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

On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 21:54:31 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> 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.

the company I worked for in Indonesia was a combination of companies,
all owned by the same people but located in different countries so
taxes were not a simple matter.

I can assure you that every scheme to reduce taxes was first reviewed
by a group from management to review the feasibility of the scheme
regarding the operation of the company and then reviewed by both our
legal expert (registered to practice in both the U.S.  and Indonesia)
and tax experts for the countries operated in.
 
And we  were not unique as all the international oil companies we
worked for were doing exactly the same thing.
--
cheers,

John B.