Tom Toles for October 02, 2009

  1. John adams1
    Motivemagus  over 14 years ago

    Ouch! I hadn’t thought of that. Okay, Second Amendmentists, whaddya think of this? Corporations fielding private armies to enforce their will…?

     •  Reply
  2. Missing large
    wolfhoundblues1  over 14 years ago

    If a group of people decide to use arms unlawfully, force then can be used against them. Since when is a corporation an individual?

     •  Reply
  3. B3b2b771 4dd5 4067 bfef 5ade241cb8c2
    cdward  over 14 years ago

    I believe the Supreme Court just ruled that corporations are to be considered individuals in that they enjoy the same rights as individuals here.

     •  Reply
  4. Keithmoon
    Wildcard24365  over 14 years ago

    SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO., 118 U.S. 394 (1886): “Despite the Court’s narrow holding, the case was not without constitutional consequence. In an unusual preface, entered before argument, Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite observed that the Court would not consider the question “whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbade a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the Constitution, applied to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does” (p. 396). It followed that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. ”

     •  Reply
  5. Qwerty01s
    cjr53  over 14 years ago

    Don’t Corporations generally have all the rights of an American Citizen, but none of the moral responsibilities?

     •  Reply
  6. Missing large
    bikemaster  over 14 years ago

    Great comments and I’d like to add that that these same Judicial bodies have declared that “speach” is not just words spoken by a human mouth. Now it is actions by individuals such as flag burning. I can hardly wait for our Supreme Court to declare that “day is the same as night!”

     •  Reply
  7. Lula1
    fairportfan  over 14 years ago

    rikoshay: I assume you are not a lawyer (or, let us say, have a legal degree).

    I love to listen to non-attorneys explaining “what the Constitution means”.

    It’s funnier than The Simpsons.

     •  Reply
  8. Missing large
    seablood  over 14 years ago

    This is not just a funny idea for a comic. It is the real, actual truth. The ‘military industrial complex” is indeed powerful, and does, indeed, get its way. That’s why Eisenhower warned us about it as he left office. If anybody knew about this first hand, it was an old general like President Eisenhower.

     •  Reply
  9. Triopia logo
    ChuckTrent64  over 14 years ago

    And if you disagree with the Industrial Military Complex, then you MUST be a socialist. If I understand this right & I’m not a lawyer, this is a pretty RADICAL RULING from a Supreme Court appointed mostly by CONSERVATIVE presidents. I wondered why this conservative court flew in the face of over 200 years of interpretation of the Second Amendment as NOT applying to individuals to say that it did. This is extremely scary.

     •  Reply
  10. 100 2208
    parkersinthehouse  over 14 years ago

    extremely scary if our constitutional lawyer president doesn’t take it on

    i feel like i’m suddenly in the twilight zone

     •  Reply
  11. Tom13
    tomcib  over 14 years ago

    “I am the peacemaker and so the theory goes… But I don’t choose the company I keep and it shows.” (Ian Anderson: I am your gun)

     •  Reply
  12. Willow
    nomad2112  over 14 years ago
     •  Reply
  13. New wtfpaint
    kat827618  over 14 years ago

    Campaigns should have legal spending limits and be funded by grants, with each candidate receiving the same size grant.

    Corporations have no morals. They exist only to take profits, unless they are non-profit.

     •  Reply
  14. Campina 2
    deadheadzan  over 14 years ago

    This is a very serious problem for sure and apparently it started with the 1886 Santa Clara ruling mentioned by wildcard. Now it is creeping more and more into the law and threatening the rights of individuals more and more. This is something that the Roberts court appears to have no interest in curbing.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Tom Toles