Messianic Jews say they are persecute...

Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

There are 72037 comments on the Newsday story from Jun 21, 2008, titled Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel. In it, Newsday reports that:

Safety pins and screws are still lodged in 15-year-old Ami Ortiz's body three months after he opened a booby-trapped gift basket sent to his family.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

JOEL THUMBS UP

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#64640 Dec 26, 2013
I am going out. Bye. Later.

Since: Dec 13

Arlington Heights, IL

#64641 Dec 26, 2013
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
OF, I need to talk to intelligence and integrity now.
Bi.
Don't look in the mirror then.
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#64642 Dec 26, 2013
JOEL THUMBS UP wrote:
I am going out. Bye. Later.
Later
Abolish The Fed

Baltimore, MD

#64643 Dec 26, 2013
ericfromchi wrote:
<quoted text>Yes it is. Supreme Court said so in Citizens United v. FEC.
So let's stop playing semantics and give us an example of a privilege accorded only to corporations.
You are a real fucking idiot.
The ruling is summarized as people acting through corporations, has nothing to do with corporations being citzens.
If you look at the definition of a citzen that will shed some light on the discussion.

In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168, 180 (1868), the Court pointed out that “it was the object of the clause in question to place the citizens of each State upon the same footing with citizens of other States, so far as the advantages resulting from citizenship in those States are concerned” The Court went on to say that “Special privileges enjoyed by citizens in their own States are not secured in other States by this provision.” Paul at 181. The Court found that a “corporation” was not a “citizen” within the meaning of the PIC4, but rather a grant of special privileges by the home state. So it was established early on that while the protection afforded by the Commerce Clause was wide-reaching insofar as it applies to corporations and other entities as well as individuals, the PIC4 protection would extend only to individual persons.
nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/C...

Since: Dec 13

Arlington Heights, IL

#64644 Dec 26, 2013
Abolish The Fed wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a real fucking idiot.
The ruling is summarized as people acting through corporations, has nothing to do with corporations being citzens.
If you look at the definition of a citzen that will shed some light on the discussion.
In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168, 180 (1868), the Court pointed out that “it was the object of the clause in question to place the citizens of each State upon the same footing with citizens of other States, so far as the advantages resulting from citizenship in those States are concerned” The Court went on to say that “Special privileges enjoyed by citizens in their own States are not secured in other States by this provision.” Paul at 181. The Court found that a “corporation” was not a “citizen” within the meaning of the PIC4, but rather a grant of special privileges by the home state. So it was established early on that while the protection afforded by the Commerce Clause was wide-reaching insofar as it applies to corporations and other entities as well as individuals, the PIC4 protection would extend only to individual persons.
nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/C...
You know, the Supreme Court has the power to change it's mind. Further, it appears that the current court believes that as far as the First Amendment is concerned - and we are talking about the First Amendment and not the Commerce Clause - that corporations are protected by the First Amendment.

Now let's stop running from the question. What privilege do Corporations have that everyone else doesn't? That's your basis for turning private action into government action. So, let's have it. Name a privilege that Corporations enjoy that everyone else doesn't.
Abolish The Fed

Baltimore, MD

#64645 Dec 26, 2013
A corporation is not afforded any right or privilege against self-incrimination by the Fifth Amendment. Hale V. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 75 (1906). The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is a personal right, reserved only to a “natural person”, who must directly assert the privilege.**Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 89 (1974).

If a corporation was a citizen it would be afforded 5th amendment protection.

Since: Nov 13

Denver, CO

#64646 Dec 26, 2013
Abolish The Fed wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference is public relations.
rabbee: just like i said," not a lot". just a matter of who has the better, fantasy version of themselves.

Since: Dec 13

Arlington Heights, IL

#64647 Dec 26, 2013
And, ATF, the Supreme Court directly overruled the finding in Paul v. VA in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association 322 U.S. 533 (1944).

Since: Dec 13

Arlington Heights, IL

#64648 Dec 26, 2013
Abolish The Fed wrote:
A corporation is not afforded any right or privilege against self-incrimination by the Fifth Amendment. Hale V. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 75 (1906). The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is a personal right, reserved only to a “natural person”, who must directly assert the privilege.**Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 89 (1974).
If a corporation was a citizen it would be afforded 5th amendment protection.
Now let's stop running from the question. What privilege do Corporations have that everyone else doesn't? That's your basis for turning private action into government action. So, let's have it. Name a privilege that Corporations enjoy that everyone else doesn't.
Abolish The Fed

Baltimore, MD

#64649 Dec 26, 2013
ericfromchi wrote:
<quoted text>You know, the Supreme Court has the power to change it's mind. Further, it appears that the current court believes that as far as the First Amendment is concerned - and we are talking about the First Amendment and not the Commerce Clause - that corporations are protected by the First Amendment.
Now let's stop running from the question. What privilege do Corporations have that everyone else doesn't? That's your basis for turning private action into government action. So, let's have it. Name a privilege that Corporations enjoy that everyone else doesn't.
What a stupid question, a corporation has a privilege to operate as an entity within the host state by statute.
And that privilege can be revoked.
Its existence is a privilege.
A citizen can not operate as a proprietorship without having his personal assets amenable to suit.
Abolish The Fed

Baltimore, MD

#64650 Dec 26, 2013
ericfromchi wrote:
By the way ATF (wow deja vu), your argument that the government bestowing a power upon someone makes that person's actions governmental has been shot down again and again by the courts. One instance I remember from law school is where someone tried to argue that repos had to accord the debtor due process was summarily shot down by the 9th Circuit. Court spelled out the difference between State Action and Private Action.
Adams v. Southern California First National Bank, 492 F.2d 324 (1974).
Read this http://www.uakron.edu/dotAsset/56e69c29-514f-...
The decision just killed the law professors because they had used the District Court decision for our appellate moot court case.
Why would a company have to afford due process to an individual that they were in contract with and that did not hold title/ownership to the property?

Since: Nov 13

Denver, CO

#64652 Dec 26, 2013
Abolish The Fed wrote:
<quoted text>
Corporations wouldn't exist if governments didn't exist.
rabbee: just who are you trying to fool with that illusion - yourself or me? giving them a fancy name, so you can tax them does not mean they did not pre-exist. in fact governments try to thwart corporations, and companies, from becoming more powerful than they. ever hear, of the anti-trust laws?

Since: Dec 13

Arlington Heights, IL

#64653 Dec 26, 2013
Abolish The Fed wrote:
<quoted text>
What a stupid question, a corporation has a privilege to operate as an entity within the host state by statute.
And that privilege can be revoked.
Its existence is a privilege.
A citizen can not operate as a proprietorship without having his personal assets amenable to suit.
And a corporation cannot operate without having its personal assets amenable to suit. Using your own statement previously, it is the shareholders that enjoy the personal asset protection and not the corporation. The corporation is the same as anyone else. Its assets are amenable to suit, to use your phrase. No different than anyone else.

Now tell me how a corporation can have the ability to operate revoked except by failure to renew its charter/articles. And not renewing is an act of its owners not the government.

Since: Dec 13

Arlington Heights, IL

#64654 Dec 26, 2013
Abolish The Fed wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would a company have to afford due process to an individual that they were in contract with and that did not hold title/ownership to the property?
See, you are starting to understand the difference between government action and private action. Very good! Companies have the luxury that you speak of. Governments do not. They are required to give due process no matter what.
Abolish The Fed

Baltimore, MD

#64655 Dec 26, 2013
ericfromchi wrote:
And, ATF, the Supreme Court directly overruled the finding in Paul v. VA in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association 322 U.S. 533 (1944).
That ruling only had to do with insurance contracts being treated under the interstate commerce clause.

Since: Dec 13

Arlington Heights, IL

#64656 Dec 26, 2013
And with that, I am satisfied that you have spelled out why A&E isn't required to give its employees first amendment rights. It's just as you say. The company doesn't have to afford constitutional protections to one in contract with the company and has not right to their job outside of the contract.
\
And remember, A&E is not a corporation.

Since: Nov 13

Denver, CO

#64657 Dec 26, 2013
Abolish The Fed wrote:
A corporation is not afforded any right or privilege against self-incrimination by the Fifth Amendment. Hale V. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 75 (1906). The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is a personal right, reserved only to a “natural person”, who must directly assert the privilege.**Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 89 (1974).
If a corporation was a citizen it would be afforded 5th amendment protection.
rabbee: if only their employees, would apply for citizenship. they would not have this, unnatural personal problem. so the nazi regime, will think of them as people too. at least fascists, don't discriminate.
Abolish The Fed

Baltimore, MD

#64658 Dec 26, 2013
ericfromchi wrote:
<quoted text>See, you are starting to understand the difference between government action and private action. Very good! Companies have the luxury that you speak of. Governments do not. They are required to give due process no matter what.
Not always, back in the day companies would have to do an action in replevin to retrieve goods that weren't paid for.

Since: Nov 13

Denver, CO

#64659 Dec 26, 2013
corporations, companies, business, are not made up governments they are made up of people naturally. if anyone is being unnatural here, it tends to be governments. governments tend to control, regulate corporations, llc, incorporations, companies, business, they do not make them. and there are problems, when the government or military becomes a powerful self regulating corporation or business in itself. this has always been one of the greatest dangers to any democracy. the danger expressed by obama, the executive branch is already so powerful, they no longer need any of us.
Abolish The Fed

Baltimore, MD

#64660 Dec 26, 2013
ericfromchi wrote:
And with that, I am satisfied that you have spelled out why A&E isn't required to give its employees first amendment rights. It's just as you say. The company doesn't have to afford constitutional protections to one in contract with the company and has not right to their job outside of the contract.
\
And remember, A&E is not a corporation.
Have you seen the contract? How do you know? You are going to play lawyer games with me and tell me that a&e is a trade name, blah been there done that.

In any case we are back to square one. It makes no common sense that a&e is forced to not have a "we hire whites only" policy yet they are allowed to control its employees speech.
A private whites only club can discriminate amongst its prospective members.
Remember the boyscout arguments?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Fort Bayard Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Their view: No clear gain in dispute over Falkl... (Mar '10) Sep 22 Tony 627
News Santa Clara mayor Imelda Lopez resigns (Jul '09) Sep 17 Youwishusetobethere 4
News Reward offered in rash of burglaries (Sep '09) Sep 13 Sick of Stupidity 40
News Southwest Print Fiesta will be held on Labor Da... Aug '16 just asking 1
News Luna County enters Joint Powers Agreement for C... (Jun '15) Aug '16 save the water 5
Review: RGM Realty (Mar '15) Jul '16 lol 4
News DA Walks Away from what should have been a DUI ... Jul '16 Vera lane 1

Fort Bayard Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Fort Bayard Mortgages