Should groups of people be granted the same Constitutional rights and protections as individual people?
"Corporations are people my friend"
I agree with 'waterdude'.
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.
Why are the Republicans seemingly more anti-corporate rights than Democrats in this poll?
that question makes no sense? Maybe you meant group as in a corporation? Should really be more specific...
wow I just made NJ a tie.
What is going on with the questions lately? A group is made up of individuals, which by the terms of the question are already protected. Therefore, the question makes no sense.
nope your wrong
Also interesting: Rep vs Dem numbers. Corporations vs unions? Both are groups getting collective rights.
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!
The question's way too vague. I voted no because I don't think joining a book club means that the club should cast a presidential vote or own guns.
Example like I wouldn't want the Muslim brotherhood to have 1 billion rights
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.
The smallest minority is the individual.
@nyevo Your welcome
Score one for Justin
I voted yes but that said truth is after the signing of NDAA, we no longer have rights as americans.. And esp. A group because any anti-government or anti-regulation organization was considered suspected terrorism since the signing of the patriot act.. Wake up people!
LJ: thanks for elaboratating.
but it is not the groups rights it is the people in the group. ie born with inalienable rights from there Creator. I don't beleave a group can be born
My point is the only groups that are mentioned in the constitution are in the first amendment. So in that sense yes groups should be given the same rights. But other groups are based off of their states constitution on whether they get equal representation at the state level.
This is kind of a vague, loaded question. What rights? What groups?
Doesn't freedom of assembly already answer the question?
Terribad poll. You can't get insightful results with this format...
A "group of people" can have constitutional rights when they can also receive probation. It'd be fun to hear about 2,500 people being drug tested at once.
It depends. A company is not a person. A nonprofit group maybe. It depends on what it is. If its something like a church group or something of course.
The term "group" is too vauge.
@fgw0369: Perhaps jamesjelly is uncomfortable because he isn't sure if Jesus is trying to save his soul or mow his lawn.
I think this question was a back sided way to get people to say yes when they said no to corporations for the same question
The question is too vague to mean anything. Are corporations or church congregations or a racial group what is meant?
As long as they are all citizens then it doesn't matter. Groups as well as individuals all have the same constitutional protection.
Angry mobs could do a lot more damage than just one angry person
They should have different rights. The right to be protected against being dissolved until they violate laws.
If an individual wants to use their personal funds to support their choice of politics, great. If an individual wants to use the kind of funds at a corporation's disposal for the same, not so much.
I am protected + you are protected = we are protected. How is a group or corporation or Union not protected?
they don't lose their rights.
why do people assume that to protect the individual the law must protect an organized group as if it were an individual? In my opinion that leap of logic is ridiculous. A group is not the same as a person, but the individuals within that group are still each protected. (cont)
@fgw Because he's a Communist. He admitted it.
why does Jesus make Jamesjelly so uncomfortable?
@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
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?
Ugh what? What a vague question... Is Exxon is trying to marry the GOP or something?
This is all just one of those conspiracies.
@spudman Good answer to a poorly written question.
the ability to control the legislature.
For example, corporations should be free to act in the interest of the majority of their shareholders. But political parties should have no right to hold an oligopoly over the election system. Political donation needs to be left to individual generosity, otherwise corps. would (and do) have
This is poorly worded to the point that I really don't know how I want to vote. Yes, groups should be protected so long as they don't infringe on the individual. But they shouldn't be given special privileges that make them more free than an individual.
@nyevo That quote is the first Amendment in the constitution.
those groups are protected in the constitution. other than that the states choose who has protection under their state constitution