Should groups of people be granted the same Constitutional rights and protections as individual people?
A corporation is a person. So of course it has the same rights. Instead of voting once, it donates lots of money to a campaign to collect many votes.
my first thoughts were groups of prisoners, groups of homosexuals..puts a different spin on it. these groups are already having their rights messed with, no?
then they would get 2x the rights. once as individuals and once as groups. not fair
Person A: "I have the freedom of speech. I am entirely free to express myself."
Person B: "Oh yeah? Well I have double freedom of speech! I am twice as entirely free to express myself!"
Person A: "No fair! Why is your resistance to expression 2*0 when mine is only 1*0!"
James,your all over the place man. get it together. I thought you had said you were on welfare, my mistake. and if you vote democrat they are very pro-union...why would you vote democrat then
@nyevo Your welcome
@LJ: i know that. I was asking why you quoted it. I assumed you were using it in relation to the question, but i was asking you to elaborate your point
Tony, this is probably the worst question you've ever posted. 'Groups of people' can be taken very different ways. A group of people can be a group of protesters, who of course have a right to free speech. But a group of people could also be a corporation, and a corporation does not have the ...
I agree with InnovateEQ, this is a loaded question that lacks substance. for instance, my answer would be totally different if we were talking about corporations than it would be if we were talking about not for profit organizations, or etc.
In the absence of specificity, I'm just going to have to say no. Groups already have the same rights as individuals.
another vague, unclear question. surprise, surprise...
... Same rights as a group of people. For example, a corporation can't be sent to jail. Only individuals can. A corporation doesn't have the right to spend unlimited amounts of money on a campaign (but then again, neither do individuals).
why does Jesus make Jamesjelly so uncomfortable?
@fgw0369: Perhaps jamesjelly is uncomfortable because he isn't sure if Jesus is trying to save his soul or mow his lawn.
The smallest minority is the individual.
no really. if you are against unions then why would you vote for the party that supports Unions and gives them everything?
I like unions more than Jesus.
which is what the rightnside is all about.
sorry you feel that way.
Rights and protections, yes. The same rights and protections as individuals? Hell no.
I really don't care about the unions. it's just what came ti mind with this question.
I would rather have an economic failure than a religious nut for a president.
i would still be voting repub if not for the nutso religious zealots running. that's why I kinda like newt. hes a godless scumbag.
btw. I'm not sorry.
It is unconstitutional for government to grant rights and privileges to certain individuals. The biggest issue that comes to mind is tax incentives for heterosexual marriage. And the solution is to remove heterosexual marriage benefits, and not extend them to gays.
just the right side always seems the opposite of what a Christian should be. forgiving, open minded, helpful, tolerant.
the bible has a lot to say about the rich and accumulating wealth....and not in a good way. but that seems to be conveniently ignored.
selective preaching. like you said, very convenient...
This is an interesting question. I wonder how many people will say a group should have rights, but think a corporation shouldn't.
the love of money is the root of all evil. seems to be what most politicians care about these days. Glad to know you were once a republican.
Their humans, so yes.
@fgw Because he's a Communist. He admitted it.
No. That's not the way it was set up.
you have the right to free speach. but not the right to be heard
we agree cowboy!!! which president signed the corporations are people too bill?
that's not what it was called. my memory is failing me at the moment.
This question doesnt make any sense without context.
This is the fundamental basis behind corporations are people.
The term "group" is too vauge.
it called the "citizens united" ruling.
it's a nightmare.
If corporations are people can we elect one "Exxon for president 2012"
There should be no groups. When you put people in groups it's easier to generalize them and make stereotypes.
This question depends on how "groups of people" is defined. Corporations? Governments? Organizations? ???
all of the above came.
Groups of people ARE individual people, just together in a group...
it allows for more money, which equals more corruption.
It's pretty clear that Constitutional rights are something that come from our humanity, not any government. In America the founders decided that the new government would recognize them. So no, groups wouldn't get them. It's a nonsensical question. I'm glad to see so many similar posts here!