Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

onenote

(42,296 posts)
49. Explain how "direct ownership" of the NAACP would work? How do you make it a "natural person"
Sat Jan 26, 2013, 04:33 PM
Jan 2013

What about the Democratic National Committee? How do make it a "natural person"?

Also, I hope you understand that a company can be owned by one person and still be a company.

Excellent! tosh Jan 2013 #1
Corporations just Tagish_Charlie Jan 2013 #12
DU is a corporation. nt onenote Jan 2013 #22
If you resent that obvious fact, I'm quite sure you are free to leave. Meanwhile, kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #51
I cannot make any sense of your post onenote Jan 2013 #52
Not a big deal. truebluegreen Jan 2013 #2
This proposed amendment strips all corporations (including LLCs) of all constitutional rights. Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #3
I don't believe in constitutional rights for corporations. Even DU. nt Comrade_McKenzie Jan 2013 #9
How about the New York Times Corp? (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #15
Do you think a corporation can be sued? cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #18
never heard of the Pentagon Papers case? onenote Jan 2013 #21
How about the NAACP, MoveOn, every labor union onenote Jan 2013 #23
Planned Parenthood is not a natural person, so has zero constitutional rights Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #32
Somehow I dont think thats an accurate representation quakerboy Jan 2013 #14
And it's not like if the First Amendment was overturned, people would immediately be arrested Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #16
To keep it from happening to People quakerboy Jan 2013 #17
So under your system, book publishers could be prevented from publishing books Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #31
Not even a little bit quakerboy Jan 2013 #36
So if I understand correctly, under your proposal, a publisher that is a corporation could be banned Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #37
Read it again, sam. quakerboy Jan 2013 #39
So I think that's a very long "yes" (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #40
Nope quakerboy Jan 2013 #41
Excellent. So corporations *do* have some constitutional rights. Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #42
No. quakerboy Jan 2013 #47
Ah. So it *would* be constitutional for Congress to ban corporations from publishing books Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #50
Misdirection quakerboy Jan 2013 #54
But redheads and US citizens are not "corporations". Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #55
But are you okay when the power of the state is used to go after a corporate entity for its speech? onenote Jan 2013 #43
This argument appears to be over. Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #45
That's a false argument quakerboy Jan 2013 #48
Explain how "direct ownership" of the NAACP would work? How do you make it a "natural person" onenote Jan 2013 #49
Thats exactly my point quakerboy Jan 2013 #53
I love it. And the language is very plain. Could get a lot of traction. freshwest Jan 2013 #4
I just love my Congressman McGovern! sheshe2 Jan 2013 #8
Very, very timely. Although with the revelations of the NRA types supplying arms abroad... freshwest Jan 2013 #10
I doubt it will get any traction onenote Jan 2013 #33
K&R Historic NY Jan 2013 #5
From Ma. here...Kick and F***ing Rec! sheshe2 Jan 2013 #6
This would have to pass both the House and Senate correct? davidpdx Jan 2013 #7
The filibuster will stop any path to sanity. It must be changed. The Wielding Truth Jan 2013 #11
I agree davidpdx Jan 2013 #25
This may be the king pin to saving our country from total corruption. The Wielding Truth Jan 2013 #34
It's a Constitutional Amendment. It needs a 2/3rds majority in the Senate and House, Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #13
That's what I thought davidpdx Jan 2013 #24
This message was self-deleted by its author cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #19
Thank you, Jim McGovern! Cha Jan 2013 #20
This issue is so important Berlum Jan 2013 #26
Wonderful Idea... KharmaTrain Jan 2013 #27
SCOTUS rarely completely overturns their rulings davidn3600 Jan 2013 #29
True... KharmaTrain Jan 2013 #30
Oh, you mean the Ralph Nader's contribution to America. HE DID THIS graham4anything Jan 2013 #28
The campaign finance amendment repeals 1st amendment protection of political speech eallen Jan 2013 #35
YES. And the irony is that people like David Koch would still have unlimited free speech, Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #38
Harry will only let it come to a vote if it will FAIL Lesmoderesstupides Jan 2013 #44
Its never ever coming to the Senate for a vote. And it should fail onenote Jan 2013 #46
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Democratic Representative...»Reply #49