13 thoughts on “The Rights Of The People”

  1. More and more, the notion that Democrats are in any way “liberal” is becoming hard to argue in the positive.

  2. I think they missed a letter in McGovern’s name, party affiliation and state information in the article to which Volokh was linked.

    It should read, Jim McGovern (D) MAO

    They simply forgot the “O” in MAO! I get it, it’s unusual to find a guy named JIM Mao. Does he look Chinese? I couldn’t find a picture.

    The fact that McGovern thinks an AMENDMENT is needed, removes any doubt the he thinks this is previously addressed in anyway, even a poorly worded way, anywhere in our Constitution. And while I agree that corporations aren’t ‘people’, corporations are OWNED by people. People, who are affected by governmental decisions and people who get TAXED as people AND as either the sole owner of or as part of a corporation.

    And my understanding was that SCOTUS saw it that way too in their ruling.

    Better still, why shouldn’t corporations be allowed to ‘speak’ about things that will affect them? Why shouldn’t the owners of stock in “XYZ” Corp., be able to scream and yell and buy ads saying the new law being considered will take all of “XYZ Corp.” left handed widgets out of stores, and kill 1000 jobs? Or why shouldn’t a corporation be able to support a candidate that wants to cut corporate taxes, cut out loopholes that push jobs offshore and who supports what-the-hell-ever helps “XYZ Corp”. profits?

    I guess I’m just too simple to see the nuance? And how would this affect little beauty the NAACP, NOW, Green Peace, NBBP, or the NRA, ALL of whom are corporations?

    And how typical of a NE Liberal Democrat to think removing something from our rights, under the premise of protecting our rights, is the thing he should do. It just never ends. I keep asking this one, but, if these hyper-liberal, socialistic leaning people WANT a country with fewer rights, or different rights, then why don’t they just MOVE to one that is already set up the way they want to live? Why can’t they just learn French and move?

    And before any of our left leaning friends asks, we are CURRENTLY planning a move from this state I don’t like, to an area that we both like. This will be our 4th such move in our marriage.

    1. The bill is written so that some groups will be exempted. I bet we all know what groups the dems want exempted.

  3. So, we have rights, but not if we work together with other people in an organized way. Hmmm. Maybe we should apply this to politicians first, to see how it works: abolish all congressional caucuses, committees, and so forth, and make it illegal for them to communicate privately with each other: just public speeches and votes on legislation.

    1. It kind of makes that archaic freedom of assembly ‘thing’ null and void.

      I think I’m starting to see how this benefits me. It keeps me from burning gas to leave the house for anything politically associated with anything Representative McGovern deems unnecessary.

      It’s actually a energy bill!

  4. The part that’s completely boggling about the Citizen’s United case, is that the mammoth corporation at the core – the root of all evil, the source of many histrionic rants – is -three- people.

    Three. “Associating” as an LLC.

    They honestly feel it would be enormously more fair to prevent -three- people for organizing to collaborate on an anti-Democrat movie.

  5. This has been banging about the leftist hive-mind for a while now. They have been blathering about how corporations aren’t people, and that gives them license to shut people up if they’re acting on behalf of any association or group for a few years now, working up to this.

    This goes back to the root of the leftist insanity about individual autonomy and a complete misunderstanding of groups and associations. As best I can model their thought processes, groups are some sort of nonhuman entity (eeevil, if it’s objective it to make money) that is distinct from the members freely associating. As an individual, you have rights, but if you associate or join some organization, you aren’t you anymore, or something. Then you don’t have rights, or the same rights, because exercising them might manifest as actions by this evil entity that you’ve created.

    Or conversely, they think that they can somehow deny rights to a free association without simultaneously denying the rights of the members, either to associate, or the root abilities they are attempting to exercise.

    I think that leftists fundamentally don’t understand individual autonomy and organization. It’s the only way to explain this madness.

    1. Curious mindset of the left. On the one hand, some associations they don’t like have less rights than their membership. On the other hand, other groups they do like, such as a democratic majority they agree with, has rights the members do not have.

  6. Ugh, that’s some pretty ugly proposed law. It’s amazing how people don’t get the reason for corporate personhood. It’s been around for well over a century and only showed up on the radar because an unpopular group won a court case. My take is that it’d already be invisible except that the issue sells books.

  7. It’s a real hoot that Obama refers to the supreme court as unelected when most of the laws in this country are in the form of regulations that never get vote.

Comments are closed.