I've no problem with corporations being granted rights. Rule sets are necessary for the proper operation of these constructs. But I think the Court overreaches when it elevates these entities to the same level of humans under the Constitution. Its only a slippery slope if you agree that corporations are "persons" with rights equal to human beings under the constitution, but the questions you pose highlight my issue with this idea, and I want to know where does it end. If their "speech" is equal to mine, the vote is political "speech". If they are persons, why not just give them the franchise? All of the rights you are quoting are rights of individual, flesh and blood human beings under our constitution, which flow from the fact that we are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights. How do we get to conferring these rights onto an artificial, legal construct? Consider the progression of power that corporations have assumed quietly over time and then think about the ways in which they are entirely different from humans:

1. A corporation does not understand what is right or wrong.
2. The vast majority of corporations are for purposes of commerce and have only one motive: to make it's stockholders/owners money.
3. A corporation can not be imprisoned and understands no sense of punishment.
4. A corporation has no lifespan.

I have a problem with a ruling that elevates the "speech' of such an entity under the constitution to a level equal to that of a human being. The ruling itself references the fact that corporations are derivative constructs, created products of human activity, and cites this fact as a rationale for why their speech should not be restricted, but this is precisely the reason why their "speech" should not be accorded the same merit as that of an individual under the constitution.

No, I think you're wrong there. While shareholders are the People, they are NOT synonymous with the corporation. They don't own the corporation. They own shares, or stock, and they do not have an identical identity of interest with the corporate "person". Indeed, corporations can (and do) operate against the interests of their shareholders. Corporations can (and do) engage in speech that may be beneficial to the share price, while manifestly at odds with the interest of the flesh and blood human who owns the shares. All corporations are not public either. Many companies are privately held. But the concept of "personhood" applied to corporations even breaks down as a good idea when you look at private companies. Note the special characteristics of corporations. They are not timebound like flesh and blood persons. They can have a lifetime and lifespan far longer than any human, while enjoying what you correctly point out as limited liability for their actions.

The "speech" emanating from corporations is not the "speech" of its shareholders, who lets remember, can actually vote. Why should their artificial construct be given a voice in civic affairs equal to human beings, Who are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights. Under the logic of this ruling, there is no reason not to extend the franchise to corporations also. This elevation of their speech rights gives these golems as you call them an outsized voice in the body politic, because their longevity, their money and their access to our political leaders advantages them over flesh and blood humans in the fight for the politician's attention.

Your position is precisely why the GOP is in the sorry state its in today with no hope of pulling higher levels of support from blacks or latinos. Charter schools is a winning idea because it works. I love how people who think as you do have these lovely, ready made excuses for the stereotypes of blacks which you indulge in. If you stereotype blacks as lazy and predisposed to live off of government dole or makework, then you don't have to stand on your so called conservative principles (so-called, because you talk them, you don't walk them). Your post is a perfect example of the disinterest and disregard I'm talking about.

Your parting comment about the so-called failure of black culture in America is to my mind more indicative of your own failure to reason beyond your prejudice than it is any real commentary on success or lack of success by black America. If you call yourself a conservative that believes in the value of the individual and in the promotion of liberty and freedom, you should stop. Your bias is evident in your comments and gives the lie to any conservative values you claim.

Yeah, that hispanic outreach worked out really well too. Republicans are not and will not achieve traction with hispanics for the same reason they are not getting there with black voters; they have not decided they really want them in the party or give a damn about their issues. During the campaign, the GOP clearly thought McCain's moderate position on immigration would get them the hispanic vote, but hispanics are not stupid. It was clear that McCain's position on immigration was not shared by the GOP at large. His party was not with him and while they talked out of one side of their mouth saying come on in, they were busy demonizing hispanics out the other side of their mouths. Hispanics heard that loud and clear and voted for Obama in droves. The GOP is still making this essential mistake of faking the funk when it comes to enlarging the party beyond its base demographic.

Your sense may not be that far off the mark. GOP efforts to promote charters probably do gain more energy from ideas about breaking unions than they do from actually delivering educational benefits to society and kids. And yes, there is little reason for trust. As I said, the central issue is the fact that republicans do not view blacks as a political constituency necessary or essential to their aspirations for governance. Until as a party they make a different decision on that front, they won't make traction with charter schools or any of the other issues where they ought to get traction with the black community, but don't.

Thats Laramore family and thank you very much. All the best to your family this season.:D

Are you actually unthinking enough that you can write off as coincidence the same thing happening to so many people in the same same way?

Well, my argument and thinking on the issue is largely driven by what I consider to be the moral issues raised, in the context of the Christian faith. I would not argue as you do for the view that marriage itself is not inherently moral. Marriage was created at the founding of the world when God joined Adam and Eve and that joining is the correct model to be emulated (so says the believer and Jesus freak in me :) ). I would agree with you that participating in marriage can sometimes make people more moral or more conscious of moral issues, but that would not be a persuasive rationale for sanctioning unions which as a matter of faith, are outside of God's expectations.

But the issue of whether or not marriage has been equally good for men, women and children down through the ages only strikes me as another variation on the argument that Sen. Savino makes and which I reject, namely that humanity's flawed implementation of marriage means we should be less concerned about the moral question as it relates to same sex marriage. I would even argue that our flawed practice of marriage within the confines of heterosexual relationships should give us even greater pause about sanctioning same sex marriage as a social, cultural matter, not less.

Now, of course, all of this is moot as a general matter if you reject what I would consider to be the very clear and direct position of the Bible on this issue. If you don't subscribe to the conclusion which the Bible does about whether or not same sex relationships and behavior are acceptable or not as an issue of moral behavior, then arguments against same sex marriage will as you say, be entirely unpersuasive to your point of view.

Were the issue of morality not engaged, I might be persuaded by arguments for same sex marriage as it relates to equality and fairness. I'm not unmoved by these arguments, though I am not convinced.

I think the argument being made is not that heterosexual couples will not be hurt, but rather the institution of marriage will not be hurt by extending marriage to gay couples. That being the case, I don't think you get to make that argument on the one hand in favor of gay marriage but then reject the same logic in reverse.

I think the institution of marriage is diminished when people cheat. I think it is diminished when people enter into it or break its covenants in a frivolous manner. I think the institution of marriage would be diminished by sanctioning those relationships in spite of the moral issue. If you subscribe to the moral teachings of Christianity, there is simply no getting around the fact that homosexuality is considered immoral. While I struggle somewhat to reconcile the values of fairness and equality on this issue, I am not compelled by the argument that since heterosexuals screw up marriage so spectacularly with immoral behavior (Tiger Woods, er I mean Cheetah Woods, case in point) that the immorality of same sex relationships should simply be ignored and those relationships sanctioned. The equality/fairness arguments go further with me than this idea that hetero morals are so bad, we shouldn't worry about adding new moral quandaries to the mix as it relates to marriage.

Its interesting that you harken back to my college days to remind me of that particular moment in time. I think with twenty years to look back on it, my understanding of what I was supporting wasn't all that deep. I think its true that this isn't a cut and dried deal or without its complexities. Back then, I was supporting the right of people not to be victims of violence or arbitrarily discriminated against in the workplace and I still support that. I'm not entirely unmoved by the argument of gay marriage supporters about equality. But that comes square up against the moral imperatives and the implications of ignoring them. I'm not without conflict or doubt about the issue. But am confident in the source of my guidance about it.