That popular Legislation when
passed in 2002 was considered initially to be the most important political
reform Legislation of the decade by limiting spending on corporations and
unions. However, within seven (7) very short years, key parts of the legislation
had been overturned based on the "thinking" that the Constitution only promised
“the freedom to speak” not “equal speech”.
I am going to attempt to examine this issue from fairness point-of-view and avoid becoming embroiled in political policy issues to remain consistent with my Guidelines. Whatever imperfections this Bill may have had, its initial premise was valid, if viewed from the following perspective.
It is correct that the Constitution only guarantees the freedom to speak and this should never be altered, however this freedom is available to individuals only. The more important question, which was not addressed is who personified entities and “endowed’ them with the “freedom” to speak? The Constitution certainly does not. Entities run by individuals who all collectively already have the freedom to speak, need no further freedom to speak through the entities they control (unless special status is being attributed to any specific individual and then this is not a valid mechanism via, which such should be obtained and is highly unethical). The unfairness is included here, because by guaranteeing entities the freedom to speak, they are being personified and those who control them are being provided with an additional “voice” via, which to speak not available to members of the public at large and IN THIS MANNER THE CONSTITUTION WAS OVERTURNED AND THIS IS BLATANTLY UNFAIR.
I am going to attempt to examine this issue from fairness point-of-view and avoid becoming embroiled in political policy issues to remain consistent with my Guidelines. Whatever imperfections this Bill may have had, its initial premise was valid, if viewed from the following perspective.
It is correct that the Constitution only guarantees the freedom to speak and this should never be altered, however this freedom is available to individuals only. The more important question, which was not addressed is who personified entities and “endowed’ them with the “freedom” to speak? The Constitution certainly does not. Entities run by individuals who all collectively already have the freedom to speak, need no further freedom to speak through the entities they control (unless special status is being attributed to any specific individual and then this is not a valid mechanism via, which such should be obtained and is highly unethical). The unfairness is included here, because by guaranteeing entities the freedom to speak, they are being personified and those who control them are being provided with an additional “voice” via, which to speak not available to members of the public at large and IN THIS MANNER THE CONSTITUTION WAS OVERTURNED AND THIS IS BLATANTLY UNFAIR.
3 comments:
Since (by an action of the highest Court in the land) a certain con artist received the “right” to “speak” through a Corporation, which was a former employer of mine and he is turn using my identity as if his own, (in effect transferring my identity, accomplishments, and qualifications to himself - see the series of posts on AN EXAMPLE OF HIRING FOR THE PURPOSE OF IDENTITY TFRANSFER - UPDATED W/INSERTS - link on COMMENTS 2 Page); the independent contractor decision is being withdrawn thereby removing any outstanding action that can be claimed as his own (at my expense). The need for such will be revisited in the future on relocation.
PLEASE NOTE: MY FORMER EMPLOYER DOES NOT IN ANYWAY "SPEAK" ON BEHALF OF EITHER ME OR MY PRPRIETORSHIP & AS A RESULT SHOULD NOT IN ANYWAY BE INVOLVED IN ANY MATTERS CONCERNING CONSERVERY IN ANY MANNER., SHAPE OR FORM AS IT WAS DEVELOPED BY ME AS A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL NOT RELYING ON THIS ENTITY OR ANY OTHER FOR A "VOICE". THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPRIETORSHIP'S AUTHORIZATION (LINK ON COMMENTS PAGE).
Post a Comment