Most of the anti-gun laws in the South exist because they kept blacks from owning guns.
The Democrats passed those laws.
And, as it turns out, the Democrats also passed the "no free speech for corporations" law--for the same reason.
“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”
It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.”
Justice Thomas said the First Amendment’s protections applied regardless of how people chose to assemble to participate in the political process."
Black families will eventually learn who their friends really are, I guess.
HT: Vegas Dan
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I heard that same thing
Dad just the other day.
You can't be that stupid. You know damned well just about all of those Dixicrats became Republicans.
Play again.
They were Democrats when they passed the laws.
Why do you think Matthews is so overwhelmed by the race of Teh Won?
It's because it's the first thing on his alleged mind.
Both political parties have had their racist elements, that is true. It is HOW those parties try to purge them from its ranks, and with your tacit approval of racist policies via linking it to Democrats, actually is against church doctrine. Dixiecrats were socially conservative--it is this philosophy that is closely aligned to today's GOP--who were hell-bent on protecting the "southern way of life" and opposing "an oppressive federal government" when it came to the "racial question". But without federal laws and Supreme Court rulings, southern states would have unwillingly afforded African-Americans equal rights under the law, but most importantly, under God.
The GOP's "southern strategy" in the late 1960's and early 1970's brought into the fold southern citizens who had racist tendencies and/or were frustrated by "Yankee meddling in their own affairs". Since that time, the GOP has taken a "hands-off" approach to racial integration, leaving it a "states' rights" and "home rule" issue. Your boyyyzzz Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms switched parties in part because of this plank in the Republican platform.
As k-shore said, "Play again".
Furthermore, it was a conservative, business friendly Supreme Court who perverted the Constitution by wrongly claiming that the Constitution governs artificial entities (corporations).
Last time I checked, the Bill of Rights protects citizens, i.e. individuals, i.e. living people.
Corporations are NOT citizens. The argument that corporations and unions have First Amendment rights under the Constitution, and the subsequent rulings laying the foundation for corporate free speech, is rooted on an absolute hoax. Even William Rehnquist acknowledged its bastard roots in 1978. Now, businesses have "free speech" because of corporate laws passed by the federal and state governments, i.e. to promote and protect their product. But as far as "paid speech", that is judicial activism at its finest.
your tacit approval of racist policies
Retract that or PROVE that I'm a racist, asshole.
Actually, the Bill of Rights guarantees free speech, period.
YOU establish an artificial 'separation of persons' not found in the Constitution, nor in law, nor in SCOTUS rulings.
Dad29, please learn constitutional history!
Chief Justice John Marshall in Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) ruled that "corporate charter(s) is a contract, the obligation of which cannot be impaired without violating the Constitution of the United States. A corporation...is a mere creature of law, possessing only those properties which the charter of creation confers upon it". In other words, businesses are "artificial persons" whose "life" is derived from federal and state laws, NOT the Constitution. Do businesses have free speech protections? Of course, when it comes to company practices and policies, i.e. "economic free speech". But only state and federal laws are able to grant "political free speech" privileges to companies.
In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (1886), the Supreme Court "established" corporate personhood. Chief Justice Morrison Waite wrote, “We avoided meeting the Constitutional question in the decision.” Yet, when writing up the case summary (that has no legal status!), J.C. Bancroft Davis, a court reporter and former railroad president, declared: “The defendant corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids a state to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” But the Court in reality had MADE NO such legal determination. That is, it was the clerk’s opinion and his misrepresentation of the case in the headnote upon which current claims of corporate personhood and free speech entitlements now rests upon.
In 1978, the Supreme Court perversely entrenched the corporate personhood, ruling corporations were entitled to "free speech protections" when it came to political causes. Chief Justice William Rehnquist pointed out the flawed precedent--“This Court decided at an early date, with neither argument nor discussion, that a business corporation is a ‘person’ entitled to the protection of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Therefore, the ruling in Citizens United rests on false legal precedents!
And I and God forgive you for calling me an asshole!
Very nice brief, thanks.
Doesn't change anything, any more than the discussion over the 'ratification' of the 16th Amendment, does it?
I don't like your inference that I'm a racist. Still waiting for an apology.
Post a Comment