Ted Rall for October 27, 2010

Trenchant.

But panel one stands quite alone.

Zing! And beenthere seems to have lost all touch with reality, since these are all Republican stands above… And really rich people DO get tried as corporations. Just ask Dick Cheney, who shot a stranger (not a friend, as originally reported) and not only got away with it, but got an apology!

I covered this same topic in a long diatribe on Stuart Carlson a few toons back. As to the question of free speech and the 1st Amendment we once again have the question of interpretation versus a literal reading. As a ruling here we have the Supreme Rulers staying tight to the written words of the Constitution. The operative words here are “abridging the freedom of speech”. The founding fathers failed to limit the phrase to people and left open the idea that everyone and everything would be covered. This idea lacks some reasoning since the colonist quickly added “or of the press”. Why? If the first statement covered everyone and everything then the second phrase would have been redundant. The “press” referred to would have been covered as individuals or as corporations so we must face the possibility that the colonist made an error of omission by not limiting the speaker.

Those of us that believe in a strict reading of the Constitution must also accept that the Supreme Rulers read this issue correctly. This was not a problem prior to 1868 and the Constitution would have only applied to the central government. State constitutions would have been able to fill the void is was the case with the Texas constitution. As things stand now with the 14th Amendment and subsequent incorporation doctrine the Chinese government has as much right to free speech as Joe Blow in Kansas. A repeal of the 14th Amendment would fix so many of these problems but that won’t happen and it is equally as unlikely that we will amend the Constitution to address the free speech issue directly.

Does the Constitution say anything about public transportation or water supply or sanitation?

You have the right to live in a community that does not have public transport, public water, or public sanitation, sirrom! There is nothing wrong with driving your own vehicle, having a private water source, and taking your own garbage to the dump. Therefore, no one is infringing upon your rights in those areas. Requiring everyone in the United States to buy something is different!

Children are only tried as adults for very serious charges…not sure if panel one is supposed to be some indictment of American justice, but it is more than accommodating for those under 18. I know from experience.

How come I don’t have the right to not wear clothes in public? Every other species has that right.

Corporations can get married.

Many of our tax paying citizens cannot, and their relationships are taxed unfairly due to discriminatory bans that violate the 14th Amendment.

The solution is simple. Just pass a law making it illegal to contribute to any campaign funding, either directly or indirectly, unless you are a registered voter. Being registered means you have a direct interest in the electoral process. Corporations may be people for speech purposes, but last I checked, they still can’t walk into a voting booth. And if they are people, try them for crimes as people.

I like it.

Runar, the Supreme Court did not rule corporations to be people. Please note the Constitutional text from the 1st Amendment “or abridging the freedom of speech…” The Supreme Rulers have determined that this clause does not identify the speaker. It had previously determined that political ads are a form of free speech and in the absence of any limitations placed by the Amendment on the “speaker” then corporations are not excluded. Although I did not read the entire SC decision and descent it would appear that organizations and even foreign governments have free speech rights granted by the Court. By 2012 we may expect to see ads funded by Iran, Venezuela, or China. See the quote from the judgment below:

“The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not “natural persons.”

Making yet another campaign finance law would not change the SC ruling.

Wow. Seven straight spams. The terrorists win.

runar, does that include Unions?