Kagan embraces notion of living Constitution

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

What about US owned corporations with substantive business and staff overseas?

I assume those are US citizens? Do you want to deny them their rights?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I assume those are US citizens? Do you want to deny them their rights?

Not necessarily. Most US corporations have owners all over the globe. Unless you restict ownership of US equity to US citizens, no US corporation is an assembly of US citizens. And again, the "owners", if that's the criterium you want to apply, really don't have much say-so in what corporations do and don't support. Your argument doesn't hold water.

[SMR 368]

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

She has a point to an extent about the fourth amendment. But for the most part, when the Constitution is referred to as a living breathing document, this should be a reference to the amendment process. It changes because it lays out the process by which it can change. When we find that the Constitution no longer fits the requirements of the modern world, that is a reason to make amendments, not to simply make laws and rulings which contradict the Constitution.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Not necessarily. Most US corporations have owners all over the globe. Unless you restict ownership of US equity to US citizens, no US corporation is an assembly of US citizens. And again, the "owners", if that's the criterium you want to apply, really don't have much say-so in what corporations do and don't support. Your argument doesn't hold water.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What? GM is wholly owned by US citizens? Ford? GE? P&G? I think not.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

What? GM is wholly owned by US citizens? Ford? GE? P&G? I think not.

How about all those LLC's? I bet the majority of those are wholly owned by US Citizens, or are you just worried about those major corporations that trade on the open market?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

How about all those LLC's? I bet the majority of those are wholly owned by US Citizens, or are you just worried about those major corporations that trade on the open market?

What about them? Getting a bit off track now that your argument falls apart?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

What about them? Getting a bit off track now that your argument falls apart?

Huh? No, I am just giving you a chance to state where you would draw the line. You don't think the same rules should apply to unions and corporations. How about the CPB ? Are they included in your world of evil corporations?

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

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Huh? No, I am just giving you a chance to state where you would draw the line. You don't think the same rules should apply to unions and corporations. How about the CPB? Are they included in your world of evil corporations?

I haven't even spoken about unions. All I said is that there's no constitutional right to free speech for corporations in the Constitution. You'd have to interpret the text to claim that this right extends to corporations same as to individuals. That remains the case. In the eyes of some, that's legislating from the bench. Or supporting the notion of a living Constitution. I find nothing wrong with that notion nor do I find anything wrong with interpreting the text of the Constitution where it doesn't specifically address a certain issue at hand. It's what the Supreme Court is there to do.

[Peikko 1,575]

Who said corporations are evil? Corporations are just corporations, but that does not mean that the interests of corporations and the interests of individuals can't be in conflict, nor does it mean that one should allow corporations to have undue influence in the affairs of men.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

To quote that article from a while back corporations are amoral because the corporate goal of max profit is amoral.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Corporations (corpus [L] n: body) are composed of men, and exist as an entity only in the legal sense. There is no flesh, no blood, no snarling teeth, no artificial intelligence, just a piece of paper, a bunch of office furniture, and a logo. Edited June 30, 2010 by ##########