Kagan embraces notion of living Constitution

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is calling the Constitution a living document, saying its framers wrote it to last through ever-changing circumstances.

Her remarks in an exchange with Sen. Patrick Leahy on the second day of confirmation hearings touched on suggestions by Republican critics that she would legislate from the bench.

Kagan said the Constitution's authors laid out both specific rules and broad concepts. She noted they declared 30 the minimum age to be a U.S. senator but didn't elaborate on the Fourth Amendment's "unreasonable search and seizure." Kagan said they could have been more specific, but couldn't have known about bomb-sniffing dogs and computers.

"Either way," she said, "we apply what they say, what they meant to do, so in that sense we are all originalists."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9GKVQJO0&show_article=1 Edited June 29, 2010 by ##########

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's common sense and knowledge, really. Take a deep breath.

Where did the authors of the constitution give individual rights - such as the right to free speech - to corporations?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It's common sense and knowledge, really. Take a deep breath.

Where did the authors of the constitution give individual rights - such as the right to free speech - to corporations?

Corporation predate the US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Corporation predate the US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Except they couldn't predict that corporations would own Congress. I'm imagining how it will be in 100 years. When they walk into the senate they'll look like professional drivers with all of their sponsors on their clothes.

[Dan J 277]

Corporation predate the US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

He is talking about the concept of corporate personhood which was established much later.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

He is talking about the concept of corporate personhood which was established much later.

The concept of corporations as legal entities goes back to Roman times.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Except they couldn't predict that corporations would own Congress. I'm imagining how it will be in 100 years. When they walk into the senate they'll look like professional drivers with all of their sponsors on their clothes.

Always have, and always will. After all, it was capitalists that wanted to cut mother England out of the trade loop, and not pay the costs incurred in the French and Indian War, that instigated the American Revolution in the first place. Two-thirds of the colonists at the time, either were apathetic or, were loyal British subjects.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Always have, and always will. After all, it was capitalists that wanted to cut mother England out of the trade loop, and not pay the costs incurred in the French and Indian War, that instigated the American Revolution in the first place. Two-thirds of the colonists at the time, either were apathetic or, were loyal British subjects.

How many large companies existed at that time? I can think of only two, both British.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

How many large companies existed at that time? I can think of only two, both British.

You mean like the East India Company? Corporations at that time had exclusive franchise, and raised their own armies. When you hold a Royal charter, you pretty much get to do things the way you want, as long as the Crown gets its cut.

In the Americas, several of the Colonies were founded under those rules. You present the Crown your business plan, and if approved, you get exclusive use of such lands as then may be deemed to be a part of your charter.

ETA: The Dutch were granting charters to groups of investors, more in the model of modern corporations.

Edited June 30, 2010 by ##########

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

You mean like the East India Company? Corporations at that time had exclusive franchise, and raised their own armies. When you hold a Royal charter, you pretty much get to do things the way you want, as long as the Crown gets its cut.

In the Americas, several of the Colonies were founded under those rules. You present the Crown your business plan, and if approved, you get exclusive use of such lands as then may be deemed to be a part of your charter.

ETA: The Dutch were granting charters to groups of investors, more in the model of modern corporations.

So wouldn't you say the US model broke away from that? IE. did the the Federal government set up charters?

[justashooter 430]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/29/kagan-calls-recent-scotus_n_629671.html

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan seems determined -- if not poised -- to take another Republican argument against her candidacy off the table, as she testified on Tuesday that she considers recent cases upholding Second Amendment rights to be "good precedent going forward."

Kagan said that there was now "no doubt" that the right to bear arms as established by District of Columbia v. Heller was "binding precedent." If she were to make it to the bench and hear a gun-related cases in the future, she added, her "responsibility would be to apply to the Constitution as understood and previously applied by the court and that means as understood and interpreted by the court in Heller."

"I do think that Heller is the law going forward," she said. "I have not had, myself, the occasion to delve into the history that the courts dealt with in Heller. But I have absolutely no reason to think that the court's analysis was incorrect in any way. I accept the court's analysis and will apply it going forward."

continues in link

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

So wouldn't you say the US model broke away from that? IE. did the the Federal government set up charters?

They more, or less followed the Dutch model. States, as well as the Federal government, establish rules under which a corporation can be created.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

To add: I would say many of the 19th century corporations were given large land grants, similar to the 17th and 18th century charters. The railroads come to mind. Even in the 20th century, you could say government bidding and approval is more, or less, the granting of a limited, if not exclusive franchise, for instance, Kaiser Steel in WWII, or any of the aerospace contractors post WWII.

Edited June 30, 2010 by ##########

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Corporation predate the US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Okay, so how do individual rights such as the first amendment rights extend to corporations who most certainly aren't individuals.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Okay, so how do individual rights such as the first amendment rights extend to corporations who most certainly aren't individuals.

Corporations are composed of individuals, collectively engaged in an endeavor. It's not that the corporation has all the rights of a citizen, as an entity, but under the right to freely assemble, all those individuals still retain their rights under the first amendment.