What the Supreme Court got right

www.salon.com...

This is a Fantastic article and explains completely why I agree with the recent Supreme Court ruling 100%. A lot of people on this board, and in the media...have been saying that this ruling is the end of the Republic, I say it helps uphold it.

I want to begin by examining several of the most common reactions among critics of this decision, none of which seems persuasive to me. Critics emphasize that the Court's ruling will produce very bad outcomes: primarily that it will severely exacerbate the problem of corporate influence in our democracy. Even if this is true, it's not really relevant. Either the First Amendment allows these speech restrictions or it doesn't. In general, a law that violates the Constitution can't be upheld because the law produces good outcomes (or because its invalidation would produce bad outcomes).

reply to post by yellowcard


pst. Corporations aren't actually people.

Originally posted by Kaytagg
reply to post by yellowcard

 

pst. Corporations aren't actually people.

Psst, read the article, because it actually explains why that assumption is...false.

reply to post by Kaytagg


See this OP bytimewalker


A snippet-

Now lets look at the short version legal definition of a person: PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137. 2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164. 3. But when the word "Persons" is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.

also-

And the definition of a person in the Uniform Commercial Code Article 1;; Part 2;1-201: (27) "Person" means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, public corporation, or any other legal or commercial entity.

Thanks timewalker for denying ignorance and spreading TRUTH instead of propaganda!

Regardless of how "person" is defined in a legal sense as opposed to the general term as applied in common usage, it is a red herring of an argument. It is irrelevant whether corporations are persons or not because no such distinction is made in the First Amendment. That Amendment does not say Congress may make no laws regarding natural born persons...it simply says the Congress may make no laws...abridging the freedom of speech.

It is pointless to argue whether or not corporations are persons as it has nothing to do with the fact that in passing the BCFR with its section 441b, Congress made a law that abridged the freedom of speech and in doing so broke their oath to uphold the Constitution. The SCOTUS upheld their oath and struck this legislation down. It is just as simple as that.

reply to post by yellowcard


Sounds like the author is scared to tackle the issue of corporations equaling person-hood. He repeatedly states he is sympathetic to that argument, but also repeatedly side-steps the issue by saying that the court would have to overturn its own precedent.

One more Obama supreme court justice, and maybe we can finally get to the heart of the issue....

Let me ask you, yellow card: If the US officially and objectively becomes a fascist state, validated by SCOTUS rulings, will you still be arguing that, technically, such and such an argument is technically 'constitutional?

The goal of a modern society should be to increase individual liberty, freedom, and to further the pursuit of happiness and self-actualization. Smart lawyers can always make smart arguments, but it's us little guys that have to deal w/ the ramifications.

Best,
Skunknuts

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Regardless of how "person" is defined in a legal sense as opposed to the general term as applied in common usage, it is a red herring of an argument. It is irrelevant whether corporations are persons or not because no such distinction is made in the First Amendment. That Amendment does not say Congress may make no laws regarding natural born persons...it simply says the Congress may make no laws...abridging the freedom of speech.

It is pointless to argue whether or not corporations are persons as it has nothing to do with the fact that in passing the BCFR with its section 441b, Congress made a law that abridged the freedom of speech and in doing so broke their oath to uphold the Constitution. The SCOTUS upheld their oath and struck this legislation down. It is just as simple as that.

If a corporation invents a technology that can increase its messages penetration into the subjects, err, I mean citizens, of this company, err, I mean country, what say you then?? Let's say a corporation patents a tech that persuades the average citizen as much as hearing a message by a factor of 10, 100, 1000.

Will you still sit idly by, or maybe it will be irrelevant, as 'your' 'opinion' will already be well forged...

Best,
Skunknuts

Originally posted by skunknuts
reply to post by yellowcard

 

Sounds like the author is scared to tackle the issue of corporations equaling person-hood. He repeatedly states he is sympathetic to that argument, but also repeatedly side-steps the issue by saying that the court would have to overturn its own precedent.

One more Obama supreme court justice, and maybe we can finally get to the heart of the issue....

Let me ask you, yellow card: If the US officially and objectively becomes a fascist state, validated by SCOTUS rulings, will you still be arguing that, technically, such and such an argument is technically 'constitutional?

The goal of a modern society should be to increase individual liberty, freedom, and to further the pursuit of happiness and self-actualization. Smart lawyers can always make smart arguments, but it's us little guys that have to deal w/ the ramifications.

Best,
Skunknuts

It sounds like you and others who keep insisting on keeping the argument focused on what constitutes a person are afraid to admit that the First Amendment prohibits Congress from legislating any law that abridges the freedom of speech.

Let me ask you, Skunknuts, are advocating laws that do abridge the freedom of speech? Are you advocating a supreme and all powerful Congress that can legislate without restraint and can never be challenged? And since you and those who want to disagree with this ruling continue to ask hypothetical questions, let me ask you a hypothetical question; If my Aunt has testicles would that make her my Uncle?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Sorry for trying to think ahead and see the ramifications. Ok, if you were alive during the time when SCOTUS ruled that corporations are entitled to the rights give to a person, what would have been your reaction to that activist decision?

Best,
SN

P.S. Yes, that would indeed make your aunt your uncle

Originally posted by skunknuts

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Regardless of how "person" is defined in a legal sense as opposed to the general term as applied in common usage, it is a red herring of an argument. It is irrelevant whether corporations are persons or not because no such distinction is made in the First Amendment. That Amendment does not say Congress may make no laws regarding natural born persons...it simply says the Congress may make no laws...abridging the freedom of speech.

It is pointless to argue whether or not corporations are persons as it has nothing to do with the fact that in passing the BCFR with its section 441b, Congress made a law that abridged the freedom of speech and in doing so broke their oath to uphold the Constitution. The SCOTUS upheld their oath and struck this legislation down. It is just as simple as that.

If a corporation invents a technology that can increase its messages penetration into the subjects, err, I mean citizens, of this company, err, I mean country, what say you then?? Let's say a corporation patents a tech that persuades the average citizen as much as hearing a message by a factor of 10, 100, 1000.

Will you still sit idly by, or maybe it will be irrelevant, as 'your' 'opinion' will already be well forged...

Best,
Skunknuts

Still you continue with hypotheticals. Could that be because your arguments have no relevance in the real world? Why do you insist in asking I and others to pretend instead of just accept reality? If your arguments are so valid why must we all pretend there is some future world in where your arguments work?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by skunknuts

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Regardless of how "person" is defined in a legal sense as opposed to the general term as applied in common usage, it is a red herring of an argument. It is irrelevant whether corporations are persons or not because no such distinction is made in the First Amendment. That Amendment does not say Congress may make no laws regarding natural born persons...it simply says the Congress may make no laws...abridging the freedom of speech.

It is pointless to argue whether or not corporations are persons as it has nothing to do with the fact that in passing the BCFR with its section 441b, Congress made a law that abridged the freedom of speech and in doing so broke their oath to uphold the Constitution. The SCOTUS upheld their oath and struck this legislation down. It is just as simple as that.

If a corporation invents a technology that can increase its messages penetration into the subjects, err, I mean citizens, of this company, err, I mean country, what say you then?? Let's say a corporation patents a tech that persuades the average citizen as much as hearing a message by a factor of 10, 100, 1000.

Will you still sit idly by, or maybe it will be irrelevant, as 'your' 'opinion' will already be well forged...

Best,
Skunknuts

Still you continue with hypotheticals. Could that be because your arguments have no relevance in the real world? Why do you insist in asking I and others to pretend instead of just accept reality? If your arguments are so valid why must we all pretend there is some future world in where your arguments work?

You really think my example is a hypothetical, huh?? Guess you missed the obvious.

Originally posted by skunknuts
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Sorry for trying to think ahead and see the ramifications. Ok, if you were alive during the time when SCOTUS ruled that corporations are entitled to the rights give to a person, what would have been your reaction to that activist decision?

Best,
SN

P.S. Yes, that would indeed make your aunt your uncle

Rights can not be given by governments. Do you even know which SCOTUS rulings you are referring to, and if you do can you supply the direct quote that shows they "gave" these rights to corporations? More pretense, is all you are offering.

reply to post by skunknuts


Incorrect on the aunt and uncle, what if she was a hermaphrodite?

Also many other situations could be involved.

And while you are thinking ahead, should we throw out the Constitution and give the President the power to over-rule Scotus decisions?

Why don't we just through the whole thing and start over?

reply to post by skunknuts


Well of course they are hypotheticals! This is why you are using language such as "let's say" and "if", "if" being the OBVIOUS clue that you are presenting hypothetical situations to defend your arguments.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by skunknuts
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Sorry for trying to think ahead and see the ramifications. Ok, if you were alive during the time when SCOTUS ruled that corporations are entitled to the rights give to a person, what would have been your reaction to that activist decision?

Best,
SN

P.S. Yes, that would indeed make your aunt your uncle

Rights can not be given by governments. Do you even know which SCOTUS rulings you are referring to, and if you do can you supply the direct quote that shows they "gave" these rights to corporations? More pretense, is all you are offering.

Well, let's start w/ Marbury v. Madison, setting the standard for many of the powers conservatives selectively rail. However, I was specifically thinking of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Once you read-up, let me know the answer to my question regarding that activist decision.

Best,
SN

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by skunknuts

 

Incorrect on the aunt and uncle, what if she was a hermaphrodite?

Also many other situations could be involved.

And while you are thinking ahead, should we throw out the Constitution and give the President the power to over-rule Scotus decisions?

Why don't we just through the whole thing and start over?

You and I both know it's looking like we're going to have to, you are just more gung-ho. edit add: just look at your avatar.

Can hermaphrodites reproduce? Not my area of expertise.

[edit on 1/26/2010 by skunknuts]

reply to post by skunknuts


Marbury v. Madison in no way granted rights to corporations and neither did the Santa Clara County ruling. What you are referring to was only dicta and not holding. You should learn the difference and come to better understand the law.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by skunknuts

 

Marbury v. Madison in no way granted rights to corporations and neither did the Santa Clara County ruling. What you are referring to was only dicta and not holding. You should learn the difference and come to better understand the law.

Well dude, I would agree with you, in as much as it shouldn't have set precedent, but somehow bad SCOTUS decisions can take on a life of their own:

Significance:

Not being part of the court's opinion, the "person" observation did not technically—in the view of most legal historians—have any legal precedential value.[13]

However, the Supreme Court is not required by Constitution or even precedent to limit its rulings to written statements.[citation needed]

Justice William O. Douglas wrote in 1949, "the Santa Clara case becomes one of the most momentous of all our decisions.. Corporations were now armed with constitutional prerogatives."[citation needed]

Justice Hugo Black wrote "in 1886, this Court in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, decided for the first time that the word 'person' in the amendment did in some instances include corporations...The history of the amendment proves that the people were told that its purpose was to protect weak and helpless human beings and were not told that it was intended to remove corporations in any fashion from the control of state governments...The language of the amendment itself does not support the theory that it was passed for the benefit of corporations."[

P.S. I wasn't saying Marbury v. Madison had anything to do with this specifically, other than providing unconstitutional rights to the courts.

[edit on 1/26/2010 by skunknuts]

reply to post by skunknuts


It is good that we can finally come to some sort of an agreement. You are correct that Justices can be just as stupid as anyone else and make bad rulings that are in error. This was, in fact, the reasoning behind the Citizens United Court that held that Austin was in error and this is why they overturned it. In no way did the Citizens United Court grant any right of person hood to corporations nor did it rely upon Santa Clara County or any subsequent ruling to defend their reasoning, they instead relied upon the 1st Amendment. This was my original point in this thread and it is the argument I stick with now.

That said, I had fun debating you and I hope you did too. Not to imply I am done with it, just saying it has been fun discussing this with you.

P.S. too: I understood that you weren't claiming Marbury v. Madison did grant rights but you were not clear on what that ruling held and I felt compelled to make clear it did not grant rights to corporations.

[edit on 26-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Good, sentiments shared.

So, what do you think of this (speaking of Madison v. Marbury):

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a0299f34656e.jpg[/atsimg]

oops, photo too big, should read--

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."

[edit on 1/26/2010 by skunknuts]