I LOVE Ben & Jerry's honesty and commitment to the people of this country. I just wish they'd lose the carageenan and fillers in the ice cream. As good as their ice cream is... nothing can substitute for real ingredients. Just like nothing can substitute for a living, breathing human being. Ben & Jerry's Inc. is not a person. Their ice cream has artificial ingreds. So I'll buy it maybe once in awhile. But I LOVE the real ingreds in Haagen Dazs & Dove.
So Ben & Jerry's is subject to unreasonable search and seizures by the government, is entitled to no due process of law, and can be arbitrarily banned from advertising ice cream because it's unprotected by the Fourth, Fourteenth and First Amendments?
Corporate person hood was established so contracts could be written in the first person and CEO's would be protected from their own heinous decisions to pollute, steal, misinform, or produce dangerous products hiding behind the "corporate veil" Individuals need to be held accountable for their decisions and actions. If there was more skin in the game they wouldn't be so eager to screw over entire segments of society for a quick buck- no amount of rationalizing makes that right.
The Supreme Court read the Constitution. It says that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". No mention of people. The ruling does not even address "all the rights people have" let alone afford them to corporations. I already avoid their Ice Cream due to their spreading the AGW propaganda. Shame I can't boycott them again.
@randomxnp yes - no mention of people - CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE - how do tea baggers manage to have people think otherwise? Is it some kind of subliminar brain washing propaganda a la glenn beck?
@marte116 Errrmmmmm ... there is no mention of "people" in that clause of the First Amendment. It restricts the power of Congress (and taken with the rest of the Constitution, state legislatures).
No-one said corporations are people You just made that up. Crying about tea-baggers is simply an admission that you have no argument against what the Tea Party says, so implying that they are broadly correct. Paranoia, by the way, is not a relevant argument.
@randomxnp so your point - they did not start every single paragraph on the constitution with 'We The People...' so I am sure the only thing you can assume is that they were writing about corporations.
I did not make anything up - yes it does sound like, but if you doubt me browse down to what some of your party-pals wrote in here
Also I notice you use capitals to refer to your party - do they make you stand and sing some crazy anthem every time you type tea-partie as well? tea-baggers :-(
@randomxnp your argument: since writers did not state "people", one can only infer that "congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" must be referring to corporations -
@marte116 It refers neither to people nor corporations; it refers to Congress.
You are completely misunderstanding the very concept of a constitution in a common-law legal environment. It does not give people rights, or of course corporations. It restricts the government's ability to curtail the rights that the common law recognises.
@Paulsur, you couldn't be more incorrect in your formulation: the supreme court does not "rule in favor of the 1st amendment"; it bases its decisions on its interpretations of the first amendment. So, in contrast to what you say, the court does rule in favor of the plaintiff or defendant. So instead of telling others to "get informed", you should maybe figure out how to start thinking. With knowledgeable "citizens" like Paulsur twisting formulations, this country is becoming warped...
Q; are corporations people? A: yes, they are. Corporations are groups of shareholders who all have a common stake and common interest. Why do you need to use vulger sexual reference to refer to people who idelogically differ from you? Does it make you superior? Unions accept foriegn contributions, in fact SEIU is an international organization. it gives millions to politcal causes that support it's goals. But for you that is okay becuase they support your ideology?
@Paulsur, please read the Wikipedia article on the Citizens united decision. The 2002 McCain-Feingold law had limited both Corporations and Unions from unduely influencing elections. Both McCain and Feingold are AGAINST the Citizens United decision - McCain saying that it unleashes incredible amounts of spending by both corporations and unions, a battle of the dollars.
Ben and Jerry the people who are ill informed on the supreme court decision. The supreme court ruled in favor of the 1st amendment, and not corporations. The U.S. connstitution also protects corporations from illegal searches, seizure of property, and many other freedoms that apply to all . Oh and by the way, even unions too. Please get informed guys. It is embarrasing to watch poorly informed people who created a good company.
@Paulsur that's ridiculous - corporations are not people, period. why are you talking about unions? why does it has anything to do with this - stop watching glenn beck
@marte116 So I suppose you think that Gov'ts should be able to seize the property of Corps without warrant, wiretap them without warrant, conduct seizures and searches on corporate property without warrant? Detain Corporate officials without charge?If you do not agree with that, then explain to me how some contitution protections can apply to Corps while this one does not, and who has decided this singular consitutional protection doesnt apply (even though the Supreme Court ruled it did.)
@Paulsur of course not, where did I say any of that? what I said is: corporations are NOT people
an example of your argument is that, since cars are not people, then the government can seize them as they please - that makes no sense
shareholders are entitled to basic constitutional rights, like the right to due process, the right to own property - therefore no one can come around and seize their property (assets of their businesses for example) or arrest them without due cause.
@marte116 So, back to the original point. The shareholders of Citizens United had the right to make a movie, show it whenever they wated, raise money and purchase political advertisements to promote their point of view? After all they are individuals, jut like members of Unions are individuals, but the Unions, collectively, have the right to spend unimilted amounts of money on any kind of piltical advertisement they want, adn they do. :)
@Paulsur yes, their members/shareholders have the right to free speech - again, that's not what is at stake here - Q; are corporations people? A: no of course not
when comes down to political contributions, no, corporations should not be allowed to contribute money to political campaigns - the way those tea baggers have it today, foreign corporations - or even foreign states - can donate money to candidates aligned with their interests - come on, where is the common sense?
Great plan Ben & Jerry (the people!)! It's good to know that there are people of corporations that care about fair election campaigns as much as regular people do! Keep it up! :3
Nice to hire this from a business leaders.
MrJacobTiffinNetwork 3 days ago
We are citizens of a REPUBLIC not a democracy. A Republic gives individuals a voice!
Zapppo 3 weeks ago
make the price lower you would actually earn more coz more people would buy it
96Leslye 4 months ago
I LOVE Ben & Jerry's honesty and commitment to the people of this country. I just wish they'd lose the carageenan and fillers in the ice cream. As good as their ice cream is... nothing can substitute for real ingredients. Just like nothing can substitute for a living, breathing human being. Ben & Jerry's Inc. is not a person. Their ice cream has artificial ingreds. So I'll buy it maybe once in awhile. But I LOVE the real ingreds in Haagen Dazs & Dove.
semisweeet 4 months ago
@semisweeet and Breyer's
Zapppo 3 weeks ago
So Ben & Jerry's is subject to unreasonable search and seizures by the government, is entitled to no due process of law, and can be arbitrarily banned from advertising ice cream because it's unprotected by the Fourth, Fourteenth and First Amendments?
Oh well, I preferred Haagen Dazs anyway.
sklanger 5 months ago
Hey Guys!!! Join us in DC on OCT 29th! Check it out Enough is Enough march for a government by for of the People!!!!
creative1overhere 5 months ago
Would someone tell Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin and Rand Paul, all three of whom are too stupid to figure out this elemental truth? thanks!
samiemma 6 months ago 2
Thanks Ben & Jerry! You guys are excellent role models for businesses and corporations in our country. Love your work (and ice cream flavors!)...:-)
ekena 7 months ago
Love this!
jesterline 7 months ago
you guys are great!
ultraverydeepfield 7 months ago
Corporate person hood was established so contracts could be written in the first person and CEO's would be protected from their own heinous decisions to pollute, steal, misinform, or produce dangerous products hiding behind the "corporate veil" Individuals need to be held accountable for their decisions and actions. If there was more skin in the game they wouldn't be so eager to screw over entire segments of society for a quick buck- no amount of rationalizing makes that right.
JourneyHome 10 months ago 2
Are this pair idiots, or liars?
The Supreme Court read the Constitution. It says that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". No mention of people. The ruling does not even address "all the rights people have" let alone afford them to corporations. I already avoid their Ice Cream due to their spreading the AGW propaganda. Shame I can't boycott them again.
randomxnp 11 months ago
@randomxnp yes - no mention of people - CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE - how do tea baggers manage to have people think otherwise? Is it some kind of subliminar brain washing propaganda a la glenn beck?
marte116 11 months ago
@marte116 Errrmmmmm ... there is no mention of "people" in that clause of the First Amendment. It restricts the power of Congress (and taken with the rest of the Constitution, state legislatures).
No-one said corporations are people You just made that up. Crying about tea-baggers is simply an admission that you have no argument against what the Tea Party says, so implying that they are broadly correct. Paranoia, by the way, is not a relevant argument.
randomxnp 11 months ago
@randomxnp so your point - they did not start every single paragraph on the constitution with 'We The People...' so I am sure the only thing you can assume is that they were writing about corporations.
I did not make anything up - yes it does sound like, but if you doubt me browse down to what some of your party-pals wrote in here
Also I notice you use capitals to refer to your party - do they make you stand and sing some crazy anthem every time you type tea-partie as well? tea-baggers :-(
marte116 11 months ago
@randomxnp your argument: since writers did not state "people", one can only infer that "congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" must be referring to corporations -
are you on drugs?
marte116 7 months ago
@marte116 It refers neither to people nor corporations; it refers to Congress.
You are completely misunderstanding the very concept of a constitution in a common-law legal environment. It does not give people rights, or of course corporations. It restricts the government's ability to curtail the rights that the common law recognises.
randomxnp 7 months ago
@Paulsur, you couldn't be more incorrect in your formulation: the supreme court does not "rule in favor of the 1st amendment"; it bases its decisions on its interpretations of the first amendment. So, in contrast to what you say, the court does rule in favor of the plaintiff or defendant. So instead of telling others to "get informed", you should maybe figure out how to start thinking. With knowledgeable "citizens" like Paulsur twisting formulations, this country is becoming warped...
ThamesOrIsis 11 months ago
Q; are corporations people? A: yes, they are. Corporations are groups of shareholders who all have a common stake and common interest. Why do you need to use vulger sexual reference to refer to people who idelogically differ from you? Does it make you superior? Unions accept foriegn contributions, in fact SEIU is an international organization. it gives millions to politcal causes that support it's goals. But for you that is okay becuase they support your ideology?
Paulsur 11 months ago
@Paulsur, please read the Wikipedia article on the Citizens united decision. The 2002 McCain-Feingold law had limited both Corporations and Unions from unduely influencing elections. Both McCain and Feingold are AGAINST the Citizens United decision - McCain saying that it unleashes incredible amounts of spending by both corporations and unions, a battle of the dollars.
white89euro 11 months ago
I am buying ben & jerry r- we need more corps like that
marte116 11 months ago
@marte116 what, run by liars or idiots? Great.
randomxnp 11 months ago
Ben and Jerry the people who are ill informed on the supreme court decision. The supreme court ruled in favor of the 1st amendment, and not corporations. The U.S. connstitution also protects corporations from illegal searches, seizure of property, and many other freedoms that apply to all . Oh and by the way, even unions too. Please get informed guys. It is embarrasing to watch poorly informed people who created a good company.
Paulsur 11 months ago
@Paulsur that's ridiculous - corporations are not people, period. why are you talking about unions? why does it has anything to do with this - stop watching glenn beck
marte116 11 months ago
@marte116 So I suppose you think that Gov'ts should be able to seize the property of Corps without warrant, wiretap them without warrant, conduct seizures and searches on corporate property without warrant? Detain Corporate officials without charge?If you do not agree with that, then explain to me how some contitution protections can apply to Corps while this one does not, and who has decided this singular consitutional protection doesnt apply (even though the Supreme Court ruled it did.)
Paulsur 11 months ago
@Paulsur of course not, where did I say any of that? what I said is: corporations are NOT people
an example of your argument is that, since cars are not people, then the government can seize them as they please - that makes no sense
shareholders are entitled to basic constitutional rights, like the right to due process, the right to own property - therefore no one can come around and seize their property (assets of their businesses for example) or arrest them without due cause.
marte116 11 months ago
@marte116 So, back to the original point. The shareholders of Citizens United had the right to make a movie, show it whenever they wated, raise money and purchase political advertisements to promote their point of view? After all they are individuals, jut like members of Unions are individuals, but the Unions, collectively, have the right to spend unimilted amounts of money on any kind of piltical advertisement they want, adn they do. :)
Paulsur 11 months ago
@Paulsur yes, their members/shareholders have the right to free speech - again, that's not what is at stake here - Q; are corporations people? A: no of course not
when comes down to political contributions, no, corporations should not be allowed to contribute money to political campaigns - the way those tea baggers have it today, foreign corporations - or even foreign states - can donate money to candidates aligned with their interests - come on, where is the common sense?
marte116 11 months ago
Great plan Ben & Jerry (the people!)! It's good to know that there are people of corporations that care about fair election campaigns as much as regular people do! Keep it up! :3
bub777 11 months ago
I am going right out and buy some Ben & Jerry's.
TheClodene 11 months ago
thanks B & J !!
megyen79 1 year ago
Mahalo Ben & Jerry
Waimanalo Hawaii Loves YOU!!!!
beachhousehawaii 1 year ago
You are good people =)
Prometheukles 1 year ago
Thanks Ben and Jerry! You guys ROCK! And your frozen taste treats are pretty darn good too!
JanusGD 1 year ago