating from a legal fiction. "Corporate speech" is of course produced by human individuals. The way the law that was overturned attempted to remove first amendment rights from this speech is by arbitrarily decreeing that speech funded by corporate money is outside of the protections of the constitution.
The idea that speech loses its first amendment protections once its dissemination is despoiled by corporate funding is an absurdity. Under that view, if a Sierra Club executive director writes a criticism of a politician's environmental record at home, and puts it online at his or her own expense, it is protected speech. But if the director writes the same article at work and puts it on a Sierra Club site, it loses its first amendment protections. That is arbitrary and absurd.
And, no, I'm not fond of asset forfeiture. I'm not sure how that even follows.
"The idea that speech loses its first amendment protections once its dissemination is despoiled by corporate funding is an absurdity.
No it is perfectly logical.
Under that view, if a Sierra Club executive director writes a criticism of a politician's environmental record at home, and puts it online at his or her own expense, it is protected speech."
Well of course it is
But if the director writes the same article at work and puts it on a Sierra Club site, it loses its first amendment protections.
As it should. Pope would then not be speaking for himself but the corporate entity (and getting paid to write what the corporation wants (see Bayonet Constitution).
That is arbitrary and absurd.
Not at all! Free speech is political and corporate speech is economic. That's why journalists are not permitted to write whatever they want as the corporation puts the words in their mouths. If a Journalist like Joan even writes something in her blog critical of her employer she will be fired. Why should the non-human economic interests dictate human speech?
And, no, I'm not fond of asset forfeiture. I'm not sure how that even follows."
The relationship between Corporations having attributes of human beings and property having "intent" is the absurd nexus between Corporations having the rights intended for humans, and property being a thinking entity capable of "intent". There is a bright line between humans, corporations and property regardless of how sophists may want to blur it. It is called consciousness (and conscience as well) both of which are lacking in corporations and property
The Supreme Court decision isn't so bad because, you know, we the people have such a powerful voice (when compared to corporations) in how decisions are made now. And it's wonderful that the news media has such a terrific sense of civic responsibility that they only focus on the important issues of the day and in such an objective fashion. Don't you trust our political system to pick the best candidates regardless of corporate influence on the process? And once elected, don't you trust our politicians to do the right thing despite the potential for corporations to spend vast amounts of money to influence their chances at being re-elected? C'mon, stop being so cynical.
"Don't you trust our political system to pick the best candidates regardless of corporate influence on the process? And once elected, don't you trust our politicians to do the right thing despite the potential for corporations to spend vast amounts of money to influence their chances at being re-elected? C'mon, stop being so cynical."
Yeah! Pollyanna want a banana?
I think the only way lawmakers were able to assume away to such a breathtaking extent the first amendment right to freedom of the press was by not exercising to its full extent the power they took upon themselves. They explicitly granted corporate owned newspapers an exemption. Had they not, the notion that newspapers do not enjoy an unassailable first amendment right to freedom of the press simply by virtue of their being owned by corporations would have shocked everyone (or nearly everyone) and congress would never have gotten away with it.
I understand and agree with some of the fears regarding unfettered access to the airwaves of corporate political messages, but the net good or bad outcomes of something are irrelevant to whether or not that something enjoys constitutional protections.
Foster said, "but the net good or bad outcomes of something are irrelevant to whether or not that something enjoys constitutional protections."
If the constitution, bill of rights, and laws are not to promote the public good, what is their purpose? If that is irrelevant so is "respect for the law." Corporations routinely break the law and view it as "the cost of doing business." Charter revocation could put them to death, but they already paid off the executioner.
Foster said, "but the net good or bad outcomes of something are irrelevant to whether or not that something enjoys constitutional protections."
If the constitution, bill of rights, and laws are not to promote the public good, what is their purpose?
The fourth amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The argument that it routinely helps murderers and child molesters is irrelevant to a discussion over whether murderers and child molesters enjoy fourth amendment protections. They do whether or not you, I, or anyone else thinks such protections lead on net to good or bad outcomes. The constitution says what it says, regardless of how much we like or dislike the outcome. That's what I mean when I say "the net good or bad outcomes of something are irrelevant to whether or not that something enjoys constitutional protections."
(Enjoyable discussion, by the way).
Foster said:"The fourth amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The argument that it routinely helps murderers and child molesters is irrelevant to a discussion over whether murderers and child molesters enjoy fourth amendment protections"
But murders and child molesters are people. Corporations are not. A shark kills and eats a human. The shark is not human. No trial no nothing. If we can we will subject that shark to the extra-judicial measure of killing it. Now you may argue for the inclusion of this predator into a class of "people" with all the rights of people, but I would still argue it is a shark. Why should corporations be given any more rights than a shark? Both are predators (an attribute of humans for sure) but, IMHO that one shared attribute does not justify inclusion into the class of humans.
All you chicken littles, have no fear! We have the orb and the orgasmatron and ipods and flat screen TVs and all of these wonderful that make our lives so, well, wonderful. Why do you want to get into a tiff over something like message control for the masses? So maybe eighty or ninety of our senators, 3/4 of the representatives and our president can't make a decision without first checking in with their corporate sponsors, what's the big deal? It's not like corporations aren't owned by loyal Americans.
"And, no, I'm not fond of asset forfeiture. I'm not sure how that even follows."
-- what, you dont dig the non sequitors here? :)
"the property allowed itself to be used in the commission of a crime"
-- please not the cite to that quote
dwps
oh, and i see more than a couple comments echoed the (obvious) gripe RE: "people are bound to think "hey, bill of rights (congress shall make no law etc etc) was RE gov - rules on it etc - and RE people ....it did not pertain to 'artificial people' (corps)"
dwps said ""the property allowed itself to be used in the commission of a crime"
-- please not the cite to that quote
What you doubt a US policy could be that insane? Oh the horror right here
http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/Asset_Forfeiture_Briefing.pdf
Are you a psychopath? Are corporations? You be the judge
Are 3 or more of the following statements true:
1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others and lack of the capacity for empathy.
2. Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.
3. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships.
4. Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.
5. Incapacity to experience guilt and to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
6. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior bringing the subject into conflict.
7. Persistent irritability.
"Psychopaths are glib and superficially charming, and many psychopaths are excellent mimics of normal human emotion;[10] some psychopaths can blend in, undetected, in a variety of surroundings, including corporate environments.[11] There is neither a cure nor any effective treatment for psychopathy; there are no medications or other techniques which can instill empathy, and psychopaths who undergo traditional talk therapy only become more adept at manipulating others."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychopathy&oldid=340047532
No cure! No treatment!
Civil forfeiture is based on the
legal fiction that the property that facilitates or is con-
nected with a crime has itself committed a wrong and can
be seized and tried in civil court (e.g., United States v. One
1974 Cadillac Eldorado Sedan6).
I googled that Eldorado Sedan case but it doesn't say anything at all about civil forfeiture being based on the legal fiction that the property has committed a crime or whatever. Then I googled the Drug Policy Foundation who wrote the thing anonymous 7:25 PM linked to and I see one of their goals says To eliminate the criminal prohibition of drug use. Maybe they just want to make forfeiture look as stupid as possible because they are against it?
1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others and lack of the capacity for empathy.
2. Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.
3. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships.
5. Incapacity to experience guilt and to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
6. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior bringing the subject into conflict.
...Describes the behavior of Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo and AIG perfectly.
ergo ~ "the thing that that does not follow from itself" as we see here often:
"What you doubt a US policy could be that insane? Oh the horror right here
http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/Asset_Forfeiture_Briefing.pdf"
i ask for a cite, you offer somthing else
you offered a quote, which set forth a certain standard, and i wanted to see its source - not your disdain for drug laws
but i am still interested in cites to real property having mens rea
but no big deal
and yes there are problems in US drug law, im not challenging that
dwps
oh, and i see more than a couple comments echoed the (obvious) gripe RE: "people are bound to think "hey, bill of rights (congress shall make no law etc etc) was RE gov - rules on it etc - and RE people ....it did not pertain to 'artificial people' (corps)"
The artificial, arbitrary fiction is that people somehow lose their freedom of speech just because they have organized themselves as a corporation.
First of all, nowhere does the first amendment assert that it protects an "individual" right. It wa in part a response to prior restraint, taxes, and licensing fees imposed by the crown on printed materials. It would be a surprise to the founders if a manifesto drafted and signed by a dozen concerned citizens was somehow outside the protections of the first amendment merely by virtue of it being a group statement.
Second, freedom of speech and the press is not now nor has it ever been limited to an individual right. If you start a political advocacy group which puts out group voter recommendations or takes out campaign ads, your group's activities are protected against prior restraint and censorship by the first amendment. But if your group incorporates, suddenly, the same activities by the same people are deemed outside the protections of the constitution. That is an arbitrary and artificial distinction and the court was correct in throwing it out on its ear.
Yes, the distinction between the League of Women Voters and AIG, Northrup, and others who associate for fun or profit is artificial. How silly to not equate Shell, Chevron or Dow Chemical with the Humane Society. It's just people gettin' together.
Here is the fatal flaw in thee fiction foster promotes
"The court again ratified the concept that corporations are persons, except in those cases where the "persons" agree to a "settlement." Those within corporations who commit crimes can avoid going to prison by paying large sums of money to the government while, according to this twisted judicial reasoning, not "admitting any wrongdoing." There is a word for this. It is called corruption."
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/25
firstly, i reiterated my prediction as it seemed to play out, not as i deemed that thinking to be in accordance with legal doctrine etc
and i guess i should also mention: (1) ive spent little time ever "getting up to speed on" the founding documents (at least by my standard), so im hesitant to offer certain legal views on it the likes of which i could get a federal judge to agree with me on, and (2) save for a few items, that stuff sure as shit aint set in stone, nor should it be (and people like scalia are free to disagree)
otherwise, im not really taking any issues with most of the points you just made. just saying
lastly, just because a logical extrapolation can be made from those governing documents to support the notion that a corporation (for profit or otherwise) has the same right to petition its government as a human citizen does not mean that decision is sound public policy. i would imagine this is obvious to most, if not i can explain
thank you
dwps
Here's an interesting quote from a 1952 Supreme Court case, Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson,343 U.S. 495 (1952):
"It is urged that motion pictures do not fall within the First Amendment's aegis because their production, distribution, and exhibition is a large-scale business conducted for private profit. We cannot agree. That books, newspapers, and magazines are published and sold for profit does not prevent them from being a form of expression whose liberty is safeguarded by the First Amendment. We fail to see why operation for profit should have any different effect in the case of motion pictures."
Burstyn ruled, by the way, that a law prohibiting the showing of movies deemed to be "sacrilegious" violated the First Amendment rights of the Appellant who was "a corporation engaged in the business of distributing motion pictures." So at the very least it is not some new, radical notion that corporations enjoy first amendment protections.
dwps said: "but i am still interested in cites to real property having mens rea"
What the first sentence in the cite doesn't have enough mens rea for you?
"The legal principle underlying civil asset forfeiture—that property can be
guilty of wrong-doing and seized as punishment."
Not really interested in being your private research assistant in your pursuit of your interests but here is a start http://www.fear.org/
Finally I expressed no opinion on drug laws.
What the first sentence in the cite doesn't have enough mens rea for you?
"The legal principle underlying civil asset forfeiture—that property can be
guilty of wrong-doing and seized as punishment."
its not a site. just a made up statement by an anti drug law group.
Given the Supreme Court's ruling, how do you prevent a foreign company or person from buying controlling shares in an American corporation or forming an American corporation, thereby obtaining the capacity to donate unlimited sums of money to influence American elections?
"But if your group incorporates, suddenly, the same activities by the same people are deemed outside the protections of the constitution. That is an arbitrary and artificial distinction and the court was correct in throwing it out on its ear."
Wrong for it is neither arbitrary nor artificial nor the same activity (political advocacy) as a corporation is established for ECONOMIC interests and POLITICAL ADVOCACY is secondary to advancing those interest and providing liability protection. This is unlike the unincorporated groups which bears individual responsibility for their actions which are not soly economic in nature.
Anon: ""The legal principle underlying civil asset forfeiture—that property can be
guilty of wrong-doing and seized as punishment."
its not a site. just a made up statement by an anti drug law group."
It is both a site (website) and a cite (as in citation) the citation is from Republican Henry Hyde (He chaired the Judiciary Committee from 1995 to 2001)and who I don't believe has every been characterized as "anti drug law" Senator. Try putting your uninformed opinions under your thinking cap.
If it is not assumed property has mens rea under what theory of law can property be sued in civil court"
Anybody?
"What the first sentence in the cite doesn't have enough mens rea for you?"
-- well if you can find such mens rea codified or in a court case, and can post it, yes id like to see it. thanks
"Finally I expressed no opinion on drug laws."
-- true. pardon
to January 26, 2010 3:37 PM, there are laws on the books on that, that are enforced, sorry i cant cite them tho :)
dwps
What are you talking about, you knucklehead? An action in rem is just a lawsuit to determine the title of property against the whole rest of the world as opposed to against some other particular person. It's common in real estate to establish title to property. There's no theory that the real estate did anything wrong. Silly.
Foster said: "It would be a surprise to the founders if a manifesto drafted and signed by a dozen concerned citizens was somehow outside the protections of the first amendment merely by virtue of it being a group statement."
No the Founding Fathers would be surprised et your verbal sleight-of-hand that conflated a "group" and a corporation. They are not the same thing! A corporation is established to make a profit and avoid liability. A group is an unincorporated assemblage and each individuals bears personal responsibility for their actions.
"What are you talking about, you knucklehead? An action in rem is just a lawsuit to determine the title of property against the whole rest of the world as opposed to against some other particular person. It's common in real estate to establish title to property. There's no theory that the real estate did anything wrong. Silly."
Sir your tone has become quite insulting and I take umbrage at your characterization. FYI Mens Rea is latin for "guilty mind" furthermore I do not believe real estate agents have the power to engage in Federal or State Civil Forfeiture actions against property for committing a crime. You Sir are No Charles Darwin and your unprovoked verbal attacks merit removal from this site. I for one will refrain from further discussion with you until you develop some measure of civility. Good day Sir!
Post a Comment