Replies

Yes I agree judges who supported this should be impeached. Alas it won't happen

Regarding corporations. They are nothing more than a collection of individuals pooling their money for a common purpose. If I give my money to a corporation to forward my political agenda and the corporation is then restricted in its ability to do so you have abridged my ability to spread my message by cutting off an outlet for me to do so.

Or alternatively the first amendment just says congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech it does not say "only for people". Since it doesn't explicitly exclude corporations they must also be included unless you believe in a living breathing document where "only people" is implied.

If the bill of rights are not individual rights but are considered corporate rights then the argument that the second amendment only applies to "people" in the plural is the natural result of applying your logic and we have no individual right to own a gun.

Interesting argument but I don't think it applies. If I say that "People have two arms" It does not mean that 280 million people share the same two limbs.

They are nothing more than a collection of individuals pooling their money for a common purpose.

They are more than that. Under state charters they have special protections and their shareholders have limited liability.

If I give my money to a corporation to forward my political agenda and the corporation is then restricted in its ability to do so you have abridged my ability to spread my message by cutting off an outlet for me to do so.

I believe one of the arguments regarding this is that you have no control over what happens with your money once you turn it over. They are free to spend it as they see fit for whatever cause they see fit. Or alternatively the first amendment just says congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech it does not say "only for people". Since it doesn't explicitly exclude corporations they must also be included unless you believe in a living breathing document where "only people" is implied.

The constitution doesn't provide that corporations are protected from having any limitations imposed on them. Just as they are creations of government, they can be destroyed by government or government can impose on them conditions in order to exist. Such laws are imposed on all corporations since the early 1900's that have imposed restrictions on their spending. This ruling merely clarifies that included in the list of corporations are nonprofits. Why would one corporation have superior rights than another ?