Granting of legal personhood to corporations has proven to be disastrous. Like AI, corporations are a legal construct which threatens to destroy flesh and blood humans in favor of artificial persons.
Democracy Now on YouTube introduced a book that came out a couple of days ago that Im in the middle of reading, "The Blind Spot: How oligarchs dominate our democracy," by Jeffrey Winters. I usually don't recommend a book until I finished it, but I recommend this book that goes along with what Hartmann writes about.
Ironic how the 14th Amendment, intended to formally give human beings equal standing under the law, was turned into a vehicle for corporate dominance over all natural persons, which we suffer from to this day. Meanwhile, the "freed" slaves would continue to labor under Jim Crow for decades before any court or legislature would dare to act.
Ben Franklin said: We gave you a republic if you can keep it.
A republic is a government ruled by wise men, the elders, and wise men are men who have acquired property.
In the first elections any property owning man could vote, and that included free blacks
The first state to enfranchise all men was New Hampshire in 1792, which lifted property ownership.
free Black people had suffrage in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. However, the right to vote was rescinded in New Jersey (1807)[3] and Pennsylvania (1838).[4] New York State's Constitution of 1821 imposed a heavy property ownership requirement on Black voters (only), in effect disenfranchising almost all of them.
State by state after 1792, the property ownership requirement was lifted, but the enfranchisement of blacks and women took a constitutional amendment
BTW States have sovereign control over their citizens, including voting, marriage, age of consent, drugs, birth control, everything except those that were delegated to the federal government.
Neither congress with the SAVE act or the President with an executive order,can change that. An individual state can, and has, changed the requirements for voting.
The Constitution has no restriction on age as regards voting or anything, it was only the Supreme court usurping power that restricted voting to age 21,
in 1942 Georgia lowered the voting age to 18, but only for state and local elections.
The basis of SCOTUS power is myth, and consensus. Blue States, those with a trifecta at least, could and should choose to ignore SCOTUS, and there is nothing that SCOTUS could do in the face of a 22 state refusal to submit.
Granted that laws and constitutions have effect only to the extent to which people are willing to obey them and governments are willing to enforce them. But I think the 26th Amendment, allowing 18-year-olds to vote, is accepted. SCOTUS power is derived from the consent of the governed; so is that of Congress, and the Executive. But Republicans maintain that the government serves the presidency, forget checks and balances--a "unitary executive", aka dictatorship.
All amendments are accepted, because it isn't a law, it is the constitution.
Republicans champion the unitary executive, because at the moment Trump serves their purpose and is fulfilling their agenda. The moment the tide turns, there enthusiams will wane and reverse.
The thing that seems to be missing from all the arguments is a recognition that a corporation when formed already has superpowers. It can combine the resources and capabilities of corporal humans and magnify their strength, wealth, and reach without having to sleep or eat or work. The reason a corporate charter is sought and granted by the state is to allow a select group of investors or participants to act and engage in business with the legal power and protection of the state officially backing them up This is an advantage that is only granted if specific conditions are met and the humans asking for the advantage are carefully checked and held to strict standards which can be denied their special status if found to be violating rules, laws, or ethical standards. Making them equal to physical human beings then allows them to deny to humans and to society itself the ability to protect their separate interests on a level playing field.
I, truly enjoyed this history on well no corporations are not people and so much more Thom. I, was intrigued by Mr. Delmas attitude of well common sense Thom! Very interesting on so many levels. Delmas got it then, and we all get it now. Thank you for this. Only the best. Truly, Thom.
Throughout his mafia led life, malignant narcissist Cheeto has arrogantly created this self image in his own mind of himself as a “builder of skyscrapers”. As he spoke from the resolute desk, Cheeto actually believes that his presidential purpose is to beautify the now Black House and the city of Washington with his architectural wonders instead of serving WE the People who elected him.
Since the Nazi Republican way has always been to ravage the government’s Treasury, the necessary approach to governing is to take taxpayer $$ and not use it for WE the People but to take the $$ to use they see fit since WE don’t know what’s good for US. Get rid of that nutty “social safety net” which is just abused by welfare queens and use it, as Cheeto demands, to beautify what was a slum hole city.
So in his psychopathic demented mind Donnie the Builder was put into office to beautify the world with architecture that glorifies him and is a living monument to him. The monstrosity that he has planned is the triumphant arch modeled after the Parisian equivalent but of course bigger. And with Cheeto as always there is a subheading hoping WE the People will not see. When one looks through the arch toward Arlington, it perfectly frames the once home of Robert E Lee.
I am a newbie to Bill Maher, but I think his commentary is biting and pretty damn funny. I remember, and it wasn't that long ago, maybe during Obama's second term when the Republicans were really on their heels, and the party faithful were complaining about how the Democrats controlled the narrative. How did it change so fast? The only other parallel I can come up with was when Newt Gingrich was in ascendency with his Contract With America. I recall hearing that the pendulum had swung too far with the liberal policies and the country wanted to pull it more towards the center. I don't think there is any argument that the Dems have LOST the narrative. I recall Thom singing the praises of Graham Plattner and how the tide had turned with the party faithful being fed up with the old guard and Graham was the new face with the new policies. No idea how that's gonna play out now.
I read chapter 2 in Thom Hartmann's new book, Who Killed the The American Dream and I must read more. I forwarded CH 2 to family and friends. Spread the word.
Excuse me for posting something not related to this article. But speaking of how far we've come, this just in.
Rubio: UFC fight on WH lawn is audacious, like when Kennedy announced we're going to put a man on the moon
I mean, I can only surmise that the apparent complete lack of teaching civics in the educational curriculum can account for this acceptance of the corruption and degradation in our government by our leaders. And the Democrats continue to flounder wasting their capital on trans and other far left issues. As I have said previously, can someone explain to me how allowing biological men to compete as women is somehow a "feminist stance? Ferchrisakes, do you have a daughter who swims, who runs track, who wants to excel in sports and now has to compete in this scenario?
Does giving hormones to man to become a woman suddenly change "her" lung capacity?
And ferchrisakes can someone explain to me how giving a fifteen-year-old child hormones to change their sex not outright abuse? As an immediate concern, apart from what you might feel about the morality of these issues, does making these issues prominent, (or having them MADE prominent by opposition) going to help win elections among more independent voters who are more mainstream by temperament?
And don't get me started by this craziness in Maine.
"If this be wrong, and upon me proved, then I never writ nor no man ever loved"
Yikes. Where do you draw the line? The Dems who advocate for basically unfettered immigration? Those that advocate providing more social programs, housing, and even free drugs to the unhoused to FINALLY allow them to become productive citizens? Those that advocate to defund the police? Those that insist on pervasive use of "pronouns" so no one should feel disrespected? Or that saying "Merry Christmas" in the office constitutes micro aggression? These are the issues the Dems seem to feel most strongly about, or at least that is the perception. Their brand if not damaged, is at least confused. They appear more interested in currying favor with Hollywood elites than working people.
You spent all that time writing, when you could have been watching Fox or some other right-wing propaganda source. Now, please go back and watch some more and try to catch up. I do not want you to miss the fights on what was the White House lawn or Trump's latest head fake.
There is nary an original thought or argument in any of that blather taken from the talking points supplied by the fanatic fascists feeding the fools who want desperately to be fooled. False nonsense from the extremists and propagandists, much of it recycled and repackaged by Putin's bot factories, deserves no serious response. This is a site for people who are unafraid of facts and reality and who do their homework, rather than parrot BS.
And yet you offer no rebuttal. Just the usual ad hominin attack. And you wonder why democrats lose elections even when their opponent is a corrupt narcissist at the top and sycophants down below. Something ain't resonatin', but for God's sake, don't look in the mirror.
Let me just come out and say it. There is one, completely overriding reason to vote Democratic, and that is that Democrats still believe in a democracy. We know the current occupant of the White House despises the very foundations on which the country was built-Our Constitution, Our Three Branches of Governments, The Rule of Law, Free and Fair Elections to name but a few. We want to win elections, right?` We need a message that resonates. We put so many eggs last election in the abortion basket and it didn't have legs. The pronouns and trans issues are only of interest to yes, the FRINGE. We have to engage the independents, the working class. A &*^$@ MEN.
Remember Garrison Keiller. Remember how much joy he brought into people's lives once a week? Remember what an advocate he was for the causes that mean the most to people on this site in an understated way. Then WTF happened? He put his hand on the small of a woman's back and then got banished? I have no idea the exact cause that got him fired, but all I know is that we lost an eloquent advocate for the cause. Okay, I admit Bill Maher is pretty damn funny on CNN Saturday nights.
The Democrats are over reactive when it comes to things.Sen Franken was forced to resign all because he posed for a prank photo,meanwhile Republicans applauded their Senators when caught up in the DC Madam scandal.
Democrats need to grow a pair,and that includes leaving room for transsexuals,, but you and others like you have a problem,don't you.
Bill Maher,CNN on Saturday nights? His show RealTime is on Friday Nights, HBO. The Saturday Night show is shorter by 12 minutes to make room for commercials.
The man is a nauseating insecure narcissist, but I do like New Rules,about the only time I find myself in agreement.
There's a difference in "leaving room for transexuals" and accommodating the changing preferences for using public bathrooms depending on what a trans person feels like on a given day. Americans are tolerant, but there are lines that people don't want to see crossed. If there is no acknowledgement for that, then I would say you are alienating a chunk of the electorate.
Granting of legal personhood to corporations has proven to be disastrous. Like AI, corporations are a legal construct which threatens to destroy flesh and blood humans in favor of artificial persons.
Democracy Now on YouTube introduced a book that came out a couple of days ago that Im in the middle of reading, "The Blind Spot: How oligarchs dominate our democracy," by Jeffrey Winters. I usually don't recommend a book until I finished it, but I recommend this book that goes along with what Hartmann writes about.
I am adding it to my list of books to read, which is a very long list!
I’m in the middle of three at present. Lol. I’m going to finish this one then go back.
You’re like me, with several books we’re reading at the same time!
There aren’t enough hours in a day for everything I want to do.
Same here, and I have to work, too!
Corporations have one purpose to protect profit for the principles. Needless to say, there couldn’t be any definition further from that of a person.
Exactly, and glibertarians and fans of unregulated markets forget markets do not exist in a state of nature.
Ironic how the 14th Amendment, intended to formally give human beings equal standing under the law, was turned into a vehicle for corporate dominance over all natural persons, which we suffer from to this day. Meanwhile, the "freed" slaves would continue to labor under Jim Crow for decades before any court or legislature would dare to act.
Ben Franklin said: We gave you a republic if you can keep it.
A republic is a government ruled by wise men, the elders, and wise men are men who have acquired property.
In the first elections any property owning man could vote, and that included free blacks
The first state to enfranchise all men was New Hampshire in 1792, which lifted property ownership.
free Black people had suffrage in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. However, the right to vote was rescinded in New Jersey (1807)[3] and Pennsylvania (1838).[4] New York State's Constitution of 1821 imposed a heavy property ownership requirement on Black voters (only), in effect disenfranchising almost all of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_suffrage_in_the_United_States#:~:text=African%20Americans%20were%20fully%20enfranchised,the%20Civil%20War%20and%20the
State by state after 1792, the property ownership requirement was lifted, but the enfranchisement of blacks and women took a constitutional amendment
BTW States have sovereign control over their citizens, including voting, marriage, age of consent, drugs, birth control, everything except those that were delegated to the federal government.
Neither congress with the SAVE act or the President with an executive order,can change that. An individual state can, and has, changed the requirements for voting.
The Constitution has no restriction on age as regards voting or anything, it was only the Supreme court usurping power that restricted voting to age 21,
in 1942 Georgia lowered the voting age to 18, but only for state and local elections.
The basis of SCOTUS power is myth, and consensus. Blue States, those with a trifecta at least, could and should choose to ignore SCOTUS, and there is nothing that SCOTUS could do in the face of a 22 state refusal to submit.
Granted that laws and constitutions have effect only to the extent to which people are willing to obey them and governments are willing to enforce them. But I think the 26th Amendment, allowing 18-year-olds to vote, is accepted. SCOTUS power is derived from the consent of the governed; so is that of Congress, and the Executive. But Republicans maintain that the government serves the presidency, forget checks and balances--a "unitary executive", aka dictatorship.
All amendments are accepted, because it isn't a law, it is the constitution.
Republicans champion the unitary executive, because at the moment Trump serves their purpose and is fulfilling their agenda. The moment the tide turns, there enthusiams will wane and reverse.
The thing that seems to be missing from all the arguments is a recognition that a corporation when formed already has superpowers. It can combine the resources and capabilities of corporal humans and magnify their strength, wealth, and reach without having to sleep or eat or work. The reason a corporate charter is sought and granted by the state is to allow a select group of investors or participants to act and engage in business with the legal power and protection of the state officially backing them up This is an advantage that is only granted if specific conditions are met and the humans asking for the advantage are carefully checked and held to strict standards which can be denied their special status if found to be violating rules, laws, or ethical standards. Making them equal to physical human beings then allows them to deny to humans and to society itself the ability to protect their separate interests on a level playing field.
A great find! Thanks for sharing....
We shall use it to overcome
Only natural persons can vote!
I, truly enjoyed this history on well no corporations are not people and so much more Thom. I, was intrigued by Mr. Delmas attitude of well common sense Thom! Very interesting on so many levels. Delmas got it then, and we all get it now. Thank you for this. Only the best. Truly, Thom.
Donnie The Builder
Throughout his mafia led life, malignant narcissist Cheeto has arrogantly created this self image in his own mind of himself as a “builder of skyscrapers”. As he spoke from the resolute desk, Cheeto actually believes that his presidential purpose is to beautify the now Black House and the city of Washington with his architectural wonders instead of serving WE the People who elected him.
Since the Nazi Republican way has always been to ravage the government’s Treasury, the necessary approach to governing is to take taxpayer $$ and not use it for WE the People but to take the $$ to use they see fit since WE don’t know what’s good for US. Get rid of that nutty “social safety net” which is just abused by welfare queens and use it, as Cheeto demands, to beautify what was a slum hole city.
So in his psychopathic demented mind Donnie the Builder was put into office to beautify the world with architecture that glorifies him and is a living monument to him. The monstrosity that he has planned is the triumphant arch modeled after the Parisian equivalent but of course bigger. And with Cheeto as always there is a subheading hoping WE the People will not see. When one looks through the arch toward Arlington, it perfectly frames the once home of Robert E Lee.
Criminals protect criminals. The government is infested with termites.
So Stephen J. Field changed the course of American history.
I am a newbie to Bill Maher, but I think his commentary is biting and pretty damn funny. I remember, and it wasn't that long ago, maybe during Obama's second term when the Republicans were really on their heels, and the party faithful were complaining about how the Democrats controlled the narrative. How did it change so fast? The only other parallel I can come up with was when Newt Gingrich was in ascendency with his Contract With America. I recall hearing that the pendulum had swung too far with the liberal policies and the country wanted to pull it more towards the center. I don't think there is any argument that the Dems have LOST the narrative. I recall Thom singing the praises of Graham Plattner and how the tide had turned with the party faithful being fed up with the old guard and Graham was the new face with the new policies. No idea how that's gonna play out now.
I read chapter 2 in Thom Hartmann's new book, Who Killed the The American Dream and I must read more. I forwarded CH 2 to family and friends. Spread the word.
Excuse me for posting something not related to this article. But speaking of how far we've come, this just in.
Rubio: UFC fight on WH lawn is audacious, like when Kennedy announced we're going to put a man on the moon
I mean, I can only surmise that the apparent complete lack of teaching civics in the educational curriculum can account for this acceptance of the corruption and degradation in our government by our leaders. And the Democrats continue to flounder wasting their capital on trans and other far left issues. As I have said previously, can someone explain to me how allowing biological men to compete as women is somehow a "feminist stance? Ferchrisakes, do you have a daughter who swims, who runs track, who wants to excel in sports and now has to compete in this scenario?
Does giving hormones to man to become a woman suddenly change "her" lung capacity?
And ferchrisakes can someone explain to me how giving a fifteen-year-old child hormones to change their sex not outright abuse? As an immediate concern, apart from what you might feel about the morality of these issues, does making these issues prominent, (or having them MADE prominent by opposition) going to help win elections among more independent voters who are more mainstream by temperament?
And don't get me started by this craziness in Maine.
"If this be wrong, and upon me proved, then I never writ nor no man ever loved"
There is far left, and then there is fringe. You sort of placed yourself way out there.
Yikes. Where do you draw the line? The Dems who advocate for basically unfettered immigration? Those that advocate providing more social programs, housing, and even free drugs to the unhoused to FINALLY allow them to become productive citizens? Those that advocate to defund the police? Those that insist on pervasive use of "pronouns" so no one should feel disrespected? Or that saying "Merry Christmas" in the office constitutes micro aggression? These are the issues the Dems seem to feel most strongly about, or at least that is the perception. Their brand if not damaged, is at least confused. They appear more interested in currying favor with Hollywood elites than working people.
You spent all that time writing, when you could have been watching Fox or some other right-wing propaganda source. Now, please go back and watch some more and try to catch up. I do not want you to miss the fights on what was the White House lawn or Trump's latest head fake.
I figured some snark was coming. Let's break it down. The clever condescending turn of phrase (check). The requisite insult (check)
What's missing is any substantive reply to the points raised. No biggie. Have a nice evening.
There is nary an original thought or argument in any of that blather taken from the talking points supplied by the fanatic fascists feeding the fools who want desperately to be fooled. False nonsense from the extremists and propagandists, much of it recycled and repackaged by Putin's bot factories, deserves no serious response. This is a site for people who are unafraid of facts and reality and who do their homework, rather than parrot BS.
And yet you offer no rebuttal. Just the usual ad hominin attack. And you wonder why democrats lose elections even when their opponent is a corrupt narcissist at the top and sycophants down below. Something ain't resonatin', but for God's sake, don't look in the mirror.
Apparently yo do have a problem. Suppresssed desires? You protest too much.
Let me just come out and say it. There is one, completely overriding reason to vote Democratic, and that is that Democrats still believe in a democracy. We know the current occupant of the White House despises the very foundations on which the country was built-Our Constitution, Our Three Branches of Governments, The Rule of Law, Free and Fair Elections to name but a few. We want to win elections, right?` We need a message that resonates. We put so many eggs last election in the abortion basket and it didn't have legs. The pronouns and trans issues are only of interest to yes, the FRINGE. We have to engage the independents, the working class. A &*^$@ MEN.
Remember Garrison Keiller. Remember how much joy he brought into people's lives once a week? Remember what an advocate he was for the causes that mean the most to people on this site in an understated way. Then WTF happened? He put his hand on the small of a woman's back and then got banished? I have no idea the exact cause that got him fired, but all I know is that we lost an eloquent advocate for the cause. Okay, I admit Bill Maher is pretty damn funny on CNN Saturday nights.
The Democrats are over reactive when it comes to things.Sen Franken was forced to resign all because he posed for a prank photo,meanwhile Republicans applauded their Senators when caught up in the DC Madam scandal.
Democrats need to grow a pair,and that includes leaving room for transsexuals,, but you and others like you have a problem,don't you.
Bill Maher,CNN on Saturday nights? His show RealTime is on Friday Nights, HBO. The Saturday Night show is shorter by 12 minutes to make room for commercials.
The man is a nauseating insecure narcissist, but I do like New Rules,about the only time I find myself in agreement.
There's a difference in "leaving room for transexuals" and accommodating the changing preferences for using public bathrooms depending on what a trans person feels like on a given day. Americans are tolerant, but there are lines that people don't want to see crossed. If there is no acknowledgement for that, then I would say you are alienating a chunk of the electorate.
Here you go, your brethern: https://michaeldsellers.substack.com/p/trumps-ufc-spectacle-delivers-a-humiliation