Too much innuendo and grandstanding like we saw with the Congressional hearings over Peter Strzok. Democrats are children. Republicans are outraged. And Strzok is a disgrace and a POS person.
At least there is evidence for outrage toward the disgracful POS that is Peter Strzok. There is no excuse to act like a child. Ever.
Democracy necessitates that voters can make their own opinion. If a few memes and the airing of dirty laundry is enough to subvert that premise then democracy is a failed form of government and we should yearn for the days of aristocratic monarchy.
Odd mistake? How many mistakes does it take to damage the reputation of a "reputable source"? Are the major media outlets even held accountable for any misinformation they put out? No. No one is fired for putting out misinformation from any major outlet and there is never any accountability for them deceiving the public at large or pushing a political bias.*
Conspiracy theories are held by a very slime minority of people. So what? You are going to give those conspiracies vindication because "look at what google and big media doesn't want me to see!". You're not going to change minds and you will cement the nutters belief.
What are we getting by allowing "those in power" declare what is "authoritative"? You are not going to convince the conspiracy nutters. All you are going to do is alienate alternative media, independent journalists, and push a biased agenda that Youtube and other outlets have too often shown to be more than willing to push.
That is not worth a few conspiracy videos being posted. Jet fuel can't melt steal beams... So what. Doesn't take a chemist or architect to know it doesn't matter. Putting 'an expert chemists opinion' on a 'jet fuel can't melt steal beams video will convince' no one.
Let's not pave the road to hell with good intentions.
* I don't think that there should be a consequence other than what the free market prescribes however that changes the moment you label anything 'The Decider of Authoritative Content'.
I agree with most of your comment but this little part. The Court has made many bad decisions that was settled law for decades before being remedied. A major example is 'separate but equal'. It just depends on what legality the case was decided on. I have heard that RvW uses 'substantive due process' which, if true, seems tenuous as a legal standing and seems like a bad decision. I need to read more on the Roe v Wade decision to make an informed opinion.
However, I think you are right that most states would still allow abortion even if it was overturned so it doesn't seem like it is a big deal. It really doesn't make sense why it needs to be federally enforced. If Utah wants to outlaw it, that will just create an abortion shop on the border and give revenue to that neighboring state. Same thing already happens in Utah with alcohol (they limit their beer to 3.5% apv, IIRC).
Oooo so biting. So brave. Are you going call me a cockroach or an ant now? Are you going to wave the flag of science while defending anti-science?I am ready for your boot to squash me like a dehumanized cancer for the betterment of your sanity. The world would be utopia if everyone thought just like you. amirite.
Forgive me, how were you or anyone generalized in that comment? Seems like the AC agreed with you that anti-science is on the rise. Accusation != generalization.
I am starting to worry about your physical health. Maybe there will be studies on the physical effects of prolonged TDS and California will put cancer warnings on all political activity.
I'll be concerned when people are arrested or fined. No one is scared to speak out which is a testament I don't think any journalist in America is afraid to speak even if the president calls them fake news.
So, let me make sure I understand this. Government passes obscene laws to expand the power of government to regulate the internet. A coward responds by saying: "the solution is more government - tighter control over lobbyists and bribing of officials". That is mocked as "to solve bad government we need more government" which is itself mocked as "willful libertarian blindness". And you suggest that either way it "expands authority"? I am baffled. How about not passing obscene laws that do not need to be solved by even more obscene laws?
Private authority is not near the same as government authority. "Either way" is a very bad conflation. Expanding authority generally is only applicable to the government. Because private interests do not have authority but they do have rights. Governments have authority as part of its rights. Allowing private interests to manage their business how they see fit doesn't "expand their authority" as much as it is "exercising their rights". When governments regulate a new industry they are expanding the authority for which they operate to enforce law. Talk about misrepresentation.
if the government doesn't run things, then private interests will
Personally, I like being left alone. If the governments minds its own business I don't see a problem. Nothing wrong with private interests managing the interests of their property. It's not like a private business can strip you of your rights and throw you in prison.
Unless you live in the US of course where money is speech and can be used to just buy the government anyway
See my other comment for that. Yes, I don't think the government can restrict political speech of which has been alluded to in this thread as "tighter control over lobbyists and bribing of officials". In the US you are innocent until proven guilty. If you cannot prove quid pro quo why do you say it was a bribe? Citizens United, which talks about "money is speech", was a case about a documentary critical of a politician being released close to an election. That is "tighter control over lobbyists and bribing of officials" that so many are quick to parade around. Yet, it falls under "obscene laws that require more obscene laws" to "fix" toward your personal flavor of politics.
Why is thinking "expanding authority" is not the answer to "expanding authority gone wrong" willful libertarian blindness? Are you saying "this time we'll get expanding authority right!"??
I am really confused by this comment. Not sure if I agree with the premise that this is corruption because it seems like "corruption" is an easy answer for the lazy to say "anything the government does that I don't like is corruption".
Even granting that, this is absolute retardation.
Shit like this is everyday occurrences in the US, while it makes real news in the EU - which coincidentally is seen as practically communist by a lot of retarded Americans who have never set their foot outside North Bumfuck but are experts on everything on the Internet.
Everyday occurrences? I assume you are referring to PACs and Citizens United. I find that hilarious because what it comes down to is the US is more supportive of free speech and less government intervention of political speech. God forbid someone make a documentary critical of a politician running for office and release that on the internet around the time of an election! The government should be able to restrict that kind of political speech because anything else is "corruption"!
Maybe there is something wrong with you and your ideas if you think the government has the authority to restrict political speech because it happens to be around an election. Likewise, maybe there is something wrong with the government when it thinks it can pass absurd laws that infringe on the rights of their citizens. The US has it's problems but Europe seems more than content with overbearing government without the need of "corruption" from corporations.
Thanks for the interesting comment. It seems rare to have a comment that builds a conversation as opposed to... I don't know. Anyways, thank you.
only ONE election has resulted in the winner having a majority of the popular vote
I have actually changed my position on voting participation lately and I think you allude to some of those reasons why I have changed that position. Before, I would tell anyone I know to vote regardless their understanding of the issues or candidates. Now, I say don't vote if you don't know and do what you want. Too often, the federal government is operating in a space that the average person is laymen. I may have my opinion on North Korea or China, as an example, but my opinion has hardly any weight beyond the logic I can articulate. That logic may be irrelevant to the facts and reality. How many are discouraged of voting in elections because of such a informational and participatory paralysis? Citizenship in a democratic state necessitates a level of statesmanship that is always forfeited to fallacious appeals. My guess, that has always been the case which makes a Republic superior, as it narrows the public's need to be of proper statesmanship.
I've seen many self-identified conservatives who say that despite all Trump's problems, at least he'll nominate judges who will serve for decades and that more than makes up for Trump's other faults.
I agree. I think one of the reasons Trump won was because self-identified conservatives were voting on a Supreme Court nomination. It was a point of debate during the election a few times and on everyone's mind. I think, it goes to a larger issue of the role of the federal government having a direct impact on peoples lives. We have seen SCOTUS make bad decisions. For that historical context it is now paramount for the "right side" to have control when the original purpose was not supposed to be so important to the day to day lives of the average citizen.
Part of what convinced me was absurd rhetoric from self-identified conservatives who said it would lead to people marrying children and animals as well as hateful rhetoric and acts towards gay people
I am not one to disparage gay people from living their lives free from oppression. I agree with gay marriage but do not like that it was made national through the courts. If I remember correctly the issue came about because federal employees wanted the same benefits regardless of the sex of their spouse. That to me doesn't seem like a legitimate reason why the courts should decide which government should define marriage. The federal government has no business in the definition of marriage. Employee benefits are not the same as rights. If a State doesn't recognize gay marriage then why should that matter to the people in the State that does? This is the issue. This is the problem of voter paralysis and participation because every election becomes a life and death scenario for distant officials to decide it's meaning.
He couldn't have foreseen it at the time, but that's exactly why he's a part of it today.
Indeed. It is sad that before judicial nominations were a matter of credentials. Now there is a litmus test of partisanship. Which, I must be honest, I almost agree with because I feel that originalism is proper while "living document" is a bastardization of law. I do not like when the court makes a decision based on what they feel is right rather than what the law states. Too often the Congress abdicates their duty and responsibilities. Too often do we empower the federal government for short term gains for long term losses and then are upset when Congress says "just use a pen".
There is even talk of overturning Roe v. Wade
I have heard it was a bad decision because of the arguments but I have not looked into them so I cannot make an opinion. However, the court has been wrong before. Just because it is a precedent doesn't mean it is the law. That is one reason why the judiciary is a poor place to enact social agenda.
Not sure why I am replying to a pedantic coward but meh. Wikipedia and I are on a first name basis and drink beer every night playing poker. Wikipedia didn't say much that was different that my over simplification.
Yes, I am sure the court would be aghast at my simplification. Where I get my expression is from oral arguments and referenced cases.
lets say you have 10 individuals and each contribute to a corporation and say 'we want this corporation to convey a particular message'. why can't they do that when they did that as a partnership that would be alright.... Most corporations are indistinguishable from the individual that owns them... there is no distinction from the individual interest and the corporate interest. and that is true for the vast majority of corporations.".
Further in Bellotti.
The question in this case, simply put, is whether the corporate identity of the speaker deprives this proposed speech of what otherwise would be its clear entitlement to protection. The court below found confirmation of the legislature's definition of the scope of a corporation's First Amendment rights in the language of the Fourteenth Amendment. Noting that the First Amendment is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth, and seizing upon the observation that corporations "cannot claim for themselves the liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees," Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 268 U. S. 555 (1925), the court concluded that a corporation's First Amendment rights must derive from its property rights under the Fourteenth.
My simplified expression is a way to encapsulate the nuance of the referenced arguments and the jurisprudence the court has upheld in Bellotti. Would it stand up in court? No. Can it convey the arguments in the court about 1st amendment protections to corporations observed in the 14th amendment in a simplified way? Yes.
Simply put, 'corporate person-hood' means that your individual rights are not abridged when you pool resources with others toward a specific goal.
I disagree. To quote Wikipedia
Corporate personhood is the legal notion that a corporation, separately from its associated human beings (like owners, managers, or employees), has at least some of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons (physical humans).
Wikipedia doesn't disagree with me. Wikipedia is fine for a surface understanding but you seem to be misunderstanding the core idea to think the two statements are somehow at odds. Why do corporations have rights? Because individuals have rights and corporations are made of individuals. What are corporations? Simply put, it is a number of individuals pooling resources toward a common goal. So when Wikipedia says "a corporation has legal rights just like natural persons" it is a different way of saying "individual rights are not abridged when you pool resources with others". If you are interested in this topic I would recommend Citizens United v FEC oral arguments and opinion. These ideas are thoroughly discussed and the court views corporations as simply as I put it. IMO, the court got that one right despite all the bad press.
There is no law establishing corporate personhood. For corporations to qualify for such rights and responsibilities, there would have to be a constitutional amendment,
Again this is a misunderstanding of the concept. And again just like jury nullification there is nothing in the constitution to grant 'jury nullification' to citizens. It is an emergent property of our rights codified in the constitution. To take away corporate person-hood or jury nullification would require a constitutional amendment. That amendment would have to say something like: 'when a citizen groups together with other citizens toward a common goal. Their right of property, speech, and due process are limited in the following ways. XYZ". Or if you want to take away jury nullification that amendment would be something like: " jury decisions can be overturned by the presiding judge. double jeopardy is fine."
If you think gerrymandering is a single party issue then you are blind to your own partisanship and biases. If you have a better idea for drawing voting districts then implement it in your State and risk your political power to prove your concept is the best and convince the rest of the Union through action and not rhetoric. The US has never been a country of "we the people". It has always been a Union of States governed by the people. I, assumingly in a different state, do not need to suffer the problems of your political solutions to be forced on me. The Constitution gives the power to the States to decide their elections for reason. If you are at all concerned about this issue I am sure you have read those reasons.
If congress had previously passed a law, signed by the president, that gave corporations 'personhood', i.e. rights and responsibilities assigned by the Constitution, I might agree with you.
Um, because technically there is no such thing in law called "corporate personhood'. It's a concept to describe a legality of rights. Just like technically there is no such thing in law called "jury nullification". It's a concept and a byproduct of our legal system (jury trials, double jeopardy). Simply put, 'corporate person-hood' means that your individual rights are not abridged when you pool resources with others toward a specific goal. If you read the opinion of the court in Citizens United vs FEC the court say that congress must change the law but doesn't say how because of the specious grounds that the government was on regarding the 1st amendment.
I don't know if I agree with you that a shareholder should be personally liable for damages a company does. I think you are going about it the wrong way. If you can prove damages were caused by illegal behavior of a company you can receive compensation. What's the problem?
Slashdot Mirror
Too much innuendo and grandstanding like we saw with the Congressional hearings over Peter Strzok. Democrats are children. Republicans are outraged. And Strzok is a disgrace and a POS person.
At least there is evidence for outrage toward the disgracful POS that is Peter Strzok. There is no excuse to act like a child. Ever.
Democracy necessitates that voters can make their own opinion. If a few memes and the airing of dirty laundry is enough to subvert that premise then democracy is a failed form of government and we should yearn for the days of aristocratic monarchy.
Odd mistake? How many mistakes does it take to damage the reputation of a "reputable source"? Are the major media outlets even held accountable for any misinformation they put out? No. No one is fired for putting out misinformation from any major outlet and there is never any accountability for them deceiving the public at large or pushing a political bias.*
Conspiracy theories are held by a very slime minority of people. So what? You are going to give those conspiracies vindication because "look at what google and big media doesn't want me to see!". You're not going to change minds and you will cement the nutters belief.
What are we getting by allowing "those in power" declare what is "authoritative"? You are not going to convince the conspiracy nutters. All you are going to do is alienate alternative media, independent journalists, and push a biased agenda that Youtube and other outlets have too often shown to be more than willing to push.
That is not worth a few conspiracy videos being posted. Jet fuel can't melt steal beams... So what. Doesn't take a chemist or architect to know it doesn't matter. Putting 'an expert chemists opinion' on a 'jet fuel can't melt steal beams video will convince' no one.
Let's not pave the road to hell with good intentions.
* I don't think that there should be a consequence other than what the free market prescribes however that changes the moment you label anything 'The Decider of Authoritative Content'.
Yea, what could possibly go wrong.
Still not as good as Ass.
It's stare decisis, settled law.
I agree with most of your comment but this little part. The Court has made many bad decisions that was settled law for decades before being remedied. A major example is 'separate but equal'. It just depends on what legality the case was decided on. I have heard that RvW uses 'substantive due process' which, if true, seems tenuous as a legal standing and seems like a bad decision. I need to read more on the Roe v Wade decision to make an informed opinion.
However, I think you are right that most states would still allow abortion even if it was overturned so it doesn't seem like it is a big deal. It really doesn't make sense why it needs to be federally enforced. If Utah wants to outlaw it, that will just create an abortion shop on the border and give revenue to that neighboring state. Same thing already happens in Utah with alcohol (they limit their beer to 3.5% apv, IIRC).
Oooo so biting. So brave. Are you going call me a cockroach or an ant now? Are you going to wave the flag of science while defending anti-science?I am ready for your boot to squash me like a dehumanized cancer for the betterment of your sanity. The world would be utopia if everyone thought just like you. amirite.
This comment is known to cause cancer in the State of California.
Bird cage. I won't ruin the surprise on what the 'birds' are.
Dehumanizing people you don't like. This will end well.
Forgive me, how were you or anyone generalized in that comment?
Seems like the AC agreed with you that anti-science is on the rise. Accusation != generalization.
I am starting to worry about your physical health. Maybe there will be studies on the physical effects of prolonged TDS and California will put cancer warnings on all political activity.
Disgusting nostril hair? I'll have you know that I get it groomed every week. Dare I say it, my nostril hair is the envy of gods!
You think I would snort hair conditioner to get high or leukemia? Shows what you know about class and style.
Haha! Jokes on them because I am bald... ... ... Oh. Now I'm sad.
I'll be concerned when people are arrested or fined. No one is scared to speak out which is a testament I don't think any journalist in America is afraid to speak even if the president calls them fake news.
Because you're expanding authority either way
So, let me make sure I understand this. Government passes obscene laws to expand the power of government to regulate the internet. A coward responds by saying: "the solution is more government - tighter control over lobbyists and bribing of officials". That is mocked as "to solve bad government we need more government" which is itself mocked as "willful libertarian blindness". And you suggest that either way it "expands authority"? I am baffled. How about not passing obscene laws that do not need to be solved by even more obscene laws?
Private authority is not near the same as government authority. "Either way" is a very bad conflation. Expanding authority generally is only applicable to the government. Because private interests do not have authority but they do have rights. Governments have authority as part of its rights. Allowing private interests to manage their business how they see fit doesn't "expand their authority" as much as it is "exercising their rights". When governments regulate a new industry they are expanding the authority for which they operate to enforce law. Talk about misrepresentation.
if the government doesn't run things, then private interests will
Personally, I like being left alone. If the governments minds its own business I don't see a problem. Nothing wrong with private interests managing the interests of their property. It's not like a private business can strip you of your rights and throw you in prison.
Unless you live in the US of course where money is speech and can be used to just buy the government anyway
See my other comment for that. Yes, I don't think the government can restrict political speech of which has been alluded to in this thread as "tighter control over lobbyists and bribing of officials". In the US you are innocent until proven guilty. If you cannot prove quid pro quo why do you say it was a bribe? Citizens United, which talks about "money is speech", was a case about a documentary critical of a politician being released close to an election. That is "tighter control over lobbyists and bribing of officials" that so many are quick to parade around. Yet, it falls under "obscene laws that require more obscene laws" to "fix" toward your personal flavor of politics.
Why is thinking "expanding authority" is not the answer to "expanding authority gone wrong" willful libertarian blindness? Are you saying "this time we'll get expanding authority right!"??
I am really confused by this comment. Not sure if I agree with the premise that this is corruption because it seems like "corruption" is an easy answer for the lazy to say "anything the government does that I don't like is corruption".
Even granting that, this is absolute retardation.
Shit like this is everyday occurrences in the US, while it makes real news in the EU - which coincidentally is seen as practically communist by a lot of retarded Americans who have never set their foot outside North Bumfuck but are experts on everything on the Internet.
Everyday occurrences? I assume you are referring to PACs and Citizens United. I find that hilarious because what it comes down to is the US is more supportive of free speech and less government intervention of political speech. God forbid someone make a documentary critical of a politician running for office and release that on the internet around the time of an election! The government should be able to restrict that kind of political speech because anything else is "corruption"!
Maybe there is something wrong with you and your ideas if you think the government has the authority to restrict political speech because it happens to be around an election. Likewise, maybe there is something wrong with the government when it thinks it can pass absurd laws that infringe on the rights of their citizens. The US has it's problems but Europe seems more than content with overbearing government without the need of "corruption" from corporations.
Why wold anyone mod that post informative?
Boromir.
One does not simply refuse the Donald.
Thanks for the interesting comment. It seems rare to have a comment that builds a conversation as opposed to... I don't know. Anyways, thank you.
only ONE election has resulted in the winner having a majority of the popular vote
I have actually changed my position on voting participation lately and I think you allude to some of those reasons why I have changed that position. Before, I would tell anyone I know to vote regardless their understanding of the issues or candidates. Now, I say don't vote if you don't know and do what you want. Too often, the federal government is operating in a space that the average person is laymen. I may have my opinion on North Korea or China, as an example, but my opinion has hardly any weight beyond the logic I can articulate. That logic may be irrelevant to the facts and reality. How many are discouraged of voting in elections because of such a informational and participatory paralysis? Citizenship in a democratic state necessitates a level of statesmanship that is always forfeited to fallacious appeals. My guess, that has always been the case which makes a Republic superior, as it narrows the public's need to be of proper statesmanship.
I've seen many self-identified conservatives who say that despite all Trump's problems, at least he'll nominate judges who will serve for decades and that more than makes up for Trump's other faults.
I agree. I think one of the reasons Trump won was because self-identified conservatives were voting on a Supreme Court nomination. It was a point of debate during the election a few times and on everyone's mind. I think, it goes to a larger issue of the role of the federal government having a direct impact on peoples lives. We have seen SCOTUS make bad decisions. For that historical context it is now paramount for the "right side" to have control when the original purpose was not supposed to be so important to the day to day lives of the average citizen.
Part of what convinced me was absurd rhetoric from self-identified conservatives who said it would lead to people marrying children and animals as well as hateful rhetoric and acts towards gay people
I am not one to disparage gay people from living their lives free from oppression. I agree with gay marriage but do not like that it was made national through the courts. If I remember correctly the issue came about because federal employees wanted the same benefits regardless of the sex of their spouse. That to me doesn't seem like a legitimate reason why the courts should decide which government should define marriage. The federal government has no business in the definition of marriage. Employee benefits are not the same as rights. If a State doesn't recognize gay marriage then why should that matter to the people in the State that does? This is the issue. This is the problem of voter paralysis and participation because every election becomes a life and death scenario for distant officials to decide it's meaning.
He couldn't have foreseen it at the time, but that's exactly why he's a part of it today.
Indeed. It is sad that before judicial nominations were a matter of credentials. Now there is a litmus test of partisanship. Which, I must be honest, I almost agree with because I feel that originalism is proper while "living document" is a bastardization of law. I do not like when the court makes a decision based on what they feel is right rather than what the law states. Too often the Congress abdicates their duty and responsibilities. Too often do we empower the federal government for short term gains for long term losses and then are upset when Congress says "just use a pen".
There is even talk of overturning Roe v. Wade
I have heard it was a bad decision because of the arguments but I have not looked into them so I cannot make an opinion. However, the court has been wrong before. Just because it is a precedent doesn't mean it is the law. That is one reason why the judiciary is a poor place to enact social agenda.
Not sure why I am replying to a pedantic coward but meh. Wikipedia and I are on a first name basis and drink beer every night playing poker. Wikipedia didn't say much that was different that my over simplification.
Yes, I am sure the court would be aghast at my simplification. Where I get my expression is from oral arguments and referenced cases.
lets say you have 10 individuals and each contribute to a corporation and say 'we want this corporation to convey a particular message'. why can't they do that when they did that as a partnership that would be alright. ...
Most corporations are indistinguishable from the individual that owns them... there is no distinction from the individual interest and the corporate interest. and that is true for the vast majority of corporations.".
Further in Bellotti.
The question in this case, simply put, is whether the corporate identity of the speaker deprives this proposed speech of what otherwise would be its clear entitlement to protection. The court below found confirmation of the legislature's definition of the scope of a corporation's First Amendment rights in the language of the Fourteenth Amendment. Noting that the First Amendment is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth, and seizing upon the observation that corporations "cannot claim for themselves the liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees," Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 268 U. S. 555 (1925), the court concluded that a corporation's First Amendment rights must derive from its property rights under the Fourteenth.
My simplified expression is a way to encapsulate the nuance of the referenced arguments and the jurisprudence the court has upheld in Bellotti. Would it stand up in court? No. Can it convey the arguments in the court about 1st amendment protections to corporations observed in the 14th amendment in a simplified way? Yes.
Simply put, 'corporate person-hood' means that your individual rights are not abridged when you pool resources with others toward a specific goal.
I disagree. To quote Wikipedia
Corporate personhood is the legal notion that a corporation, separately from its associated human beings (like owners, managers, or employees), has at least some of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons (physical humans).
Wikipedia doesn't disagree with me. Wikipedia is fine for a surface understanding but you seem to be misunderstanding the core idea to think the two statements are somehow at odds. Why do corporations have rights? Because individuals have rights and corporations are made of individuals. What are corporations? Simply put, it is a number of individuals pooling resources toward a common goal. So when Wikipedia says "a corporation has legal rights just like natural persons" it is a different way of saying "individual rights are not abridged when you pool resources with others". If you are interested in this topic I would recommend Citizens United v FEC oral arguments and opinion. These ideas are thoroughly discussed and the court views corporations as simply as I put it. IMO, the court got that one right despite all the bad press.
There is no law establishing corporate personhood. For corporations to qualify for such rights and responsibilities, there would have to be a constitutional amendment,
Again this is a misunderstanding of the concept. And again just like jury nullification there is nothing in the constitution to grant 'jury nullification' to citizens. It is an emergent property of our rights codified in the constitution. To take away corporate person-hood or jury nullification would require a constitutional amendment. That amendment would have to say something like: 'when a citizen groups together with other citizens toward a common goal. Their right of property, speech, and due process are limited in the following ways. XYZ". Or if you want to take away jury nullification that amendment would be something like: " jury decisions can be overturned by the presiding judge. double jeopardy is fine."
Because democrats have never controlled both the house and senate?
Read some history you ignoramus.
If you think gerrymandering is a single party issue then you are blind to your own partisanship and biases. If you have a better idea for drawing voting districts then implement it in your State and risk your political power to prove your concept is the best and convince the rest of the Union through action and not rhetoric. The US has never been a country of "we the people". It has always been a Union of States governed by the people. I, assumingly in a different state, do not need to suffer the problems of your political solutions to be forced on me. The Constitution gives the power to the States to decide their elections for reason. If you are at all concerned about this issue I am sure you have read those reasons.
A Republic if you can keep it.
If congress had previously passed a law, signed by the president, that gave corporations 'personhood', i.e. rights and responsibilities assigned by the Constitution, I might agree with you.
Um, because technically there is no such thing in law called "corporate personhood'. It's a concept to describe a legality of rights. Just like technically there is no such thing in law called "jury nullification". It's a concept and a byproduct of our legal system (jury trials, double jeopardy). Simply put, 'corporate person-hood' means that your individual rights are not abridged when you pool resources with others toward a specific goal. If you read the opinion of the court in Citizens United vs FEC the court say that congress must change the law but doesn't say how because of the specious grounds that the government was on regarding the 1st amendment.
I don't know if I agree with you that a shareholder should be personally liable for damages a company does. I think you are going about it the wrong way. If you can prove damages were caused by illegal behavior of a company you can receive compensation. What's the problem?
..we will use the courts if we want, and you can go sit in a pickle barrel.
This says more about you than any preamble .