Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Tuesday afternoon tab dump
It is late here in Lyon, but I have accumulated a lot of interesting open tabs that I feel the need to share. Because, you know, I'm a sharing person.
The New York Times -- the newspaper -- objects, with a few qualifications, to extending constitutional rights to corporations. But do the directors and stockholders of the New York Times Company share that transportingly asinine view? Setting aside the presumed exception for freedom of speech and the press, do the editors really think that corporations have no right to practice religion (that will come as news to non-profit religious organizations), to petition government for redress of grievances, and to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures (why bother with a warrant if the target is a corporation?). May corporations be subjected to double, triple, or quadruple jeopardy? May courts impose unreasonable fines? May the government seize corporate property without due process or just compensation? Do the editors really think that corporations have no right to a speedy trial, or a jury, when accused of a crime? Or representation by counsel? Are they to be deprived of equal protection under the law? Of course corporations enjoy protection under the Constitution, even if not quite to the extent of individuals.
The only intelligent point in the linked editorial is that the Times noted that corporations have no right to bear arms, perhaps the first time that the paper acknowledged that there is a right to bear arms.
President Obama has, apparently, always been a black man. A witty and engaging point from the president on a very difficult subject, so a tip o' the hat from me, at least.
No amount of Preparation H would help this guy. Bwahahaha!
Bill Clinton dishes on Al Gore and others. Interesting stuff from a book I might just read.
I have no sympathy or even understanding for affluent Americans who, statistically speaking, occupy the top 0.1% or higher of all humans alive today and who still are unhappy because for them the "grass is always greener" elsewhere. Neither does John Scalzi. No wonder I like his books.
Who knew ADD was a defense to a crime? A law professor, that's who!
Visualizing the effects of weather on the shipping lanes: Sounds dull, but actually cool.
Be well.
7 Comments:
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Tue Sep 22, 07:07:00 PM:
Re: The NYT thing is motivated by Sonatmayor's recent writing which apparently included some pining about how corporations should not be considered legal persons.
WTF?
A fully qualified, non-activist, wise Latina judge... thanks Democrats. You fucking fools.
By 
, at
Tue Sep 22, 09:29:00 PM:
I believe corporations are not human beings and deserve no constitutional rights per se, except by coincidence as circumstances merit. I don't see how the Declaration or Constitution can be read otherwise.
By , at
Wed Sep 23, 08:32:00 AM:
By a strategy stealing argument, I see no reason not to generate a new class of objects ("corporate structures") and specifically imbue them with the subset of rights they deserve. This deals with the obvious "bearing arms" issue, and allows for meaningful rights that individuals have no use for (such as navigating a transition from GAAP.) There is no intrinsic reason why corporations require identical rights to those of people and no others, (given their vastly different lifetimes, responsibilities, etc.) and besides: corporations are not endowed by their creator with inalienable rights.
By , at
Wed Sep 23, 01:26:00 PM:
Like people, companies should remember that freedom is slavery and that capitalism has never done anything good for anyone. In other words, accept what the state gives you, gratefully, and shut up on command.
Humana can give you the 411, if you don't believe me.
In the meantime, has the Obama administration committed a crime in negotiating how certain companies will be treated in laws not yet written, in return for an advertising campaign in support of the president's policies?
By , at
Wed Sep 23, 01:41:00 PM:
Is ObamaCare a "taking", and therefore a violation of the Fifth Amendment?
By , at
Wed Sep 23, 02:07:00 PM:
One last link: The Algore Acolyte Singers predicted the arctic ice would melt in 2009, but it didn't. Of course, we shouldn't question the modeling capabilities of these raving lunatics and we should all continue to be very, very fearful.
"Meier cautions the new findings do not mean the Arctic is in recovery, or that global warming is slowing down.
"I look at it as a one-year reprieve," he said. "I don't expect that to continue."
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Sep 23, 05:43:00 PM:
I just noticed that mistyped Sotamayor's name in my first post.
"I believe corporations are not human beings and deserve no constitutional rights per se, except by coincidence as circumstances merit."
So you're saying that they do, in fact, deserve constitutional rights. Just not all of them. Like, the ones that wouldn't make sense for them to have.
That's the situation we have now.
"I don't see how the Declaration or Constitution can be read otherwise."
Are you a Constructionist now?
The Declaration of Independence has no legal weight in our system of government.
"There is no intrinsic reason why corporations require identical rights to those of people..."
They don't have identical rights as people.
But they *should* have some. Tigerhawk listed some. There are more.
No one is, or ever has as far as I know, argued that intangible entities should have the right to possess firearms (though many do, like security companies) or vote because that doesn't make any sense. But to allow abuses of authority prohibited by the Constitution so long as their targets are corporate is manifestly unjust and economically retarded.
And remember... corporations are not these strange, alien entities composed of arcane spiritual energy. They are an alliance of people acting in accordance with the law, people who are supposed to enjoy ALL of the protections of the Constitution.
If assets are seized from 'Corporation X,' corporation X is not going to cry. It's an intangible, soulless, brainless shell with no more identity than exists on its tax forms. But Corporation X's stockholders (you know, people who are supposed to be immune from that sort of tyranny) sure will.
