You are conflating a corporation's state law charter with the question of whether it has federal constitutional rights.

That Arizona law, or any state law for that matter, would not give a corporation federal due process rights or protect it from abrogation of its contracts by the federal government.

So you would vastly increase the cost of bureaucracy and you likely would still get lesser qualified candidates even with the higher salary because workers desire lateral mobility.
What do you do for a living?

You are conflating a corporation's state law charter with the question of whether it has federal constitutional rights. That Arizona law, or any state law for that matter, would not give a corporation federal due process rights or protect it from abrogation of its contracts by the federal government.

Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them.

Firstly, a newspaper business doesn't need to incorporate.


Secondly, even if people do choose to incorporate a news business, a news corp doesn't need a right to freedom of the press. A corporate charter has never crawled out of its file cabinet to write a news article. Every article has a human journalist, so only journalists need freedom of the press.

It doesn't take a judicial scholar to sense that the publication of news articles would easily be protected as rights of the articles' authors, even if their employer does not have Constitutional rights. Corporate charters already are written to absorb liability, it would hardly be some crazy new thing for them to absorb the liability of the journalists as well, if ever needed.
The bottom line is that corporations explicitly are legally detached from humans. If you want to exercise the Constitutional rights then run your business under a human. It is ridiculous that people want to be shielded from human obligations and liability by having their businesses treated as non-human but then still want that non-human have a full set of human rights to be recognized.

The effects of your first suggestion would be disastrous and as others have pointed out would eliminate freedom of the press for newspapers. It would also eliminate due process, contract rights, etc. It's simply a pie-in-the-sky idea that would never work.

Your second idea is perhaps worse. Government already has a terrible time attracting and retaining professionals because of lower pay and opportunity. Right now the main incentive to go into public service is the experience. Your proposal devalues the experience completely. Who in the right mind would work for the government under your proposal?

Your last proposal will lower already minuscule interest rates for savers and will make loans more expensive. And ignores the real problem: the Fed's balance sheet.

We've come to a point that except for when you are in your bathroom...you should understand that you are being watched.  

I'm not sure if the interpretation should be that they are idiots or if I should consider them closer to the monks who practice self-immolation. Although now that I think of it, I'm not sure what I should think about those monks either.

Not unless he had killed our outdoor dogs, and "IF" he had NOT, we would know he was coming before he arrived. I have never shot at a plane flying over my property, however, an uninvited drone is burned toast.

And yet you're a government worker, an enforcer.   This is a problem, sana.  Cognitive disconnect.

It still precludes you getting a permit to carry a gun in MOST cases, 'violent' crime or not.

http://www.gunlawsbystate.com/felons-and-firearms/

Are you a convicted felon?   No gun for you.   Sorry, zolace.

I will shoot a drone over my property in a heartbeat "IF" I see it, and it is within range.

Yes, sana, I am amongst the center. I lean left, but I am, overall, a moderate. In fact, Alaska, this issue is one of those that PROVES I'm part of the middle. I don't support bans on civilian ownership of guns. I DO support gun ownership, and even concealed carry. I just support reasonable regulation on both. What regulation of guns do YOU support?

What hostility? I stated a fact. My response was no more hostile than your declaration that you would not accept "because this is 'merica".

But the truth is, that is essentially the answer - as you and others have pointed out hundreds of times, a good percentage of the American people own firearms. Even more support the right to own them. No, I DON'T believe that in America, you'd get away with what you describe here.

MY hostility? That's downright comical, dude. Look at your bizarre hysterical  arguments on this - you paint this idiotic scenario about how the government is going to make you a criminal by passing a law. No, the government does NOT make you a criminal by passing laws. YOU make yourself a criminal by CHOOSING not to abide by those laws. Like I said, even if the government did pass a law banning all handguns, you would not be a criminal unless you chose not to divest yourself of those guns. But in the REAL world, that's not going to happen. Yes, there are some who WANT it. But there are not NEARLY enough people who want it to EVER get it passed. It's not going to happen. But people like you and Cowboy use THAT as a silly excuse to oppose ANY reasonable regulation of guns or the sale and purchase of them. What's funny is that it has about the same chance of being passed as your hypothetical requirement to buy bell bottomed pants.