The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Senator Jon Tester of Montana has just introduced our People’s Rights Amendment in the U.S Senate

Kulindahr said:
More lies about what I said.

PEOPLE have free speech -- all people.

Your fantasies about liberals aren't relevant here. What's relevant is that corporatists such as yourself believe that some people are more equal than others. The path you espouse isn't about economic freedom, but about economic tyranny.
Click to expand...
Talking about "corporatists" is only babble, which does not contribute to the discussion. There is no established mean of the epithet. The word has many meanings, discussed in detail in Wikipedia, none of which bear any resemblance to your idiosyncratic meaning.

Don't call me a liar, you specifically said this: "It is not covered by the Constitution, which specifies that every PERSON has freedom of speech, etc." You lie in denying that you said it, and it is dead wrong. The Constitution specifies no such thing. You clearly have not read the Constitution.
Corporations are not people, but legally, they are "persons". You may not like it, but the law is not putty in your hands, and Corporations do not become any less legally persons because you don't like it. It would take a great deal of work by Congress and all the State legislatures to make them non-persons, and a new word would need to be coined to serve the purpose now served bv the word person.
 
Well, if corporations are people then they should pay taxes just like every other person in America. No tax exemption for Religions. No tax exemption for political parties or political action committees. And just like you and I need to disclose the source of our income so should religious and political organizations. And since persons are limited in the amount they can give to a political organization, so should corporations. If you want to tell me that corporations are people, Accept that I will demand that corporations act accordingly. This paragraph, written into law, would effectively eliminate probably 95% of corporate campaign funding. And would effectively end corporate sponsorship of elections and the wholesale purchase of a candidate.
 
Can you not read? I specifically said "Corporations are not people." And remember, Congress is specifically prohibited from taxing the practice of religion. Any tax on churches would be a prohibited tax, with the exception of unrelated income.
 
Churches are exempt from taxation as long as they are not acting politically. But this has been the law even before I was the Treasurer of a church board in the 1980's and 1990's http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

All IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious organizations, must abide by certain rules:
■ their net earnings may not inure to any private shareholder or individual,
■ they must not provide a substantial benefit to private interests,
■ they must not devote a substantial part of their activities to attempting to influence legislation,
■ they must not participate in, or intervene in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to)
any candidate for public office, and
■ the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious organizations, are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or
written) made by or on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax.
Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including the presentation of public forums and the publication of voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not constitute prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner. On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that: (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.
Click to expand...


Actually, What you said was: Corporations are not people, but legally, they are "persons". You may not like it, but the law is not putty in your hands, and Corporations do not become any less legally persons because you don't like it. It would take a great deal of work by Congress and all the State legislatures to make them non-persons, and a new word would need to be coined to serve the purpose now served bv the word person.

What I am saying, is that if Corporations are "Persons", let them pay taxes just like every other "person" in the United States. Initially, if I recall, corporations were allowed limited rights, dealing with property, employment, and legal practices. They were not afforded protections of free speech, or the ability to participate in elections. That is why corporations do not vote.
 
The attempt to tax churches if they engage in political speech is clearly contrary to the First amendment and the IRS has been wary of attempting to enforce it. In the last election some ministers made political sermons and sent copies to the IRS, in effect challenging an attempt at enforcement.
Of course Corporations are taxed at a high rate, and they are less sucessful than individuals in avoiding it. If they pay dividends, the income is taxed all over again in the hands of the shareholders. But taxes can never be high enough to satisfy the liberals.
There has never been a time, since the Constitution, when Congress had the power to limit free speech by Corporations. "Congress shall pass no law......." Even prior to that I have never read of an attempt to limit Corporate speech. It is only recently that a movement to destroy Capitalism has gotten much momentum in the US.
 
Benvolio said:
Talking about "corporatists" is only babble, which does not contribute to the discussion. There is no established mean of the epithet. The word has many meanings, discussed in detail in Wikipedia, none of which bear any resemblance to your idiosyncratic meaning.

Don't call me a liar, you specifically said this: "It is not covered by the Constitution, which specifies that every PERSON has freedom of speech, etc." You lie in denying that you said it, and it is dead wrong. The Constitution specifies no such thing. You clearly have not read the Constitution.
Corporations are not people, but legally, they are "persons". You may not like it, but the law is not putty in your hands, and Corporations do not become any less legally persons because you don't like it. It would take a great deal of work by Congress and all the State legislatures to make them non-persons, and a new word would need to be coined to serve the purpose now served bv the word person.
Click to expand...

Well, you clearly don't believe the law, or you'd be calling to do away with corporate taxes and make them use the same tax tables as the rest of us -- something you'd scream bloody murder about if anyone suggested it.

Your hypocrisy in defending tyranny and misreading the Constitution to suit your ideology is vast. I suggest you go back to Stormfront and stop pretending to be anything other than an anti-liberty apologist for uber-wealthy authoritarians.
 
Benvolio said:
Can you not read? I specifically said "Corporations are not people." And remember, Congress is specifically prohibited from taxing the practice of religion. Any tax on churches would be a prohibited tax, with the exception of unrelated income.
Click to expand...

If corporations are not people, they have no rights. See, if they are not human beings, they have no rights: "All men are created equal, and endowed... with certain inalienable rights".

And as the Supreme Court has observed on numerous occasions, the First Amendment applies to individual rights, just as the rest do.
 
Kulindahr said:
Well, you clearly don't believe the law, or you'd be calling to do away with corporate taxes and make them use the same tax tables as the rest of us -- something you'd scream bloody murder about if anyone suggested it.

Your hypocrisy in defending tyranny and misreading the Constitution to suit your ideology is vast. I suggest you go back to Stormfront and stop pretending to be anything other than an anti-liberty apologist for uber-wealthy authoritarians.
Click to expand...
Your rudeness and screeching is and admission that you cannot discuss the matter in a rational basis. You still have not read the Consiutution. After you have read it come back and try to discuss it logically.
Clearly it is your wistfully thinking which is at odds with the Supreme Court, Congress, the State Legislatures, other judges, the lawyers of America, etc. Liberals want to change the law because they do not like it as it is.
 
Kulindahr said:
If corporations are not people, they have no rights. See, if they are not human beings, they have no rights: "All men are created equal, and endowed... with certain inalienable rights".

And as the Supreme Court has observed on numerous occasions, the First Amendment applies to individual rights, just as the rest do.
Click to expand...

Your quote from the Declaration of Independence is inapposite. The DOI is not law and cannot override the Constitution. Of course the First Amendment applies to individual rights, but is not so limited. It applies as well to prohibit the Congress from limiting the speech of organizations, including corporations.
 
Benvolio said:
Your quote from the Declaration of Independence is inapposite. The DOI is not law and cannot override the Constitution. Of course the First Amendment applies to individual rights, but is not so limited. It applies as well to prohibit the Congress from limiting the speech of organizations, including corporations.
Click to expand...

Corporations have neither brains nor mouths. They have no more right of free speech than rocks or shoe leather, because speech requires thought and vocalization.

BTW, the Supreme Court has observed that the Declaration of Independence has legal standing.

Maybe you should study some law.
 
Kulindahr said:
Corporations have neither brains nor mouths. They have no more right of free speech than rocks or shoe leather, because speech requires thought and vocalization.

BTW, the Supreme Court has observed that the Declaration of Independence has legal standing.

Maybe you should study some law.
Click to expand...

You are clearly wrong. NY Times, NBC, CNN Universities, Church corporations etc, etc, do have freedom of speech. More importantly Congress lacks the power to abridge speech.
Please tell us where the Supreme Court said the Declaration is law.
 
Benvolio said:
You are clearly wrong. NY Times, NBC, CNN Universities, Church corporations etc, etc, do have freedom of speech. More importantly Congress lacks the power to abridge speech.
Please tell us where the Supreme Court said the Declaration is law.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the proof you're not an attorney of any sort.
 
The Declaration of Independence is part of the US Code and is listed under the heading, “The Organic Laws of the United States of America.”
 
opinterph said:
The Declaration of Independence is part of the US Code and is listed under the heading, “The Organic Laws of the United States of America.”
Click to expand...
It was given legal effect to the extent of its operative clause, i.e., its actual termination of the the legal authority of Great Britain. Its nice preliminary recitations about rights, "endowed by their creator" etc. are not law, but are merely recitations. Even the operative clause, of course, was superseded by the Constitution. If you disagree, are you willing to accept that it is the law of the US that God created us and gave us rights? It certainly is not a law as Kulindahr wants, that Corporations have no rights.
 
Kulindahr said:
If he really is an attorney, he's one of the variety who isn't interested in what the law means, only in what he wants it to mean. So he'd challenge Ronald Reagan on his speech in Berlin.
Click to expand...

In this specific instance you claim the Constitution gives freedom of speech to individual but not corporations. In fact, it does not by its terms grant such freedom but prohibits: Congress shall pass no law restricting freedom of speech. You obstinately refuse to read the Constitution and persist in claiming that it says what you want it to say. You are doing precisely what you claim I do, while I am reading what the Constitution says.
 
Corporations are not people, so they should not have freedom of speech. The constitution does not apply to corporations, same was as it doesn't apply to bakeries, airports or my local comic book store.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top