Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
i was rather hoping that the illusion did not take shape in the thread that all arguments concerning what is or is not "in the spirit of the constitution" entail some bizarre-o strict construction/original intent kinda posture.
the language is itself pretty standard ways of arguing.
the strict construction position is only one of a wide range of options that such language can be inserted into.
context. it kinda matters.
sheesh.
|
Right. The context matters as soon as it suits your views. The article referenced in the OP is the one that brings up the spirit of the Constitution, not us.
---------- Post added at 03:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xerxys
Just how will this work though? Aren't corporations the backbone of what runs a country? This isn't the 17th century where military might defined a country's development. ECONOMY runs this shit!! If it's not cost effective it won't be done.
Who makes the pennies if not the corporations? Who runs the corporations if not the same people that are in office?
|
A corporation is always a composite of multiple people with differing views. The likelihood that all people in a corporation support this or that is unlikely, so it is unfair that employees must unwillingly support a candidate they would not support personally.
Furthermore: Rather than corporate money going to improve wage, safety or efficiency: it is used to further the corporation politically. This circumvents the free market where the company must survive on its own merits.
That's why I don't believe corporations should be allowed to engage politically as an entity.