Corporations can be prohibited to everyone. But they can't be allowed on the condition of giving up fundamental rights.
By the same token, government owns roads. Government can't grant access to roads only to people who agree to give up 4th Amendment rights. Courts don't generally allow simplistic workarounds for fundamental rights.
In this case it's an explicit limitation on government power rather than something about who has which rights.
Parrots can talk, and Congress is prohibited from abridging their freedom to do it.
Corporations are legal entities, not humans
So they don't have the right to an abortion then? Can Congress prohibit corporations from performing abortions? Can Congress prohibit corporations from supplying or doing business with anyone who performs abortions? Why not? Getting an abortion as an individual, using the services of other individuals, would still be protected.
Do you really want corporate status to be a universal way for government to work around Constitutional protections?
There should be no issue with laws restricting corporate speech. Such laws don't remove any right to free speech.
But they do abridge those rights.
The law which allows them to be created simply needs to say that speech is not an allowed purpose of a corporation.
That's not how rights work. Governments can't make people give up their basic human rights in exchange for some exemptions from some laws. If they could, then "everyone's salary is taxed at 97%, but it's only 10% if you give up the right to due process" would be permissible. It's clearly not. Courts aren't generally that easily fooled. Rights are rights, they're not some minor inconvenience for the government to easily work around.
As I said, they're entirely a figment of the law, and there's no reason they should have any rights at all, only the privileges and benefits defined by law.
The individual people have the rights. They use them together in a corporate organization. But, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" is an even more powerful prohibition. It prohibits abridgment of speech, rights or no rights. So there's no power to restrict spending on political speech as it regards corporations. They can't put "except no political speech" in laws for things.
Free speech rights aren't "extended to" others. "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech". It means they already have free speech rights and no government is allowed to take them away.
If that's not good enough for you, the US Constitution has an amendment process.
On March 24, 2009, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart told the U.S. Supreme Court that the federal government had the lawful power to ban books if those books happened to mention the name of a candidate for federal office and were published in the run-up to the federal election in which that candidate was competing.
"It's a 500-page book, and at the end it says, so vote for X, the government could ban that?" asked an incredulous Chief Justice John Roberts. Yes, the deputy solicitor general conceded, according to the government's theory of the present case, the government could indeed ban that book. "We could prohibit the publication of the book using the corporate treasury funds," Stewart said.
We're not going to let the government ban books.
The Constitution doesn't reserve free speech for particular people. It doesn't mention people at all in regards to free speech. It says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech".
There's no reason for people to buy your game console.
Sony and Nintendo can sell consoles because they have a library of 1st party IPs, first class game publishing operations, and an extensive number of highly talented game creators. Microsoft is struggling because they haven't maintained this part of their business very well and they had a bad console launch.
Atari has none of this. No one will make games for your console. You can't write the billions of dollars of checks Microsoft wrote to get into the business. It's not going to happen. (Unless it's a tiny, cheap emulator box with games included, like the NES Classic.)
One of the last big union strongholds was grocery, with Kroger and Safeway/Albertsons employees being unionized. They've been facing stiff competition from non-union Walmart, Trader Joe's, Costco, and Target and some new non-union entrants like Aldi.
Now with Amazon 's big push into the grocery business, unions are setup for even bigger losses.
What's your point? You're cool with hate campaigns as long as the hate is consistent? No one should oppose organized hatred who didn't also say specific words at some arbitrary time in the past?
Where was this outrage when Senator Gabby Giffords was shot? Where was this outrage when a some guy shot up an abortion clinic because of "baby parts"? I find it disappointing that so many republicans only care when it's something that interferes with their own agenda.
Ad hominems? Really? You're responding to a call to cool off the hate campaigns with ad hominems?
The actual answer is, some public schools (what you call "government schools") are exceptionally good, and some are extremely poor.
Anyone who tries to do anything about the bad ones (besides dumping endless truckloads of money into them) is prevented because "What if it hurts the good ones!? My kids go to one of the good ones (because we're rich and bought an expensive house in a nice neighborhood)." So there's no hope for the kids who go to the bad government schools.
I should go out and buy a gun right now, to protect against evil people like this commenter. If I don't, what will protect me? A shared sense of civility and humanity? Clearly not. These people don't value anything like that.
This is what you get when you engage in hate campaigns. Is it what you wanted? If not, then find something to believe in besides hating people. Find something to talk about besides how much you hate [whomever] and how much your hate is justified because [reasons].
Slashdot Mirror
We see 30 articles like this but nothing on the AMD Epyc chip announcement this week.
I think we can safely conclude that Slashdot editors don't care about Technology.
Even Mother Jones gets it right sometimes.
Heatwaves are a thing. They can be very dramatic.
Corporations can be prohibited to everyone. But they can't be allowed on the condition of giving up fundamental rights.
By the same token, government owns roads. Government can't grant access to roads only to people who agree to give up 4th Amendment rights. Courts don't generally allow simplistic workarounds for fundamental rights.
That's eithe false or meaningless. If you want to understand what you're talking about, here's a quick explainer:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion...
In this case it's an explicit limitation on government power rather than something about who has which rights.
Parrots can talk, and Congress is prohibited from abridging their freedom to do it.
Corporations are legal entities, not humans
So they don't have the right to an abortion then? Can Congress prohibit corporations from performing abortions? Can Congress prohibit corporations from supplying or doing business with anyone who performs abortions? Why not? Getting an abortion as an individual, using the services of other individuals, would still be protected.
Do you really want corporate status to be a universal way for government to work around Constitutional protections?
Are you claiming that exemption from law should come at no cost?
It can have a cost. But that cost can't be the abridgement of free speech or the loss of other fundamental human rights.
So Congress can say no corporate abortions? Or Congress can say corporations can't act as suppliers for anyone who performs abortions?
Or are incorporation laws not a legitimate workaround for Constitutional rights?
Put it a different way: Can Congress prohibit corporations from performing or arranging abortions? Why not?
There should be no issue with laws restricting corporate speech. Such laws don't remove any right to free speech.
But they do abridge those rights.
The law which allows them to be created simply needs to say that speech is not an allowed purpose of a corporation.
That's not how rights work. Governments can't make people give up their basic human rights in exchange for some exemptions from some laws. If they could, then "everyone's salary is taxed at 97%, but it's only 10% if you give up the right to due process" would be permissible. It's clearly not. Courts aren't generally that easily fooled. Rights are rights, they're not some minor inconvenience for the government to easily work around.
As I said, they're entirely a figment of the law, and there's no reason they should have any rights at all, only the privileges and benefits defined by law.
The individual people have the rights. They use them together in a corporate organization. But, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" is an even more powerful prohibition. It prohibits abridgment of speech, rights or no rights. So there's no power to restrict spending on political speech as it regards corporations. They can't put "except no political speech" in laws for things.
Free speech rights aren't "extended to" others. "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech". It means they already have free speech rights and no government is allowed to take them away.
If that's not good enough for you, the US Constitution has an amendment process.
...roll-back changes that basically defined corporations as entities entitled to spending this kind of money as freedom-of-speech.
Here's why you will fail:
We're not going to let the government ban books.
The Constitution doesn't reserve free speech for particular people. It doesn't mention people at all in regards to free speech. It says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech".
There's no reason for people to buy your game console.
Sony and Nintendo can sell consoles because they have a library of 1st party IPs, first class game publishing operations, and an extensive number of highly talented game creators. Microsoft is struggling because they haven't maintained this part of their business very well and they had a bad console launch.
Atari has none of this. No one will make games for your console. You can't write the billions of dollars of checks Microsoft wrote to get into the business. It's not going to happen. (Unless it's a tiny, cheap emulator box with games included, like the NES Classic.)
All Natural = Healthy
GMO = Poison
Fake news
It'll be curious if Amazon uses the grocery stores as a means to receive Amazon purchases quickly without having to have a Prime membership
Not likely. Amazon really wants you to get a Prime membership.
One of the last big union strongholds was grocery, with Kroger and Safeway/Albertsons employees being unionized. They've been facing stiff competition from non-union Walmart, Trader Joe's, Costco, and Target and some new non-union entrants like Aldi.
Now with Amazon 's big push into the grocery business, unions are setup for even bigger losses.
There's a web site that lists them.
Some of the stories turned out to be real though, but I don't know which ones. That's one of the problems with crying wolf.
A person hunts down people who disagrees with ... your outrage ought to be at the person and those who promote such cause ...
But that would take a non-zero amount of humanity.
You should stop defending hate and join me in calling for less hate.
Why not cool it on the organized hate campaign anyway?
No, I'm responding to you specifically saying it's a problem with "the left" when you have neo-nazis among your rank.
I don't have "ranks". Maybe cut down on the groupthink while you're at it.
What's your point? You're cool with hate campaigns as long as the hate is consistent? No one should oppose organized hatred who didn't also say specific words at some arbitrary time in the past?
Where was this outrage when Senator Gabby Giffords was shot? Where was this outrage when a some guy shot up an abortion clinic because of "baby parts"? I find it disappointing that so many republicans only care when it's something that interferes with their own agenda.
Ad hominems? Really? You're responding to a call to cool off the hate campaigns with ad hominems?
The actual answer is, some public schools (what you call "government schools") are exceptionally good, and some are extremely poor.
Anyone who tries to do anything about the bad ones (besides dumping endless truckloads of money into them) is prevented because "What if it hurts the good ones!? My kids go to one of the good ones (because we're rich and bought an expensive house in a nice neighborhood)." So there's no hope for the kids who go to the bad government schools.
No you won't.
People read comments like yours and think:
I should go out and buy a gun right now, to protect against evil people like this commenter. If I don't, what will protect me? A shared sense of civility and humanity? Clearly not. These people don't value anything like that.
This is what you get when you engage in hate campaigns. Is it what you wanted? If not, then find something to believe in besides hating people. Find something to talk about besides how much you hate [whomever] and how much your hate is justified because [reasons].