BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 08:13 PM

Just what is this case "against corporate free speech as it pertains to elections"?

And both the ALCU and the NRA have acted as persons in suits they have filed.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 04:50 PM

My favorite part of the movie 'Kenyan Candidate' was the part about Obama being arrested on suspicion of felony trafficking in children but the charges and records disappeared after an Indonesian millionaire Mullah gor involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 04:44 PM

previously posted hypothetical if the corporations win this case:

The year is 2011 and our election is being held with twitchy armed National Guard on duty in 28 States due to the shootings of "Democrat" candidates and the attempted assignations of Barack Obama. Some pundits agree that three full length movies released in September are at the heart of the horrible violence.
The first movie released was 'The Kenyan Candidate' followed by 'The Need to Know'.
The Barak Obama film portrayed a violent rape of a Wesleyan co ed by a young Mr. Obama and "The Need to Know" movie explored the 'above top secret' defusing of nuclear weapons in seven different states under the executive supervision of Richard Cheney.

A smaller feature called 'Only a Mother's Strength' is the inside story of Sarah Palin's experience at top level briefings in national security policy meeting deep within the Pentagon and her actions during her European trip in 2007. It shows her learning the secret struggle against the emerging evil that plans for the destruction of the great Satan, the United States. The most dynamic scene portrayed Sarah Palin striking fear into the heart of then president of Pakistan Mussarev by showing him the spread pattern of 50 US multiple warhead nukes and their overlapping blast zones covering his entire country.   

All the movies were produced, funded and distributed by the following Corporations: Pfizer, Bank of America, Exon, United Health Care, Kaiser Permanente, Squib, Johnson and Johnson, Fox networks, Peabody Energy, Lockheed, Black Water and others.

In November the Cheney Palin ticket wins in a landslide losing only 25 electoral votes.


How could this happen? How could this happen? True, Americans are highly gullible with short memories. This could happen because the Supreme Court can rule that Corporations not only have free speech rights via the press and political action committees, but also have the free speech to pay for, produce and distribute full length films to promote candidates of their choice. Unions however were not granted this special free speech provision. Essentially the McCain Feingold campaign reform had been found unconstitutional and the 100 year precedent of limiting the Corporate financing of political elections was now completely unregulated. The $85 billion profit of Exon alone contributed two billion dollars to their new found freedom of speech.

During confirmation hearling Judge Roberts said that over turning a long standing prededent would require unusual proof and would never be taken lightly.

We will see.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 04:38 PM

There are exactly 50 friends of the court in this case siding against corporate free speech as it pertains to elections.

The ACLU AND the NRA are on the same side in this case.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Stringsinger
Date: 19 Sep 09 - 03:35 PM

Carol, we have had corporate personhood for some time already.

An insightful view of this issue can be found in Thom Hartmann's book "Unequal Protection". C. Bankroft Davis, a court clerk through a default was the one who
actually started the precedence of corporate personhood.

The film, "The Corporation" deals with this issue succinctly. The "corporate person"
is a psychotic entity that should be given very little rights for the safety of the public.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Sep 09 - 03:22 PM

"way too much money..." Unfortunately true.

Over $6 billion was spent in the 2008 federal campaign, some $1 billion from corporate action committees, unions and trade associations and lobbyists." Reuters, Sept. 9. 2009.

The spectacle of candidates having fund-raisers following the primaries and elections in order to pay campaign costs is sad.

Canada allows income tax deductions for individuals, thus allowing people to participate, but there is NO limit to individual, corporate, union or other organizational donation.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Sep 09 - 01:38 PM

If there were limits on how large corporations could use their money in political campaigns, I wouldn't have a problem with putting limits on how other groups use their money in political campaigns. As long as the playing field was level and no one had an unfair advantage. There's way too much money in our political process anyway. It's destroying democracy in this country.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Sep 09 - 01:19 PM

Justice Sotomayor will be in on this one. I look forward to seeing her written opinion, regardless of her stance.

Would you deny joint action to the ALCU, class action suits, societies, unions, etc.?
All of these groups have a right to pursue their perceptions of justice and legal procedure and have them protected.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 11:42 PM

But denying corporations freedom of speech is in no way the same thing as denying individuals free speech. Each person making up a corporation has the same right of free speech as every other individual in this country. Corporations, because of their collective power and resources, have an unfair advantage over individuals, so granting them the right of free speech essentially has the effect of denying individuals the right of free speech, because large and powerful corporations have the ability to determine what messages get heard and which ones don't.

But I agree that with the court we have now, it would take a miracle to get an outcome that is good for democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 11:30 PM

Its not about personhood, it's about free speech. The personhood ship has sailed.
This case may roll forward the rights of corporations to influence any or all elections but it will not consider rolling back any such privileges of personhood to any mega corporation.    The question of personhood and human rights status for corporations has already been established for the purposes of economic profitability unencumbered by personal liability. This case can only expand corporate freedoms. The court is not hearing this case to reduce them.
So in my opinion the question of trying to redefine corporate personhood is moot.

Certainly participating in elections for the purpose of representation in the government is an economic concern for corporations.

Just because we may not trust corporations or have a bad feeling about them is not reason enough to deny them free speech. It would be unconstitutional to deny Carol or Little Hawk freedom of speech simply because we don't like the look in their eye.






Now if I were to argue against corporate freedom of speech particularly in all US elections I would consider these arguments;

Exactly what and who is the corporate voice?
The CEO will be the person deciding how speech/money is spent without the stock holders knowing a thing. If we assume the CEO is speaking with a shared intent of the shareholders all is fine and dandy.    A foreign or domestic CEO does not have to tell the shareholders a word. So the question of who is the true voice of the corporation has a large role to play in this case.


Most importantly…:
If the CEO of a multinational corporation supports a legal candidate with $47 Billion, could we ignore the election laws that prevent foreign nationals or foreign companies from giving money to US candidates.
Now consider a rogue American CEO of a corporation like Wal-Mart doing half of its business in China deciding to voice his or her free speech/money against the will of shareholders and the Untied States. Suppose the candidate funded by the corporate CEO intends to cause serious harm to the United States for the profitability of the corporation, there is nothing we can do to stop her or him from doing so, just as we have seen Enron, Goldman Sachs, Countrywide Mortgage and AIG do.   



The main issue is that of preserving democracy and democratic elections. Does giving unlimited economic power to one specific candidate help preserve democracy? Should we define unlimited economic advantage as free speech?


now Justice Roberts, go decide.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 06:41 PM

Well, given the powers of the King, Q, it really isn't all that much out of date... The idea was to spread power and authority around...
And it was the spreading of power and authority around that eventually brought an end of slavery...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 05:21 PM

"What the founding fathers had in mind" is pretty out of date.
Some were slave holders, most believed that only property holders should vote and hold office, women should be obedient to their husbands, etc.
Most of them just wanted to get shot of Britain, as the expression has it.
They had a lot of fun confiscating 'loyalist' property, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 03:34 PM

Citizens United vs. Federal Election Committee is the case Carol C. refers to, I believe.
Do corporations have a right to speak on political questions?

One argument to be presented is that corporations are individuals under the constitution, and should be able to express their views.

Soliciter General Elena Kagan is expected to argue that U. S. election law has been built on the notion that corporations and unions cannot use their general fund to defeat a candidate because the individual shareolders and union members may not want their money spent that way, and because the large amount of money would skew and corrupt the system.
Mostly quoted from-

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/law/july-dec09/scotus_09-09.html

It will be an interesting case.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 03:15 PM

Funny thing is that it's a right winged group that is bringing the current case because they were forbidden to air a phoney-baloney documentary on Hillary Clinton...

But I agree with Sawz on this one in that I don't want corporations to have the same power to express themselves as individuals just becasue the corporations have the money to do so... I don't wnat the Swifboat Liars doing it and I don't want Move on doing it and I don't want Blackwater, Halliburton of General Electric doing it... This wasn't what the Founding Fathers had in mind here, folk...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 02:22 PM

There is a case coming up in which the Supreme Court will rule whether or not the use of money for political purposes is covered as free speech under the 14th amendment for corporations.

The question of whether or not the 14th amendment applies to corporations could very well be a part of the discussion and the decision the court makes in this case. There is no guarantee that it will, but it certainly could.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 02:19 PM

Regardless of the lower court decisions that have been made on the subject since the ratification of the 14th amendment, it is the Supreme Court that can determine whether or not they will stand.

Just think about all of the legal precedent that had accumulated around the doctrine of "Separate but Equal" (for instance, the Plessy vs Ferguson case) over the span of almost a hundred years, and the Supreme Court wiped it all out in its Brown vs the Board of Education decision.

It has happened before, it can happen again, and anyone who doesn't think so doesn't understand the Constitution of the United States, or the Supreme Court.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 02:16 PM

Checking the Supreme Court Docket, there is no case pending that will change the current interpretation.

Many cases pending are by groups- corporations, state agencies, Parents vs. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, etc. Most will be referred back.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 02:05 PM

Surely decisions subsequently made by the Supreme Court are not part of an amendment, and are not binding in the same way. Can't the court at a later date decide that a decision it previously made was simply wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 01:48 PM

Also see 2004 additions to Fourteenth Amendment, dealing with 'due process', Equal protection, and an act of Congress declared unconstitutional, state laws unconstitutional, etc.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/2004supplement.pdf

Also pdf on 2006 and 2008 additions.
Note- the ALCU is one of the bodies acting as a 'person' in suits and cases invilving the First and other Amendments.

2008 cases involved due process, Federal and state laws ruled unconstitutional, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 01:44 PM

"Well, I don't think I ever said I don't read the opening posts."

I'm sure you didn't..... *wry grin*

(You are hard to agree with...even when we are the same side of an issue.) Let's just agree that the road to Corporate Personhood had some pretty convoluted and sleazy twists & turns. It needs to be re-paved.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 01:21 PM

The posts pretty well cover the point of contention; the Supreme Court, if they take on the case, will make a decision.

The original intent and content of the Fourteenth Amendment has been revised and many sections about life and rights for all citizens have been added.

As noted previously, the document now is quite long, with decisions covering citizens from birth to death, with many footnotes on decisions and Court cases. The original 1868 Amendment is meaningless without the cargo of decisions made by the Court in cases up to the present. The original content quoted by Carol C. is incomplete; clauses dealing with the Confederacy and some other matters are omitted.

The California case and its 'obiter dictum' was only one of several cases involving action by a group or business, as noted in previous posts. Subsequent decisions by the Court has added to the validity of the 'juristic' person, and will not now be reversed, but limits may be defined in subsequent cases.

Read it at the GPO website; there is no practical way to post its content in this thread. It is a 1.1M pdf. (www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/032.pdf- This copy does not include decisions added 2002-2008).

Fourteenth Amendment

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 01:19 PM

Well, I don't think I ever said I don't read the opening posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 12:18 PM

"Alternatively, the above poster could have read the opening post in this thread, and had a look in the link posted in it.

Didn't the author of that post not too long ago make some point about "not having time to read all the posts..? (even posts two lines above)

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 11:15 PM

The court didn't actually rule on the Santa Clara case.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 11:13 PM

Nevertheless, it is the Supreme Court, and not most legal students, who will have the final say on whether or not the 14th amendment will apply to corporations.

The text of the 14th amendment, that I posted above, was written for the purpose of ensuring that freed slaves and their descendants would not be denied the same rights as White people (well, White men, anyway). That was the only purpose of that amendment. That was the whole reason it was written.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Sawzaw
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 10:57 PM

I am totally against any kind of business entity, association or group from having the rights that a individual, ordinary citizen has.

In the late 1800's a railroad in California won some sort of legal case that gave them rights and everything was built on that "case law".

It gripes me when someone says "you need a lawyer to do that" I say what the hell rights does a lawyer have that an ordinary citizen does not have?

One of the biggest problems we have in the US is the legal system is out of control. Whom ever has the most money usually wins.

Ever hear the story about the one lawyer town? The guy was starving until another lawyer set up shop in the same town.

In 1886, . . . in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the legal rights and protections the Constitutions affords to any person. Because the Constitution makes no mention of corporations, it is a fairly clear case of the Court's taking it upon itself to rewrite the Constitution.
          Far more remarkable, however, is that the doctrine of corporate personhood, which subsequently became a cornerstone of corporate law, was introduced into this 1886 decision without argument. According to the official case record, Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite simply pronounced before the beginning of arguement in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company that

             The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.

          The court reporter duly entered into the summary record of the Court's findings that

             The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

          Thus it was that a two-sentence assertion by a single judge elevated corporations to the status of persons under the law, prepared the way for the rise of global corporate rule, and thereby changed the course of history.
          The doctrine of corporate personhood creates an interesting legal contradiction. The corporation is owned by its shareholders and is therefore their property. If it is also a legal person, then it is a person owned by others and thus exists in a condition of slavery -- a status explicitly forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. So is a corporation a person illegally held in servitude by its shareholders? Or is it a person who enjoys the rights of personhood that take precedence over the presumed ownership rights of its shareholders? So far as I have been able to determine, this contradiction has not been directly addressed by the courts.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 10:53 PM

The rights of corporations- and all such groups- are, in the opinion of legal students, covered by the 14th Amendment and have been for over a century. Within that Amendment, limits may be placed on what those bodies may do; if it is ruled that contributions by them should be limited, the same limitations would undoubtedly be placed on unions, societies, action groups, etc.

The original intent when it was ratified has little to do with the current content or intent of the much enlarged and modified Amendment; the vengeful reconstruction provisions may have been intended to protect freed slaves, but they imposed conditions on the South that caused rancor and blocked industrial development, causing hardship to both blacks and whites, factors that slowed integration for many years.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 10:29 PM

Alternatively, the above poster could have read the opening post in this thread, and had a look in the link posted in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 10:20 PM

Ok...with the results of my previous search in hand, I added "Santa Clara" to the search terms, and I find that Wikipedia names names


"However, before oral argument took place, Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite announced:

    "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."[3]

This quotation was printed by the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, a former president of a small railroad, in the syllabus and case history above the opinion, but was not in the opinion itself. As such, it did not technically - in the view of most legal historians - have any legal precedential value.[4] However, the Supreme Court is not required by Constitution or even precedent to limit its rulings to written statements."

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 10:17 PM

Nobody's arguing whether or not they will be able to act as persons in matters pertaining directly to the conduct of their business. There is nothing whatever in any of my posts that even hints at that. So that's a straw man argument.

What is being discussed is whether or not they have the same exact rights as a human being under the 14th amendment, including freedom of speech (in the form of money spent on political campaigns), and things that aren't directly related to conducting their business.

What this decision would do, if the court finds that the 14th amendment does not apply to corporations, is that it will affirm the right of the government to place limits on what corporations can and can't do, in this case, what they can do with regard to political activity.

When the amendment was ratified, the concern was that the newly freed slaves might still be denied equal rights under the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 09:32 PM

The rights of companies, associations inc. unions, firms, funds, partnerships, societies, joint stock companies, class action groups to act as a person in procedings will not be overturned. These rights are ingrained in the democratic process.

Limits may be imposed to prevent excesses and define boundaries, but the right of a group to act as a person are based on too many decisions and actions since the 1877 decisions (regarding a newspaper) mentioned previously and the Munn vs. Illinois case allowing the public (a state governing body operating as a person) regulation of private business,and the 1888 ruling allowing taxation of railroads (not resting on some 'remark'). These and other decisions are the basis of the 'legal person'.

When the Amendment was ratified in 1868, the concern was reconstruction; as it now stands it covers many aspects of personal and business life, and the current edition linked at the Government Printing Office fills a volume (not considering additions since 2002).

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 09:28 PM

No, Dave, I got it right... Roberts and Co will strike down over a hundred years of precedence...

Congresss enacted a law (name escapes me) in 1906 that limited corporations for buying power in the government... Courts have upheld that law ever since... (The cat will come to me... Brain fade)...

So everytime the act has been reviewed the courts have upheld it... I reckon that those decsions are what would be thought of as precedents...

Roberts and gang are about to interpret this 103 year old act, whioch has been uphelp for over a century and they are going to, in essence, say that every time the courts have upheld that those courts were wrong...

Seems to me that that amounts to striking down those decisions...

What am I missing here???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 09:03 PM

Bobert, when you said:


First of all, it is a given tha the Roberts/Alito/Scalia/Thomas Court will see fit to strike down over a hundred years of precedence... That is a given becuase they are all corporate puppets...

I think you meant to insert "not" before "see fit".

Not striking down all those years of judicial tradition may be seen as serving corporations. To "strike down over a hundred years of precedence" would be to strike a real blow to corporations.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 08:47 PM

First of all, it is a given tha the Roberts/Alito/Scalia/Thomas Court will see fit to strike down over a hundred years of precedence... That is a given becuase they are all corporate puppets...

But the best argument against alolowing corporation to buy up as much advertsing time and to put out whatever lies they want to in the forms of faike documentaries is simple: Corporations trade on a stock exchange and every stock holder owns a share of that corporation... Now when the Board of Directors, or the CEO decide to use money form a publicly (stock holders) owned corporation run ads they are, in essence, saying that the represent to the feelings of every stock holder, or if not, that some kind of vote were taken and those who do not agree with the ad lost some kinda of vote...

That is bullshit!!!

I mean, let'as step into the real world here... Lotta folks have 401's, right... They don't sit at their computers everyday and buy and sell stocks... No, most don't really have much of a clue about the affairs of the corporations in which they own stock...

Everyone with us so far...

Well, should a corporation buy an ad without the full knowledge to the owners of the stocks then it would seem to me that that corporation is guilty of hoodwinking their investers... I think the term racketeering is what it's called....

So, bottom line, when Robert's Boys give a green light to their corporate bed-buddies they are in essence giving a green light for these folks to be exempted from the law...

Real pickle, ain't it???

But it is going to happen by the activists Roberts Court...

Might of fact, before these activist assholes are reigned in they are going to shread as much precedence as they can find to shread on any issue that comes before them that makes the right wing all warm and fuzzy...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 08:46 PM

16 Sep 09 - 10:45 PM


To me, particularly in this context, corruption is when public officials make decisions that favor groups that they have personal connections with (which could be financial in nature or could be of other kinds) because of those connections rather than making their decisions based on a neutral assessment of their responsibilities under their job description.

The case I have been referencing in this thread is the same one that was referenced on the show (I think it was Maddow, but I can't remember, either). The link in my first post goes into some detail about the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 08:37 PM

Fascinating stuff, Bill! It sure puts a different face on the events in Boston that led to the American Revolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 07:55 PM

Ok...look here...and scroll down to 2nd section.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 07:47 PM

One of the talk programs (Olbermann? Maddow?) mentioned a few days ago, that AFTER some decision, one of the Justices..(chief justice?) was talking and said...(paraphrased) "We didn't really deal with the issue of the 'person' status of corporations ...though we just assume that they have it...."

and supposedly, a clerk overheard and wrote down his remark and passed it off as part of the decision......something like that. And it has been taken for granted ever since.
It was so weird that on the program, it was asked again...

I never did hear exactly who & when this was supposed to have occurred

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 06:55 PM

I missed it. What date and time, please, Carol C?

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 06:54 PM

"Corrupt" has several meanings. One of them is "influenced by bribery", and that would be a charge that needs the kind of specific incident which Dave Oesterreich asked for.

However another meaning is just "rotten", and that is an epithet that is perhaps a lot easier to justify.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 06:18 PM

I already posted a specific incident.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: curmudgeon
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 06:16 PM

"Never ascribe to malice that which is more simply explained by stupidity."

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 06:14 PM

Carol C said:

But obviously, they don't have all of the same attributes as a human being. They can't vote for president, for instance. That's a big part of the absurdity of the whole thing. But it was a corrupt Supreme Court clerk, and corrupt Supreme Court justices that make it possible for this absurdity to exist in the first place, and to continue.

I'm not quarreling with your judgment, "corrupt", which you are entitled to make, I suppose, but you tell us that last positively, as a fact, and accordingly I assume you know some specific incident(s) that establishes that, which evidently I've missed.   Would you please give us the chapter and verse?

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 06:00 PM

One of the functions of the Supreme Court is to determine whether precedent set by lower courts is Constitutional, and if it isn't, then the Court renders the precedent invalid. If and when the Court ever actually rules on the question, we will see then whether or not any of the established precedent will stand. If they rule that the 14th amendment does not apply to corporations, which they have the power to do, then all of the legal precedent that has given corporations the same rights as human beings under the 14th amendment in the past will become null and void.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 05:55 PM

Since the part about not being denied life, liberty, or property, or equal protection of the laws is specifically stated as the right of persons born or naturalized in the US, and since corporations cannot be either, it's pretty obvious that the people who wrote and voted on this amendment intended for these rights as outlined in the 14th amendment to apply to human beings and not corporations.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 05:54 PM

Supreme Court actions may define the boundaries of corporate and union 'personhood,' as well as of other groupings, but the basic rights of these 'juristic' persons seems well established.

Also involved here are Class Action Suits, where a group are acting as a person before the courts.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 05:45 PM

Nevertheless, it has not been ruled on by the Supreme Court, so the question has not been settled.

Since the link provided by the above poster doesn't take people to the text of the 14th amendment, here it is...

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 05:41 PM

Cornell University Law School-
U. S. Code collection

Section 1. Words denoting number, gender and so forth-
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-
"words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things;
............

the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
..............

Based on numerous lower court decisions and thus taught as covered by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 05:37 PM

Yes, I definitely agree that the Court's record is one of service, but it has often been service to narrow, vested interest groups rather than the Constitution. When it is difficult to see the separation between the members of the court and the people or groups about whom they are giving favorable rulings, it is perfectly reasonable to say that the court is corrupt, and to suggest otherwise is extremely blinkered.

While precedent has been built on the notion that the 14th amendment applies to corporations, there has never been a Supreme Court ruling on it. So the question persists and has not been settled. Maybe it will be this time, and maybe not.

Subject: RE: BS: Corporate Personhood vs Democracy
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 05:13 PM

The 14th Amendment is long and complicated , comprising many court decisions, covering everything from birth to death (decisions affecting abortion, right to die, and all the rights throughout life, for persons and institutions.

From the Constitution, Government Printing Office
Fourteenth Amendment - http://www/gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/032.pdf


"Person"
Perhaps the first inclusion of corporations was in 1877, when it became clear that ..."there is no doubt that a corporation may not be deprived of its property without due process of law (41). While various decisions have held that the "liberty" guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment is the liberty of natural(42) not artificial persons,(43) nevertheless in 1936, a newspaper corporation successfully objected that a state law deprived it of liberty of the press.(44)"
( ) are footnotes with titles of cases.

Deisions of the Courts, from the 1880s on, corrected the damaging excesses of reconstruction, and, in two steps forward-one step back decisions, slowly paved the way for blacks and other minorities to enter into full citizenship.
This is just one part of the current Fourteenth Amendment, which now covers many items. The Courts reflect public opinion; radical reforms would cause public resistance and the disruption of governmental controls.

Calling any of the Courts 'corrupt' is left wing nut demagogery. The Courts' record is one of service throughout.