Are supermajority votes in the Senate to pass all major legislation a good thing?

[Doc]

Ted King wrote:
[quote=Doc]
[quote=Ted King]I don't know how you can do a whole lot about the problem without either:

a) amending the Constitution to diminish free speech rights for corporations, unions and other large interest collectives...

You don't have to amend the constitution. The constitution doesn't give any rights to corporations.

Just pass a law that says that all laws that may be interpreted to give corporations the rights or privileges of persons henceforth shall not be interpreted to give them legal rights that may be enforced against any persons natural or fictional.
What about this...
"Commercial free speech" is not "corporate free speech."

Corporations do not have constitutional rights and privileges. What rights they have in the federal courts come by way of Articles I-III, granted via legislative or executive law or by judicial interpretation.

[RgrF]

The Republicans can be overridden but that fails to take into account the Dems who ought really be Republicans. These are the guys who want it both ways and the real obstruction to progressive legislation that is meaningful.

They are the sole reason that "public option" among other initiatives are even in play.

[Ted King]

Doc wrote:

"Commercial free speech" is not "corporate free speech."

Corporations do not have constitutional rights and privileges. What rights they have in the federal courts come by way of Articles I-III, granted via legislative or executive law or by judicial interpretation.

The reading I have been doing seems to indicate that though the Supreme Court has not held that corporations have all the the rights enjoyed by individuals under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has held that corporations do have some rights. In LORILLARD TOBACCO CO. v. REILLY the court said, "For over 25 years, the Court has recognized that commercial speech does not fall outside the purview of the First Amendment. Instead, the Court has afforded commercial speech a measure of First Amendment protection “ ‘commensurate’ ” with its position in relation to other constitutionally guaranteed expression." So, though, this ruling is limited to a question of commercial speech it seems quite clear that the Court was ruling that certain commercial speech has Constitutional protection under the First Amendment. And in the Harvard Law School link I provided in the later post, there is this:

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/200...ate-power/

What is relatively new, however, is the claim that business entities have a constitutional right to utilize their economic power to participate in political campaigns and influence the outcome of public votes free of meaningful public regulation. The idea can be traced to the 1978 case of First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, where a 5 to 4 majority of the Court [1] voided a Massachusetts law that prohibited corporations from expending funds in connection with state referenda having nothing to do with their business on the ground it was an unconstitutional interference with corporate freedom of speech. In brief, Bellotti stands for the principle that corporations may spend money to influence the outcome of a public referendum regardless of whether the issue relates to the corporation’s business interests.

It sure seems that this is saying that the Supreme Court has ruled to extend constitutional protection to corporate speech even beyond commercial speech - in Boston v. Bellotti ruling that corporations have constitutional protection of their free speech rights to expend funds on an issue that has nothing to do with the corporation's business.

These and the other resources I've read certainly seem to me to be saying that the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations do have some Constitutionally protected rights. I haven't seen a source that suggests otherwise - though I have run into several that argue that corporations should not have ever been afforded any Constitutional protections (a sentiment with which I agree). So I'm sorry but I'm mystified as to why you say that corporations do not have Constitutional rights. Could you provide some links that I could read to understand the basis for your claim?

[RgrF]

Try for a moment to imagine the shitstorm that would ensue if any serious movement developed to remove these legislated "rights".

[Ted King]

RgrF wrote:
Try for a moment to imagine the shitstorm that would ensue if any serious movement developed to remove these legislated "rights".

Just to be clear, I don't consider Supreme Court rulings to be "legislated rights". "Legislated" implies that the right was passed through a legislature rather than it being based on Supreme Court rulings about who qualifies for Constitutionally guaranteed rights. But I definitely share your concern. As the Harvard Law link I provided says:

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/200...ate-power/

5. Overrule Bellotti!

Now that 30 years have passed since Justice Powell took a prefatory comment in a 19th Century railroad case and used it to enfranchise corporations in the political process, events have shown that it is Belotti, not the cases that tried to limit its mischief, which should be up for reconsideration. The incredible growth of corporate presence in all forms of political activity has indeed brought about the corruption of the political process that Justice Powell acknowledged might occur if corporate enterprises were allowed to employ their resources to influence the election of candidates. The “problem of corruption of elected representatives through the creation of political debts” has become the American political reality in the 21st Century. Why not put Bellotti on the table for reconsideration when the Court convenes on September 9?

Emboldened by Bellotti, corporations have indeed taken the program of the Powell Memorandum to heart. The number of registered lobbyists in Washington has increased from 3,400 in 1977 to almost 34,000 in 2006. In the 2008 House and Senate races $400 million dollars was raised and spent for candidates by political action committees, mostly linked to business corporations. Corporate spending for such events as the Inauguration, Party Conventions and even Presidential Debates has become embarrassingly blatant.

[RgrF]

My reference was to the interpretation put on corporations, they are not a creature of the constitution, they are a creature of legislation that has been ruled to have developed rights of their own.

Since corporations are a creature of Congress they are subject to the will or whim of Congress, that was the storm I was alluding to. If Congress were to attempt to change that franchise we would see a battle that would make health care seem insignificant.

[Ted King]

RgrF wrote:
My reference was to the interpretation put on corporations, they are not a creature of the constitution, they are a creature of legislation that has been ruled to have developed rights of their own.

Since corporations are a creature of Congress they are subject to the will or whim of Congress, that was the storm I was alluding to. If Congress were to attempt to change that franchise we would see a battle that would make health care seem insignificant.

I'm sorry, I can't follow what you are saying. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations have some protection under the Constitution, it would seem that such protections are not subject to the whim of Congress - that is, after all, why they are called Constitutional rights; Congress cannot abridge Constitutional rights. (Edit: theoretically, anyway, Congress is not supposed to be able to abridge Constitutional rights.)

[RgrF]

No corporations existed when the Constitution was enacted.

Congress enabled by law the development of corporations. Since they were a product of Congress it follows that Congress can then disable, alter or even abolish what they enabled, can they not?

You're responding to the courts interpretation of the congressional act, I'm addressing the power of Congress to change or even revoke that act. (not that this is anything about to happen but)

[Ted King]

State laws govern incorporation.

[SDGuy]

Well - I see that this has wandered far off-topic, from wondering whether requiring 60 votes in the Senate is a good or bad thing, to debating whether or not a corporation should have First Amendment rights...