"Again, does the First Amendment apply to a group of people? I would have to say yes, otherwise what good is a peaceful assembly."
Assembly is not speech. They are two different things, thus the need to mention them both in the Bill of Rights.
Individual people in a group each have the freedom of speech, which is the only thing supporting the idea of "group speech".
Individual people in a corporation have freedom of speech. That does not automatically grant the corporation any right to speak for them. This is exactly the issue that went to the courts in regard to unions: does a union have the right to use membership dues to support a political candidate, whom the individual members may not support?
What gives the union board the right to speak for all the members, possibly against their will?
What gives a corporation a right to speak for all its employees and stockholders (without whom it could not exist), possibly against their will?
I simply have to disagree. The individual members of those organizations have that right. The simple filing of corporate papers does not automatically create an extra "person" with the right of free political speech backed by dollars.
I understand what you are saying, I just disagree. The idea that the framers intended the First Amendment to apply to corporations stretches credibility beyond the breaking point.
If the word "corporation" (they did exist at the time) had been mentioned even once, anywhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, I might concede this point. But it doesn't, and therefore I won't. The Constitution is a compact between The People, The States, and the Federal government. Corporations had no part in it. They are legal entities for the purpose of engaging in business, nothing more. They do not have rights, even in appearance.
I meant cyclones, not tsunamis. Just a brief mental slip, not "ignorance".
"And its YOU who's denying the simple facts. And ignoring that which you can't defend. Such as the perfect analogy between the need for government action on tobacco and the need for government action on fossil fuels."
That's pretty funny. What simple facts did I deny?
And as I mentioned elsewhere, that analogy was far from perfect. It wasn't even close. I never said there was no need for government action on fossil fuels... yet again, you either misunderstood or mischaracterized my statements. What I actually stated was that the two cannot be handled in the same way, because the situations are not remotely similar.
Yes, that's true. My point actually related to hurricanes and cyclones, not tsunamis. I just had it stuck in my head that a couple of recent tsunamis skewed the death figures for the whole last half-century, but that's not really relevant to the discussion.
The fact remains that extreme weather events have not been increasing in either number or severity.
As I mentioned to the previous poster: even if you don't believe the original figures, you still have to admit the $3 billion donated to pro-Global Warming studies by Richard Branson.
But no, if you want to call BS on the figures, you can't do it on that basis. The figures specifically separated "pro-AGW" from "anti-AGW" dollars. If you want to refute something, refute what dollars actually went where, but you can't say it is "assuming" anything of the sort.
"Are you serious? Some industry-sponsored (Heartland Institute) aussie climate scientist pulled that number out of his ass (at least there is no telling where it came from)."
If you're going to call me on my facts, then you should make sure you have your own straight. Robert Carter does not accept research funding from special interests. At all.
Yes, he has given presentations at the Heartland Institute and served as a witness before the Senate. So it's to be guilt by association? Since those were the conclusions he came to, where else do you expect him to speak? You know damned well he wouldn't be invited to the IPCC or Hadley Centre to give a speech.
Even if you don't accept the figures I originally gave, how about official Government figures? "Warmists" are fond of repeating the $19 million that has been received for skeptical research in past years. Yet the USDA in 2007 awarded a grant of $20 million to study how "farm odors" contribute to global warming... exceeding all of the money that skeptics reportedly received in the past two decades. Just to study cow shit.
Sorry, guy, even if you don't buy my original numbers, if you really want to debate who has spent more money, you will still lose.
"Are you serious? Some industry-sponsored (Heartland Institute) aussie climate scientist pulled that number out of his ass (at least there is no telling where it came from)."
If you're going to call me on my facts, then you should make sure you have your own straight. Robert Carter does not accept research funding from special interests. At all.
Yes, he has given presentations at the Heartland Institute and served as a witness before the Senate. Since those were the conclusions he made, where else do you expect him to state them? You know damned well he wouldn't be invited to the IPCC or Hadley Centre to give a speech.
Even if you don't accept those figures, how about official Government figures? "Warmists" are fond of repeating the $19 million that has been received for skeptical research in past years. Yet the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 2007 awarded a grant of $20 million to study how "farm odors" contribute to global warming... exceeded all of the money that skeptics reportedly received in the past two decades. Just to study the smell of cow shit.
Sorry, guy, even if you don't buy my original numbers, if you really want to debate who has spent more money, you will still lose.
"2. No, it's a rational prediction based on his track record."
Your belief that it's a rational prediction doesn't make it a logical argument. He could have been wrong 100 times and still be right this time. But you are arguing against the person, rather than the points he raised on that page. That is an ad hominem argument, by definition.
I will ask again: why don't you refute the points he raised?
"I can throw a thousand links at you and it won't change your mind"
How do you know? You haven't tried. Unwarranted assumptions again.
"... however if you would just practice a little self scepticism and google debunk Inhofe for yourself..."
Hahahahahahahaha! I give you a link to a collection of links to facts about money spent on research, complete with references, and (1) you claim the source is not credible, and (2) you don't bother to check the references.
I will remind you: the point I raised, and which you should be trying to refute if you want to get anywhere here, was the relative amounts being spent on research. But instead, you link me to... who? Real Climate! And you expect me to accept THEM as an unbiased, credible source? Do you know who is behind Real Climate? It just happens to be Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, and the rest of the Had-CRU bunch.
AND... they are not "debunking" a collection of facts about budget supplied by others (which is what I linked you to), but a SPEECH made at some time by Inhofe himself! Big deal!
While it's possible that Inhofe is biased (anybody can be), you tried to give me directly interested parties and expect me to take them on their word? That's like basing a court decision on simply whether the defendant says he is guilty or not.
Dude. If this were a formal debate, you'd be laughed out of the room.
What's wrong about it is that it is incorrect. Libertarians are not "right wing nut jobs", or even right wing at all. I won't argue with the nut job part, as that is clearly a matter of opinion.
"The analogy is perfect. Its a perfect comparison. You just want to avoid it because you know it means you've lost the argument."
The analogy is hilarious. They aren't the same situations at all. Not even close.
Tobacco is and was not an important energy resource. A solution that worked for tobacco would not even remotely work for the coal industry. You can't just stop using it, you have to replace it with something else first.
That means any solution would have to be implemented while the coal plants are still operating. Which means cooperating with industry, not simply outlawing it or imposing restrictions that would make it unprofitable, as long as they are still running.
So, yeah. I stick by my original statement. Any solution will have to involve the industry. Whether they go kicking and screaming or not, that's the only option other than nationalizing the whole industry, and Americans would never stand for that (nor would it be legal).
"I don't know that much about you, but your politics are as plain as day in the opinions you give. For some reason you're shy about identifying your politics. I'm not shy about identifying your politics."
I'm not "shy" about identifying my politics. I have stated them here many times. But I have no reason to cooperate with some smartass who incorrectly lumps me into categories where I don't belong.
"The Tea Party was never what it pretended to be. It was created by "Americans For Prosperity", a lobbying and astroturfing group financed by the Koch Brothers. They were inspired by a rant by Rick Santelli. And it was boosted by the buffoon Glenn Beck and the rest of Fox News. It died away quickly because it had never really existed as a grass roots organisation it claimed to be. Once it has outlived it's usefulness for astroturfing, the Kochs financing disappeared, and Glenn Beck was fired from Fox News. That's why it doesn't exist anymore."
Your story of its origin is very much debatable, and in fact a minority view. See Wikipedia if you want references. I was explicitly referring to its origin, not what happened after other people got their hands on it. That was my point, which you seem to have missed.
"I trust you weren't suckered into it yourself?"
I have never been a member or active supporter of the Tea Party, although I did sympathize with some of their original views. Not what came later.
By the way: if you look at that article, notice how Wikipedia mentions "conservatives and libertarians"? They are not the same things, which is what I have been saying all along.
Yes, I got your point. But my point was that the scenario you present is extremely unlikely to happen; the camera would have to accidentally capture some actual child molestation or sexual activity in progress.
"Except the right of free speech, and of the press, is not defined as of the PEOPLE. Instead it is a blanket command telling the government keep your grubby mitts off of censorship, no matter the source of the opinion."
I cannot agree. While people are not explicitly mentioned there, the notion that the 1st Amendment was intentionally written to include corporations is a bit too much of a stretch of the imagination for me.
"The courts found that the law acknowledged corporations had a right to free speech every time except withing X days of an election, and told Congress that you can't have it both ways."
Apparently my point went completely over your head. The issue I raised is whether corporations are actually people, and therefore have "rights" at all. If they do, then the First Amendment applies. But if they do not, then the First Amendment cannot apply.
As you say: Congress could legislate what corporations may or may not do. But those aren't rights, those are legal privileges. Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to either grant or take away rights, without first amending the Constitution.
I think you have them backward. The premise is that corporations are not people and do not have rights. The conclusion is that since they do not have rights, they cannot therefore assert their "first amendment rights", which for them do not exist.
"It just means that the States are not allowed to introduce their own money by a legal act, except for gold and silver coins. Monetary policy is thus a federal priviledge."
That does not follow at all. This clause explicitly says that states cannot accept anything but gold or silver in payment of debts, OR allow anything else to be legal tender for payment of debts (it says "debts", not just "state debts"). Debts include taxes. If a State cannot accept anything but gold and silver as payment of a debt, or allow anything else to be used as payment for a debt, then it cannot accept paper dollars or allow them to be used. The de facto currency of the United States therefore becomes gold and silver, and nothing else. Q.E.D.
You can't have that both ways. What that says is that even if the Federal government created some other form of money (whether paper dollars or plastic poker chips), States could not use it, or allow it to be used, for monetary transactions. So it would be completely worthless. There is NOTHING, anywhere, in the Constitution that makes an exception to that rule. Article I says the Federal government may coin money, but nowhere does it contradict what you quoted: that the money must consist of gold or silver.
Any other interpretation assumes they weren't using plain English.
I can almost guarantee that you have committed at least one Federal felony, based on the thousands and thousands of laws that now exist.
Did you know that it is a felony in the United States to import a plant or animal if it is illegal to export it from WHATEVER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD it came from, even if that plant or animal is perfectly legal here?
Which essentially means that our government is letting other nations define our laws for us.
A picture of a kid in underwear is not "child porn" anyway.
In one of their (rare, it seems these days) lucid moments, the Supreme Court ruled that "child pornography" had to consist of images of [A] actual children (not just artwork or animations or someone who looks young), and [B] actual pornography, by pretty much the same standards as other pornography is judged.
So all you parents who have pictures of naked kids in the bathtub can breathe a sigh of relief. The government isn't going to come after you. Not this decade, anyway.
It is not a "simple" First Amendment issue at all. To say that it is means you assume that corporations have "rights". But if they have First Amendment rights, then logically they also enjoy all the other freedoms that the Constitution and Bill of Rights give real people.
That would mean they could bear arms, and vote, and run for office, and be able to plead the 5th. (The corporations themselves, that is, not the people in them.)
You can't have it both ways. Either they have the rights of people, or they don't. If they do, they can vote. If they don't, they don't have First Amendment rights, either.
Slashdot Mirror
"Again, does the First Amendment apply to a group of people? I would have to say yes, otherwise what good is a peaceful assembly."
Assembly is not speech. They are two different things, thus the need to mention them both in the Bill of Rights.
Individual people in a group each have the freedom of speech, which is the only thing supporting the idea of "group speech".
Individual people in a corporation have freedom of speech. That does not automatically grant the corporation any right to speak for them. This is exactly the issue that went to the courts in regard to unions: does a union have the right to use membership dues to support a political candidate, whom the individual members may not support?
What gives the union board the right to speak for all the members, possibly against their will?
What gives a corporation a right to speak for all its employees and stockholders (without whom it could not exist), possibly against their will?
I simply have to disagree. The individual members of those organizations have that right. The simple filing of corporate papers does not automatically create an extra "person" with the right of free political speech backed by dollars.
I think we are at a standoff then here, because simply saying that they DO have rights, without any supporting facts, also does not get one anywhere.
And corporations are not a power structure "granted to the People". Granted by whom? They are merely a legal fiction, created for convenience.
If the framers had wanted to make corporations (which, I repeat, did exist at the time) any part of the Constitution, they could have. They did not.
I understand what you are saying, I just disagree. The idea that the framers intended the First Amendment to apply to corporations stretches credibility beyond the breaking point.
If the word "corporation" (they did exist at the time) had been mentioned even once, anywhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, I might concede this point. But it doesn't, and therefore I won't. The Constitution is a compact between The People, The States, and the Federal government. Corporations had no part in it. They are legal entities for the purpose of engaging in business, nothing more. They do not have rights, even in appearance.
"And its YOU who's denying the simple facts. And ignoring that which you can't defend. Such as the perfect analogy between the need for government action on tobacco and the need for government action on fossil fuels."
That's pretty funny. What simple facts did I deny?
And as I mentioned elsewhere, that analogy was far from perfect. It wasn't even close. I never said there was no need for government action on fossil fuels... yet again, you either misunderstood or mischaracterized my statements. What I actually stated was that the two cannot be handled in the same way, because the situations are not remotely similar.
Yes, that's true. My point actually related to hurricanes and cyclones, not tsunamis. I just had it stuck in my head that a couple of recent tsunamis skewed the death figures for the whole last half-century, but that's not really relevant to the discussion.
The fact remains that extreme weather events have not been increasing in either number or severity.
"Sure I group them all together. They are all right wingers"
You just proved my point. I hate to break it to you, but that's just plain wrong.
As I mentioned to the previous poster: even if you don't believe the original figures, you still have to admit the $3 billion donated to pro-Global Warming studies by Richard Branson.
But no, if you want to call BS on the figures, you can't do it on that basis. The figures specifically separated "pro-AGW" from "anti-AGW" dollars. If you want to refute something, refute what dollars actually went where, but you can't say it is "assuming" anything of the sort.
Pardon the duplicate. Slashdot screwed up there.
But I also wanted to remind you: we can't leave out that little $3 billion that was donated to global warming research by Richard Branson.
"Are you serious? Some industry-sponsored (Heartland Institute) aussie climate scientist pulled that number out of his ass (at least there is no telling where it came from)."
If you're going to call me on my facts, then you should make sure you have your own straight. Robert Carter does not accept research funding from special interests. At all.
Yes, he has given presentations at the Heartland Institute and served as a witness before the Senate. So it's to be guilt by association? Since those were the conclusions he came to, where else do you expect him to speak? You know damned well he wouldn't be invited to the IPCC or Hadley Centre to give a speech.
Even if you don't accept the figures I originally gave, how about official Government figures? "Warmists" are fond of repeating the $19 million that has been received for skeptical research in past years. Yet the USDA in 2007 awarded a grant of $20 million to study how "farm odors" contribute to global warming... exceeding all of the money that skeptics reportedly received in the past two decades. Just to study cow shit.
Sorry, guy, even if you don't buy my original numbers, if you really want to debate who has spent more money, you will still lose.
"Are you serious? Some industry-sponsored (Heartland Institute) aussie climate scientist pulled that number out of his ass (at least there is no telling where it came from)."
If you're going to call me on my facts, then you should make sure you have your own straight. Robert Carter does not accept research funding from special interests. At all.
Yes, he has given presentations at the Heartland Institute and served as a witness before the Senate. Since those were the conclusions he made, where else do you expect him to state them? You know damned well he wouldn't be invited to the IPCC or Hadley Centre to give a speech.
Even if you don't accept those figures, how about official Government figures? "Warmists" are fond of repeating the $19 million that has been received for skeptical research in past years. Yet the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 2007 awarded a grant of $20 million to study how "farm odors" contribute to global warming... exceeded all of the money that skeptics reportedly received in the past two decades. Just to study the smell of cow shit.
Sorry, guy, even if you don't buy my original numbers, if you really want to debate who has spent more money, you will still lose.
"2. No, it's a rational prediction based on his track record."
Your belief that it's a rational prediction doesn't make it a logical argument. He could have been wrong 100 times and still be right this time. But you are arguing against the person, rather than the points he raised on that page. That is an ad hominem argument, by definition.
I will ask again: why don't you refute the points he raised?
"I can throw a thousand links at you and it won't change your mind"
How do you know? You haven't tried. Unwarranted assumptions again.
"... however if you would just practice a little self scepticism and google debunk Inhofe for yourself..."
Hahahahahahahaha! I give you a link to a collection of links to facts about money spent on research, complete with references, and (1) you claim the source is not credible, and (2) you don't bother to check the references.
I will remind you: the point I raised, and which you should be trying to refute if you want to get anywhere here, was the relative amounts being spent on research. But instead, you link me to... who? Real Climate! And you expect me to accept THEM as an unbiased, credible source? Do you know who is behind Real Climate? It just happens to be Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, and the rest of the Had-CRU bunch.
AND... they are not "debunking" a collection of facts about budget supplied by others (which is what I linked you to), but a SPEECH made at some time by Inhofe himself! Big deal!
While it's possible that Inhofe is biased (anybody can be), you tried to give me directly interested parties and expect me to take them on their word? That's like basing a court decision on simply whether the defendant says he is guilty or not.
Dude. If this were a formal debate, you'd be laughed out of the room.
What's wrong about it is that it is incorrect. Libertarians are not "right wing nut jobs", or even right wing at all. I won't argue with the nut job part, as that is clearly a matter of opinion.
"The analogy is perfect. Its a perfect comparison. You just want to avoid it because you know it means you've lost the argument."
The analogy is hilarious. They aren't the same situations at all. Not even close.
Tobacco is and was not an important energy resource. A solution that worked for tobacco would not even remotely work for the coal industry. You can't just stop using it, you have to replace it with something else first.
That means any solution would have to be implemented while the coal plants are still operating. Which means cooperating with industry, not simply outlawing it or imposing restrictions that would make it unprofitable, as long as they are still running.
So, yeah. I stick by my original statement. Any solution will have to involve the industry. Whether they go kicking and screaming or not, that's the only option other than nationalizing the whole industry, and Americans would never stand for that (nor would it be legal).
"I don't know that much about you, but your politics are as plain as day in the opinions you give. For some reason you're shy about identifying your politics. I'm not shy about identifying your politics."
I'm not "shy" about identifying my politics. I have stated them here many times. But I have no reason to cooperate with some smartass who incorrectly lumps me into categories where I don't belong.
"The Tea Party was never what it pretended to be. It was created by "Americans For Prosperity", a lobbying and astroturfing group financed by the Koch Brothers. They were inspired by a rant by Rick Santelli. And it was boosted by the buffoon Glenn Beck and the rest of Fox News. It died away quickly because it had never really existed as a grass roots organisation it claimed to be. Once it has outlived it's usefulness for astroturfing, the Kochs financing disappeared, and Glenn Beck was fired from Fox News. That's why it doesn't exist anymore."
Your story of its origin is very much debatable, and in fact a minority view. See Wikipedia if you want references. I was explicitly referring to its origin, not what happened after other people got their hands on it. That was my point, which you seem to have missed.
"I trust you weren't suckered into it yourself?"
I have never been a member or active supporter of the Tea Party, although I did sympathize with some of their original views. Not what came later.
By the way: if you look at that article, notice how Wikipedia mentions "conservatives and libertarians"? They are not the same things, which is what I have been saying all along.
No, it isn't. Building an actual mousetrap requires A LOT of interaction other than just printing out some parts.
The ID of the cell tower can still be spoofed. It doesn't have to be law enforcement doing it, or done with the company's cooperation.
Yes, I got your point. But my point was that the scenario you present is extremely unlikely to happen; the camera would have to accidentally capture some actual child molestation or sexual activity in progress.
"Except the right of free speech, and of the press, is not defined as of the PEOPLE. Instead it is a blanket command telling the government keep your grubby mitts off of censorship, no matter the source of the opinion."
I cannot agree. While people are not explicitly mentioned there, the notion that the 1st Amendment was intentionally written to include corporations is a bit too much of a stretch of the imagination for me.
"The courts found that the law acknowledged corporations had a right to free speech every time except withing X days of an election, and told Congress that you can't have it both ways."
Apparently my point went completely over your head. The issue I raised is whether corporations are actually people, and therefore have "rights" at all. If they do, then the First Amendment applies. But if they do not, then the First Amendment cannot apply.
As you say: Congress could legislate what corporations may or may not do. But those aren't rights, those are legal privileges. Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to either grant or take away rights, without first amending the Constitution.
I think you have them backward. The premise is that corporations are not people and do not have rights. The conclusion is that since they do not have rights, they cannot therefore assert their "first amendment rights", which for them do not exist.
"It just means that the States are not allowed to introduce their own money by a legal act, except for gold and silver coins. Monetary policy is thus a federal priviledge."
That does not follow at all. This clause explicitly says that states cannot accept anything but gold or silver in payment of debts, OR allow anything else to be legal tender for payment of debts (it says "debts", not just "state debts"). Debts include taxes. If a State cannot accept anything but gold and silver as payment of a debt, or allow anything else to be used as payment for a debt, then it cannot accept paper dollars or allow them to be used. The de facto currency of the United States therefore becomes gold and silver, and nothing else. Q.E.D.
You can't have that both ways. What that says is that even if the Federal government created some other form of money (whether paper dollars or plastic poker chips), States could not use it, or allow it to be used, for monetary transactions. So it would be completely worthless. There is NOTHING, anywhere, in the Constitution that makes an exception to that rule. Article I says the Federal government may coin money, but nowhere does it contradict what you quoted: that the money must consist of gold or silver.
Any other interpretation assumes they weren't using plain English.
You are already a felon, and don't know it.
I can almost guarantee that you have committed at least one Federal felony, based on the thousands and thousands of laws that now exist.
Did you know that it is a felony in the United States to import a plant or animal if it is illegal to export it from WHATEVER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD it came from, even if that plant or animal is perfectly legal here?
Which essentially means that our government is letting other nations define our laws for us.
It wouldn't work, because someone could just spoof the cell tower's ID, with a stronger (but closer) signal. In fact, I think that's what they do.
A picture of a kid in underwear is not "child porn" anyway.
In one of their (rare, it seems these days) lucid moments, the Supreme Court ruled that "child pornography" had to consist of images of [A] actual children (not just artwork or animations or someone who looks young), and [B] actual pornography, by pretty much the same standards as other pornography is judged.
So all you parents who have pictures of naked kids in the bathtub can breathe a sigh of relief. The government isn't going to come after you. Not this decade, anyway.
It is not a "simple" First Amendment issue at all. To say that it is means you assume that corporations have "rights". But if they have First Amendment rights, then logically they also enjoy all the other freedoms that the Constitution and Bill of Rights give real people.
That would mean they could bear arms, and vote, and run for office, and be able to plead the 5th. (The corporations themselves, that is, not the people in them.)
You can't have it both ways. Either they have the rights of people, or they don't. If they do, they can vote. If they don't, they don't have First Amendment rights, either.