Re: What the Constitution, Supreme Court say about 'due process' for Trump deportees:

On 6/11/2025 3:21 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 6/11/2025 9:19 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/11/2025 4:27 AM, zen cycle wrote:

On 6/10/2025 10:54 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/10/2025 7:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 6/10/2025 2:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/10/2025 12:41 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 6/10/2025 12:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/10/2025 11:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 6/10/2025 5:59 AM, John B. wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 05:09:37 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:

>
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so opposed to efforts to
ensure that the only votes cast are from people who are qualified to
vote ...

>

>
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false trope that there was
widespread fraud. They're against the the lies that large numbers of
unqualified individuals cast votes. They're against the demonization and
assaults on the character of people who honestly worked their polling
places with integrity and certified election results to a result that
the magatards didn't like.
>
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with minimal cases of fraud.
The vast majority of ineligible votes cast are the result of
administrative errors and mistakes. The remainder are so small as to
constitute an insignificant blip in the statistical noise.
>
When you want to enact legislation based on lies, you're doing it wrong.

>
>
Re elections, etc.
>
Years ago when I lived in the U.S. I believe that there was a limit on
the amount of money that an organization or individual could give to
support a political party running in an election
Seemed logical... rich folks couldn't dominate the party.
>
Now I read that the president's ex buddy was the largest contributor -
millions of dollars.
>
My memory is fealty? Or they changed the rules?

>
Effectively, they changed the rules. The Supreme Court decided money is speech. See https:// publicintegrity.org/ politics/the- citizens- united- decision-and-why-it- matters/? gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=10586056683
>

>
Under which unions and the like are treated exactly the same as other groups of associated individuals.
>

>
um...no.
Citizens united allowed corporations to contribute essentially in the same manner that labor unions do. CU didn't affect individual contributions (afair). REcall the famous Romney line after the decision (paraphrased for political expedience) 'corporations are people too'. That isn't really what he said but it's more accurate than 'I can see russia from my house'.
>

>
In context Mr Romney was correct.  Fictitious persons share many obligations, rights and liabilities with humans; They pay taxes, can be sued civilly and criminally, they can contract, own and dispose of property, etc. There are differences; fictitious persons cannot vote.

>
"Fictitious persons" AKA corporations cannot be physically punished nor executed. They cannot be drafted and sent to war. They cannot (practically) be deported, although many "self deport" to operate from locations that will allow them to evade taxes and make even more money. They have no loyalty to the nation they were "born" in, they often have no concern for their community nor for the _real_ persons who live there.
>
They exert excessive influence over American politics and over the world at large, to the detriment of countless _real_ persons.  It's ludicrous that they are given the "rights" that they enjoy.
>
But then, they've been able to buy very important judges.
>
Weirdly, they seem to now enjoy approval even from some "individualistic" MAGA maniacs.
>
>

I have formed, sold, dissolved, bought, reorganized several corporations. I suspect that you do not have a good grasp of this area; of corporate law or regulation or governance.
>

>
How many of those 'corporations' had to register for the draft?

>
>
Yes there are differences.
>
Corporations, are fictitious persons (such as NEA/ACT, SEIU, AMA, the Boy Scouts and Chase Bank, law firms and real estate LLCs, etc) are not citizens and such cannot be executed, cannot vote etc. But the officers and/or directors can be jailed, the entity can be fined (and to some extent the officers as well).
>
But back to the above, all those entities enjoy freedom of assembly and speech in the collected form of their constituent individuals. Oh, and they are taxed, above and beyond the individual liability of the members, officers and directors.

 Congratulations on having formed corporations. Congratulations on those entities having paid taxes.
 But the idea that corporations are practically equivalent to humans is more nonsensical than the idea that a muscular 230 pound fullback becomes a girl when he puts on a dress. Both ideas are ludicrous.
 And the dress makes no real difference to anyone, yet generates outrage and hand wringing, especially from the right. While the "personal speech" in the form of millions of campaign dollars  enables the purchase of lawmakers and judges, reduces the power of thoughtful individual voters and produces other severe distortions in our democracy. Why no outrage from the right?
 Answer: Voters on the right have been suckered into thinking this is somehow good for them.
 

You have an opinion, which is fine.
SCOTUS however ruled that associations of individuals can express opinion under 1st Amendment protected speech and assembly rights in unison, besides individually. How is this wrong?  Whether your local Elks club, SEIU or Chase Bank, expressing opinion makes the nation better IMHO.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971