Sotomayor Issues Challenge to a Century of Corporate Law

[derby378]

Source: Wall Street Journal

During arguments in a campaign-finance case, the court's majority conservatives seemed persuaded that corporations have broad First Amendment rights and that recent precedents upholding limits on corporate political spending should be overruled.

But Justice Sotomayor suggested the majority might have it all wrong -- and that instead the court should reconsider the 19th century rulings that first afforded corporations the same rights flesh-and-blood people have.

Judges "created corporations as persons, gave birth to corporations as persons," she said. "There could be an argument made that that was the court's error to start with...{imbuing} a creature of state law with human characteristics."

After a confirmation process that revealed little of her legal philosophy, the remark offered an early hint of the direction Justice Sotomayor might want to take the court.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125314088285517643.html

[alsame]

1. YES!!! K&R.

[Name removed]

209. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

222. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BREMPRO]

326. corporate wing of the freeper trolls can't handle reasoned argument...

and the uncovering of a secret: Corporations were never officially determined to be considered "personhoods" with the same rights as individuals. Simply a clerical error. Reports of freeper heads exploding on the news that Sotomayor is running intellectual rings around the shallow and naive arguments of the conservatives on the court. Duck!

[alsame]

362. LOL, I never even got to see the replies before the TS. Funny how

my one word response caused exploding heads.

[county worker]

2. Right on judge!

Judges "created corporations as persons, gave birth to corporations as persons," she said. "There could be an argument made that that was the court's error to start with..

I totally agree!

[liberalmike27]

291. I'm Not Sure if This is True

But they had a guest on one of the last night's line up on MSNBC, that they, the 1888 SC decided to not review the issue of corporate personhood, or put it off, and then the clerk recorded that they had reviewed it and that they had given them personhood. I'm not sure where he got his information, or if I misinterpreted what he said, but it sounded a lot like it was a mistake made by the recording clerk, that they allowed to stand.

If that is so, then they never had it.

I personally know it is absurd, and could not possibly be anything that the founders intended. But then, that is always so much more subjective than most pretend, since the whole court is about judicial activism.

But getting corporations out of the political game, getting rid of lobbyists' money, would go a long, long way toward reforming our biggest problem, the corrupting influence of bribing our Senators, in particular, to do the bidding of huge entities like corporations, which is almost always in contrast to what is good for real people. Pollution curbs are a good example. Less pollution, is good for people, and bad for corporations, as they make more money. Pay issues is another problem.

Look to Max Baucus and his 3 million, such a meager sum between us and health care, in comparison to the Billions they will make if his health care bribe is allowed to work, and he is allowed to destroy the public option, and to pass his terrible bill supposedly negotiated with the three republicans to get their votes, but not even achieving that aim.

[ProudDad]

296. You are correct

In fact one of the justices said from the bench on the record that they were NOT deliberating the question of "corporate personhood" at all...

It was a clerk of the court, who also happened to be an ex-director of one of the major railroads, who inserted the fiction into the non-binding head note (summary) of the case.

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood /

It's an evil disgusting fiction...

[cosmicone]

3. This is great

The original case -- Santa Clara County vs Union Pacific Railroad has destroyed America by giving corporations the same rights as individual human beings.

This will give people the power back by reducing corporate influence.

[No Elephants]

295. Thanks for the case cite. I don't think the SCOTUS did that in the Union Pacific case.

I confess my eyesight and my impatience did not permit to scour the entire, very boring opinion. However, I saw nothing about that in the SCOTUS opinion, other than to say that the point had been raised in the briefs and the lower courts. However, the syllabus or summary at the beginning--which is NOT part of the offical opinion, says that the Court decided it. I hope Justice Sotomayor or some SCOTUS law clerk notices that soon.

[lark]

319. Don't get too excited

This is just one SCOTUS view, the aholes put in by the Repugs do not agree, want corporations to be unfettered, and will almost certainly do away with campaign finance reform - or at least that portion that pertains to corporations. Wonder how they will try to finesse this so only "their" corporations are unfettered but Unions have different requirements. I'm sure that is part of their agenda, just wonder how they will word it. It will absolutely prove that Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas lied when they said they did not believe in judicial activism. Overturning 100 years of precedent is nothing other than that.

[JDPriestly]

358. The seeds for revolutions in American thought are often planted in

minority dissents of Supreme Court decisions. Don't lose heart. This is a beginning.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

370. At last we have some intelligent in the Supreme Court

[drm604]

4. Good for her.

I doubt that she'll convince them, but I'm happy to see her trying.

[Name removed]

221. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FiveGoodMen]

5. That's encouraging!

[DaLittle Kitty]

191. Lets Pray For Her To Have The Utmost Skill In Her Powers Of PERSUASION!

Nice try but WE are likely screwed and will soon have the final gates that restrain complete Corporate Rule in this country removed!

[rucognizant]

233. Kitty....

Glas 1/2 empty much?

[No Elephants]

247. She needs to persuade Ginsburg, Breyer, both of whom were also appointed by

Democrats and Stevens, all of whom lean left, and one more. Kennedy sometimes swings over. BUT, she put Scalia between a rock and a hard place, though, by using an argument based in his fake "original intent" rationales.

The Court does not have to overrule the entire personhood doctrine, which could wreak havoc. It would simply say corporations don't have rights under the Constitution of the United States. Then we can work on our state legislatures.

[lark]

327. Kennedy - blech

He's in favor or removing the campaign finance restraints. He will vote with his usual buddies and Kitty was right, we are getting screwed, and there's really nothing we can do. The only way this won't happen is for one of the Repugs to go against their usual way and vote for something that diminishes rather than enhances corporations. Unless the Employee Freedom of Choice bill passes, and unions grow, this will have a net effect of turning the country even more right wing because of heavy propaganda.

[JDPriestly]

363. Scalia, in particular, is in a very tough place.

Scalia insists that he is interpreting the Constitution according to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. Since there weren't many corporations of the immensity of the corporations of today at the time the Constitution was written and since much of the prevailing opinion at the time had a negative view of the idea of corporations, he will be hard-pressed to justify siding with corporations on this issue. I'm sure he will try really hard, but I don't see how he can do it.

Jefferson on corporations:

I hope we shall take warning from the example of England and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our Government to trial, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

letter to George Logan, Nov. 12, 16, 1816

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticf...

[FiveGoodMen]

308. You're probably right.

Still, credit where credit is due.

[KatyaR]

6. WOW--right out of the gate!

You go, girl!

[wroberts189]

90. Indeed and a very strong start. nt

[KansDem]

7. Perhaps this statement lays the foundation for a challenge...

But Justice Sotomayor may have found a like mind in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "A corporation, after all, is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights," Justice Ginsburg said, evoking the Declaration of Independence.

But then, I'm not a lawyer...

[Pirate Smile]

11. I bet Justice Ginsburg is sooo happy. She really wanted another woman on the court and

now that she has one, they seem very much in sync.

[derby378]

15. That's pretty much in keeping with Chief Justice Marshall's take

This is going to be GOOD.

[NewJeffCT]

93. What would he know about original intent, though?

[No Elephants]

321. According to Republicans Chief Justice Marshall either knew squat about oiriginal intent

or knowingly ignored it. They said his landmaark case, Marbury v. Madison, was never the intent of the Framers. That's a crock, of course, but they do insist.

[sybylla]

50. Ah ha, nicely played Justice Ginsburg.

I bet conservative heads are spinning. How on earth do you defend the position of corporations in this society as being equal to a person?

[DaLittle Kitty]

352. MORE Appropriately... A person Being Equal To A CORPORATION? That Is The POINT!

Currently, more so than EVER before... It IS CORPORATIONS ... NOT us that RUN our government, concoct the policies that "govern" us and THEM and always to THEIR FAVOR! HEalth Care errr oopss I mean Health INSURANCE Reform being the pre-eminent example! If you haven't figured that out then you are totally out to lunch! THIS DOMINANCE over little ole us by CORPORATIONS occurs through the venerable??? CORPORATE Lobbyist campaign Contribution...

Preferably bundled in accumulations of 100 and PERSONAL Checks/Contributions or more times the MAX of $2,400 DOLLARS per contributor per election cycle! THIS IS ... WHY... we Are being fu*ked by Corporate America ! andddd..... again....

The Judges (Supreme Court on down...) are appointed by WHO? The "elected" officials that were ELECTED via those $CORPORATE $CAMPAIGN $CONTRIBUTIONS via those CORPORATE LOBBYISTS!

[DaLittle Kitty]

355. THINK Again About WHY The Legal Structure of A Corporation Came About? To Protect The "persons" Who

comprise "The Corporation!" So in effect... "How then can a Corporation have the same rights as a "person" when the STRUCTURE legally that makes up a Corporation is specifically designed to Legally SEPARATE the PERSONS of The Corporation from legal liability! It JUST IS NOT FU*KING LOGICAL ... by ANY measure!

[JDPriestly]

365. Excellent point.

[truedelphi]

393. +1 n/t

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

79. Wow! That is TRUE! A corporation is NOT endowed by its creator with inalienable rights.

What a provocative statement!!!

A corporation has been "endowed" with rights via human beings!!!

If ANYTHING would tear the corporacrats from the theocrats, THAT statement would do so because: the corporacrats BELIEVE that only the rich/powerful MEN control "inalienable rights" and FULLY INVEST in their own power to control the same. Meanwhile the theocrats believe a 'creater' named GOD gives those 'inalienable rights',...unless, of course, the theocrats also believe women and children and minorities are denied those rights UNLESS ONLY "God's chosen" white men (per those men's association with God) say they can have such rights *heh*.

I wonder if some of those self-proclaimed "preachers of God" who recently passed away went straight to hell for breaking the 1st commandment about being prohibited from prioritizing or placing other gods BEFORE the one and only God Almighty (e.g. they placed THEMSELVES as 'gods' before "GOD")?

I gotta' say, I SURE AS HELL HOPE SO!!!!

[No Elephants]

254. There is no such thing as an "inalienable right." Just ask the Jews whom

Germany arrested, or the Japanese American citizens that the U.S. interned or anyone who got tortured or murdered anywhere.

Ginsburg's point is not that anyone has inalienable rights. It's that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution intended it to apply to natural born people, not legally created "people" like corporations or limited liability companies.

[AntiFascist]

371. Infringing on those inalienable rights...

could and always should later be judged to be wrong, at the very least.

[moonbatmax]

92. That statement may be debatable...

depending on how a corporation's "creator" is defined.

I don't know what all the law has to say about the creation of a corporation,
but if by "its creator" one could reasonable refer to its founder(s),
and/or whatever entity grants it recognition as a corporate entity,
I see no reason any of those could not grant it at least some certain
"inalienable rights," outside of any legal limitations on their power to do so.

In other words, a corporation may very well BE "endowed by its creator"
with whatever rights said creator is permitted to grant.

IANAL, but that looks like some pretty tricky legal ground.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

98. Let us put it simply: corporations DID NOT EXIST when our country was founded.

So, those entities DO NOT QUALIFY as being the HUMAN BEINGS to which the constitution and all its founding documents referred.

If that is debatable to you, join the corporacrats who want to be the dictators-in-charge over this nation.

[customerserviceguy]

112. At the time of our country's founding

A lot of entities that you and I would recognize as persons were not seen as such.

As an atheist, I hold that whole "we're special because we're in God's image and likeness" thing in deep suspicion.

Chances are, it won't make any difference what Sotomayor does in this case, she's just replacing the dissenting vote that Justice Souter would have excercised.

[No Elephants]

257. It will make a difference, no matter how the case turns out. She has created an opening to start

thinking differently about something that happened in 1886, but perhaps should never have happened.

Dissenting opinions get cited by lawyers and courts favoring a change in the law. They are not binding, but they can be persuasive.

Of course, a SCOTUS majority opinion would change things instantly and citing a dissenting opinion would not, but she has stuck a wedge in the doorway that may well lead to a sane result, sooner or much later.


"The arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

[No Elephants]

262. Joint stock companies were corporations or enough like them. They

funded most of the settlement of this nation (after the original settlement 50,000 years earlier, of course). BUT, they were not then considered "people." Ginsburg's point is not religious. She is making the point that the Framers of the Constitution did not intend the Constitution to apply to anything but natural born persons, as opposed to purely "legal persons" that are created courtesy of a statute or court case, like corporations.

[happyslug]

284. Actually the Joint Stock Companies all failed

Massachusetts and Virginia, the first two Joint Stock Companies were made Royal Colonies to try to save them (The Joint Stock Companies wanted to quick a return on investment to truly run a Colony). The most successful colonies were founded by Individuals (William Penn as to Pennsylvania, Lord Baltimore as to Maryland, Oglethorpe as to Georgia for example). New York was founded by the Dutch East Indies Company, became a Dutch Colony and then the Colony "owned" by the Duke of York (Later King James II). The Duke of York Divided his Colony, giving part to William Penn who in turn gave part of it to two friends who forms North and South New Jersey (Later merged into one Colony).

My point was Joint Stock Companies, the predecessors to Corporations ALL FAILED, it was Government run Colonies OR Family/Single owner colonies that succeeded.

[No Elephants]

286. I never said they were financially successful, though, only that they existed.

My post was in response to this line in sick and tired's post:


"Let us put it simply: corporations DID NOT EXIST when our country was founded."


Being flat broke or bankrupt does not mean you don't exist. That is as true of businesses as it is of human beings.


Point is, the Framers did know about corporations and neither declared them persons nor specified in the Constitution that corporations or businesses of any kind that they gave Constitutional rights to joint stock companies or corporations or businesses of any kind.

Their financial success or failure pretty much has no relevance, at least not to this thread.

BTW, do you also post as sick and tired? You said


"My point was Joint Stock Companies, the predecessors to Corporations ALL FAILED, it was Government run Colonies OR Family/Single owner colonies that succeeded."

However, it was sick and tired to whom I was responding..

[Localist]

389. Joint stock companies were government run companies... what do you mean?

Joint stock companies were private businesses that were chartered by the state, afforded exclusive privileges and limited liability, just like the way the world works now:

e.g. FORD, GM and Chrysler are chartered by the state, must maintain its corporate form per state standards, are given undue advantage over all other formsof business, and have exclusive privilege to exploit the vast majority of automotive intellectual property at the expense of the people.

It's just as Adam Smith said:

"Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less, in the management of the affairs of such a company. It is upon this account that joint stock companies for foreign trade have seldom been able to maintain the competition against private adventurers. They have, accordingly, very seldom succeeded without an exclusive privilege, and frequently have not succeeded with one. Without an exclusive privilege they have commonly mismanaged the trade. With an exclusive privilege they have both mismanaged and confined it. "

Sound familiar?

The only thing that our "modern" ( hah! *cry* ) state-chartered companies have going for them is that their vast wealth of intellectual property, afforded to them by their status as "persons", prevents independent entrepreneurs from ever entering into the market. The solution is and has alwabs been more freedom for individuals, less freedom for fascists: whether they are the kind who take us hostage via "legal fictions" or illegal firearms.

[Beer on a stick]

144. Quite simply, yes, they did.

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountabilit...

[tabatha]

156. See #155.

[BREMPRO]

164. great link to the history of corporate "personhood"- a clerical mistake...exploited

"One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of "corporate personhood," thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a "natural person."

From that point on, the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect rights of freed slaves, was used routinely to grant corporations constitutional "personhood." Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise. Armed with these "rights," corporations increased control over resources, jobs, commerce, politicians, even judges and the law. "

[No Elephants]

264. From which source are you quoting?

[BREMPRO]

274. this one:

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountabilit...

[No Elephants]

322. Thank you.

[ArcticFox]

200. careful there

Corporations have existed a very long time. Not in their current form of course, but they have existed. I believe for hundreds of years.

[susanna]

206. They have, indeed. However...

...the U.S. Supreme Court's extremely misguided granting of a quasi-human status at the turn of the century was ridiculous in most every way.

As a human, one can't play without a conscience, soul, or ability to be incarcerated for crimes on one's watch.

Corporations have zero of those attributes. Logic should prevail.

[No Elephants]

325. Please see Reply 295.

[provis99]

260. corporations did exist at the founding

the British East India Company, or the Hudson's Bay Company, for example. But the Founders did not recognize these companies as persons; they would have thought it insane that corporations had any constitutional rights.

[No Elephants]

329. Hudson's Bay was a corporation. British East India was a joint stock company.

Don't ask me what the difference is, though, cause I'll be dipped if I know.

[cliffordu]

313. "I'll take Hudson's Bay Company for 200, Alex."

[Pharaoh]

119. you have got to be kidding?

you must be a lawyer

[defendandprotect]

124. The Founders feared capital . . . probably as much as they feared CHURCH . . .

And, a "people's" government doesn't suggest a corporate government --

Further, corporations are not human -- people are --

corporations don't have conscience, don't breathe, don't require food,

shelter, clothing, health care -- public education nor a clean environment.

Corporations have one need -- $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[No Elephants]

253. I wish that were so, but I don't think it was.

[mbperrin]

299. Thomas Jefferson count as one of the founders?

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Private_... (Quotation)

[No Elephants]

315. That does not contradict what I said though.

I was responding to a statement by defendandprotect that the founders feared capital (or money, wealth, etc).

In the quote you provided, Jefferson is not saying he fears capital. To the contrary, he is saying he fears that banks might take his capital away from him.

Jefferson, as a gentleman farmer and slave owner, was a wealthy man and liked that way so much that he did not free his slaves even though he knew it was evil--and some of them seem to have been his own children. However, he did free his slaves in his will. That tells me he was willing to do evil to his own offspring so as not to cramp his own lifestyle.

That is not a man who fears capital.

He did run up debts, but that was because he loved his lifestyle and building Monticello, not because he feared capital.

[mbperrin]

336. Are you arguing that capital and corporations are the same thing?

Looking for clarity here.

[defendandprotect]

342. Believe he was commenting on the ability to use ...

the dollar bill as power -

like slavery, he wasn't above using it --

but he recognized its evil as well.

It used to be easier to pull up stuff on this from internet --

I don't think I have anything saved --

but if I have time, I'll try to pull up some of the stuff I've seen over time

and start the conversation anew.

[defendandprotect]

341. Thank you -- there's a lot of other stuff on it --

if I can find it --

[defendandprotect]

338. Yes, founders feared the power of capital . . .

Somewhere along the line I'll try to find something about that for you --

Presumably, from the start, things have always been schizophrenic -- !!

"all are equal" -- except slaves -- women, Native Americans, people without property -- !!

Compromise on slavery --

[Beer on a stick]

142. Therein lies the rub: the DOI is NOT a governing legal document.

Only the United States Constitution applies here.

[No Elephants]

306. True, but

Ginsburg is not quoting the DOI as legal authority.

Ginsburg is making a point about the original intent of the Constitution by showing that the Framers did not consider corporations (or joint stock companies or any other purely legal or business entity) to be a person. So, references in the Constitution to the rights of individuals were never intended to include corporations (or towns, etc.)

It would be like looking at a blog I write to see how I use a certain word all the time to figure out what I intended to say when I put that same word into a legally binding contract. the fact that my blog is not legally binding doesn't matter because you are using it only as a guide to interpreting the contract.

[tabatha]

154. I thought the essence of free market capitalisim

was that if a corporation was not sustainable, then it should fail.
Hence it does not have inalienable rights.

[susanna]

207. And we have a winner. n/t

[No Elephants]

331. No one does. Please see Reply 254.

[defendandprotect]

343. True . . . there is the precedent of prior laws government corporations ...

including that they be folded when their work was accomplished --

and/or if they were not performing justly according to the regulations.

[susanna]

205. IANAL indeed.

Hairsplitting argument vis a vis the "creator."

Corporations have no conscience. They lack the ability to kill or be killed in defense of the country they are supposed to "serve," unlike the human beings who have done so tirelessly since the dawn of this country.

So, if YANAL, then just do the logic thing. The truth will set you free.

[Autonomy]

214. creator = God

It's not a semantic statement -- it's transcendant -- and anything created by people cannot be equivalent. Humans cannot imbue "inalienable" rights; such a thing must come from a Higher Authority.

[ProudDad]

298. "Creator" not = "god"

Creator = weak bond accumulation of materials into the current configuration...

no "god" needed...

Corporations = evil psychopaths is true though...

---------------

A LEGAL "PERSON"

In the mid-1800s the corporation emerged as a legal "person." Imbued with a "personality" of pure self-interest, the next 100 years saw the corporation's rise to dominance. The corporation created unprecedented wealth but at what cost? The remorseless rationale of "externalities" (as Milton Friedman explains, the unintended consequences of a transaction between two parties on a third) is responsible for countless cases of illness, death, poverty, pollution, exploitation and lies.
THE PATHOLOGY OF COMMERCE: CASE HISTORIES

To assess the "personality" of the corporate "person," a checklist is employed, using diagnostic criteria of the World Health Organization and the standard diagnostic tool of psychiatrists and psychologists. The operational principles of the corporation give it a highly anti-social "personality": it is self-interested, inherently amoral, callous and deceitful; it breaches social and legal standards to get its way; it does not suffer from guilt, yet it can mimic the human qualities of empathy, caring and altruism. Four case studies, drawn from a universe of corporate activity, clearly demonstrate harm to workers, human health, animals and the biosphere. Concluding this point-by-point analysis, a disturbing diagnosis is delivered: the institutional embodiment of laissez-faire capitalism fully meets the diagnostic criteria of a "psychopath."

http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=312

[Autonomy]

367. Creator definitely = God

The Enlightenment era Framers, working in a context of several hundred years of building on the common law, and ~150 years of English cutting edge philosophy, "discovered" what we might today call "Natural Law", a type of found law that is the nexus of law and political philosophy, in which (not in regard to corporations), they posited that "every Man is endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." By Creator (notice the capitalization), they meant God.

[derby378]

369. Even if using a deistic or nontheistic framework, I would tend to agree

Through evolution and natural selection, humankind arises. The very notion of a "corporation" would not exist without humankind. Shall the inherent rights of men and women be trumped by a mere economic construct? I think not.

[Autonomy]

372. Even deists of the Enlightenment era

would have considered atheism irrelevant to the proposition of unalienable rights, if you take atheism as merely the disbelief in an anthropomorphic deity. However, if you believe in total randomness, then you cannot believe in unalienable rights (assuming you understand the term).

Here's a website that explains my previous post at length:

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/yardsti...

[ProudDad]

375. Not true

for long term sustainability and survival the concept of "unalienable rights" is a requirement...

Nothing religious, no god myths are necessary...

[Autonomy]

377. Religion and myths were not part of the discussion

until you mentioned them. The God in this discussion is a necessary assumption for the found law model of unalienable rights.

[ProudDad]

374. I'm talking about reality

not "Deist myths"...

[Autonomy]

378. The reality the enlightenment thinkers posited

necessitated a Creator to imbue human beings with a form of rights that are not granted by Men, and thus cannot be taken away by Men.

[ProudDad]

384. But that's the basic fallacy

The whole myth of a "Creator" was created by man...

so if one assumes that "rights" are granted to people by any one of a number of mythical, man-created, super-beings then one is building a house on sand...

It would be better that mutual respect be the recognition factor of human (and other creature's) rights than to attribute it to some god-myth that can be crumbled when a "stronger" god-myth comes along...

That's the BASIS of Secular Humanism and it's why all of these phony religious excuses must finally crumble to be replaced by a common consensus of the basic rights of everyone...

Anything less is intellectual laziness...

[Autonomy]

386. It would be better...

is intellectual laziness. Appeals to "how things should be" are a fallacy, and such a system crumbles at the first hint of stress. No, the system of unalienable rights needs to be based on a principle that cannot be touched by human frailties.

There are plenty of humanistic consensuses out there: the International Declaration of Human Rights, for one. No one follows it, the US included. The model needs to be able to withstand being broken. That is, regardless of how many times people fail the moral system, one can still believe in the moral system. That is not the case with systems such as humanistic rights. They are based on consensus, which INEVITABLY fails as soon as one party stands to gain by breaking it, and once failed is no longer consensus, and when no longer consensus, no longer exists.

[ProudDad]

300. Duplicate

(original got caught in a clog in the internet tubes)

[Zhade]

357. Um, bullshit. Given the lack of evidence for any gods, our rights ONLY come from us!

NT!

[eomer]

215. Inalienable rights are not granted.

If they were granted then they would have not existed just before the act of granting; if it is possible for them not to exist then they are not inalienable.

Clearly corporations do not have rights that are inalienable. The rights of corporations are gr