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

Am 12.06.2025 um 10:47 schrieb Catrike Ryder:

On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 19:26:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
 

On 6/11/2025 5:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:

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?

>
It's wrong in treating massive monetary contributions as "speech."
Factually, a corporation is _not_ a person. Factually, money is _not_
speech. How is this not obvious?
>
And the specific effect has been to allow multibillion dollar
corporations to exert tremendous control over candidates and election
outcomes. That's not what the founding fathers had in mind, AFAICT.
>

Whether your local
Elks club, SEIU or Chase Bank, expressing opinion makes the nation
better IMHO.

>
By writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper? Sure. By donating 15
million dollars to a PAC? No. And I doubt that any local Elks club has
ever done that.
>
I'm involved in two local clubs. Neither one has a treasury bigger than
$2000. Neither could afford to donate even $1000 to influence elections
or legislation.
>
It occurs to me, if you're totally enamored of the weird idea that a
corporation is equivalent to a person, then let's limit the amount of
election donations to, say, 10% of the annual income of the average
American _real_ person. Yes, even though the Musks and the Microsofts
have incomes of countless millions or billions.

 Why don't you write to a Democrat Comgressperson about that. See if
you can find one who wants to limit political spending by George
Soros.

If it limits political spending by Elon Musk and the Koch Brothers at the same time, this should be easy.
Hint: Mr Soros' campaign contributions were orders of magnitude smaller than those by the people above.