WHERE are all the cries of judicial activism from the right?

[Bill O'Olberman]

What you don't seem to get is that it is not the Supreme Court's job to decide whether something is good or bad and set precendent accordingly. Their job is to uphold the constitution. Had they voted the other way, that would have been a violation of the first amendment. You are the one who quite clearly doesn't understand what real judicial activism is.

OK Bern, then it should be easy to clear up our differences...just direct to the section of the Constitution that says a corporation is a person. I'll settle for the 'word' corporation in the Constitution, I'm easy going...

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country...corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
(letter to Col. William F. Elkins)
Ref: The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY)

You really don't understand the constitution it seems. Obviously there are more laws on the books than what is specifically listed in the constitution. The standard for those laws is simply that they must not be in violation of anything in the constitution. That a corporation is its own entity and thus has essentially the right as a person is not a violation of the constitution. As such they are etitled to its protections, including free speech.

Does a corporation have the duty to preform jury duty?

 

[Gatekeeper]

That's it. I've had it. We have now been completely sold out. This country is stupid - its leaders, policies and its people. And the now we have confirmation that the supposedly fair and blind justice system is in the pockets of corporations, ie against real persons. I think I want out now. This is not the country I thought it was...

Supreme Court Lifts Campaign Spending Limits : NPR

I find it interesting that you have a problem with this.
So corporations can be taxed, regiulated, slandered.....but they can not donate to a candidate of their choosing.

You see....this ruling IS the America we are supposed to be.

Freedom......liberty.....choice.....

No problem here.

Corporations are composed of individuals who can contribute and vote.

As an aside, I'm mildly stunned to see Tea Partiers and TP sympathizers siding with the corporations on this one. (not referring to you specifically)

That does NOT give the corporations the right to speak for all of it's employees and I would be totally pissed if I worked for one and they gave hundreds of thousands to a candidate that I was opposed to in 'my' name.

It does however give the political beliefs and agendas of the wealthy owners to funnel 'their people' into office, and along the way, who knows the those 'pals' are elected, they many times return the 'favor'.

Yes, it's a blow to the citizens, and another few pieces of rebar to reinforce the foundation of big government and the wealthy that run it. Screw the citizens..........again.
The Supreme Court today.......I have my theories on who ALL is backing them....and now a word from our sponsors.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Corporations should not be classified as a "person"

But they are. And always have been. I like what they do in Latin American.. they call them SA (Sociedad Anonima, The Anonimous Society) Very cool.

 

[MIPS]

Yeah, I think a good read on enumerated powers would be beneficial to many.

I doubt it will help since Progressives believe in unlimited government power anyways and won't be happy until we're officially living in an oligarchy (with progressives at the helm of course) and not having to deal with pesky limitations like the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Even better S.A. de C.V. Sociedad Anonima de Capital Variable.. even cooler.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

[/Quote]I doubt it will help since Progressives believe in unlimited government power anyways and won't be happy until we're officially living in an oligarchy (with progressives at the helm of course) and not having to deal with pesky limitations like the U.S. Constitution.[/QUOTE]

Well, there is that. I think however, our framers were really onto something.

 

[Oldandtired]

I find it interesting that you have a problem with this.
So corporations can be taxed, regiulated, slandered.....but they can not donate to a candidate of their choosing.

You see....this ruling IS the America we are supposed to be.

Freedom......liberty.....choice.....

No problem here.

Corporations are composed of individuals who can contribute and vote.

As an aside, I'm mildly stunned to see Tea Partiers and TP sympathizers siding with the corporations on this one. (not referring to you specifically)

That does NOT give the corporations the right to speak for all of it's employees and I would be totally pissed if I worked for one and they gave hundreds of thousands to a candidate that I was opposed to in 'my' name.

It does however give the political beliefs and agendas of the wealthy owners to funnel 'their people' into office, and along the way, who knows the those 'pals' are elected, they many times return the 'favor'.

Yes, it's a blow to the citizens, and another few pieces of rebar to reinforce the foundation of big government and the wealthy that run it. Screw the citizens..........again.
The Supreme Court today.......I have my theories on who ALL is backing them....and now a word from our sponsors.

But no where does it say that this will only benefit one ideology or another.
It will be to the advanatge and the disadvantage to all ideologies...

SO please tell me how this is a blow to the citizens?

 

[Oddball]

Does a corporation have the duty to preform jury duty?

Citizens are seated on juries, not "persons".

Strange as it may seem, there's a difference under statutory law.

 

[MajikMyst]

Your forgetting.. When the neotards agree with it, it isn't judicial activism.. When they do not agree with it, It is..

It is a double standard you see.. They actually believe they are better off with a company that profits off of shafting them at every turn.. Than a government they actually have some control over.. It is truly amazing how deep this ignorance goes.. When was the last time a company held elections for the CEO that the general public could vote on?? Never.. Exactly..

I hope you neotards have a lot of lube!! Your going to need it!!

Enjoy your loss of freedom...

Please explain how this ruling is a violation of any law or of anything in the constitution. All I can tell from you and Bf is that you failed high school level civics.

It is a violation of the constitution as the freedom of speech was never an intended right to be given to a company or corporation.. When you give them that right you take that right away from the people..

China wants to plant people in our government to pass laws more friendly to china.. Maybe even to steal some technology.. They can now do that by buying some key elections using a company as a front.. They might even by the presidency.. Is that what our founding father had in mind?? What you morons forgot is americans aren't the only people that own business in the U.S. Many other nations, some not our freinds also do as well.. Perhaps Saudi Arabia with it's billions in oil money wants to buy a few elections to make us more friendly to Muslims.. Perhaps even pass some laws forcing children to study Islam.. These are extreme cases, but with this ruling, entirely possible..

We the people don't have the means to compete with billion dollar industry when it comes to lobbying and campaigns.. We don't.. Our voices will not be heard.. Look at the health reform.. A vast majority of the people want a publc option.. A few hundred million dollars later and insurance companies with the help of some well paid republicans have managed to kill what the people want.. They have influenced and tainted the bill and turned it into a nightmare that nobody knows what to do with.. And people that desperately need it will now not get health care because insurance companies are to selfish.. Who stands to lose if a public option is created?? Certianly not the people.. The insurance companies..

Companies are not individuals and have no business in politics.. The people that work in those companies all have the same right to vote and donate to campaigns as everyone else.. Allowing companies to do it denies people the right to be heard..

This ruling is a travisty and goes against everything the constitution stands for.. The justices that voted in favor of this have no reason being on the bench.. This is judicial activism at its worse!!

 

[Darkwind]

That's it. I've had it. We have now been completely sold out. This country is stupid - its leaders, policies and its people. And the now we have confirmation that the supposedly fair and blind justice system is in the pockets of corporations, ie against real persons. I think I want out now. This is not the country I thought it was...

Supreme Court Lifts Campaign Spending Limits : NPR

I'll come by and help you pack and get the hell out of the country. Where would you like to go?

Hey! How about somewhere where the corporatists don't use the courts to get what they can't get at the ballot box!!!

Hey, how about somewhere the environmental organizations don't use the courts to get what they can't get at the ballot box!!!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So, does it bother you when candidates are bought by the unions?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

This country is stupid

Wow... really? Perhaps you should just leave then.

 

[Darkwind]

So, does it bother you when candidates are bought by the unions?

How about when left wing billionaires fund thousands of left wing blogs, organizations and PAC's?


It doesn't bother them to much then.

 

[G.T.]

While I've lost the ability to give a fuck, really: I do ponder how some posters reconcile their beliefs sometimes.

It seems to erk everyone when they feel their politicians are "beholden to special interests," yet seemingly this would punctuate that issue ten fold. Hmmf.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL

We have a President whose campaign was funded with $200MM of undisclosed funds from foreigners and whose first act was to give GE $139B so they would be his mouthpiece.

Oh sweet irony!

Yeah, money and politics are a bad mix

LOL

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Your forgetting.. When the neotards agree with it, it isn't judicial activism.. When they do not agree with it, It is..

It is a double standard you see.. They actually believe they are better off with a company that profits off of shafting them at every turn.. Than a government they actually have some control over.. It is truly amazing how deep this ignorance goes.. When was the last time a company held elections for the CEO that the general public could vote on?? Never.. Exactly..

I hope you neotards have a lot of lube!! Your going to need it!!

Enjoy your loss of freedom...

Please explain how this ruling is a violation of any law or of anything in the constitution. All I can tell from you and Bf is that you failed high school level civics.

It is a violation of the constitution as the freedom of speech was never an intended right to be given to a company or corporation.. When you give them that right you take that right away from the people..

China wants to plant people in our government to pass laws more friendly to china.. Maybe even to steal some technology.. They can now do that by buying some key elections using a company as a front.. They might even by the presidency.. Is that what our founding father had in mind?? What you morons forgot is americans aren't the only people that own business in the U.S. Many other nations, some not our freinds also do as well.. Perhaps Saudi Arabia with it's billions in oil money wants to buy a few elections to make us more friendly to Muslims.. Perhaps even pass some laws forcing children to study Islam.. These are extreme cases, but with this ruling, entirely possible..

We the people don't have the means to compete with billion dollar industry when it comes to lobbying and campaigns.. We don't.. Our voices will not be heard.. Look at the health reform.. A vast majority of the people want a publc option.. A few hundred million dollars later and insurance companies with the help of some well paid republicans have managed to kill what the people want.. They have influenced and tainted the bill and turned it into a nightmare that nobody knows what to do with.. And people that desperately need it will now not get health care because insurance companies are to selfish.. Who stands to lose if a public option is created?? Certianly not the people.. The insurance companies..

Companies are not individuals and have no business in politics.. The people that work in those companies all have the same right to vote and donate to campaigns as everyone else.. Allowing companies to do it denies people the right to be heard..

This ruling is a travisty and goes against everything the constitution stands for.. The justices that voted in favor of this have no reason being on the bench.. This is judicial activism at its worse!!

LOL

Yeah, the NY Times should not enjoy First Amendment rights becuase it's incorporated

LOL

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What part of

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

[MajikMyst]

Please explain how this ruling is a violation of any law or of anything in the constitution. All I can tell from you and Bf is that you failed high school level civics.

It is a violation of the constitution as the freedom of speech was never an intended right to be given to a company or corporation.. When you give them that right you take that right away from the people..

China wants to plant people in our government to pass laws more friendly to china.. Maybe even to steal some technology.. They can now do that by buying some key elections using a company as a front.. They might even by the presidency.. Is that what our founding father had in mind?? What you morons forgot is americans aren't the only people that own business in the U.S. Many other nations, some not our freinds also do as well.. Perhaps Saudi Arabia with it's billions in oil money wants to buy a few elections to make us more friendly to Muslims.. Perhaps even pass some laws forcing children to study Islam.. These are extreme cases, but with this ruling, entirely possible..

We the people don't have the means to compete with billion dollar industry when it comes to lobbying and campaigns.. We don't.. Our voices will not be heard.. Look at the health reform.. A vast majority of the people want a publc option.. A few hundred million dollars later and insurance companies with the help of some well paid republicans have managed to kill what the people want.. They have influenced and tainted the bill and turned it into a nightmare that nobody knows what to do with.. And people that desperately need it will now not get health care because insurance companies are to selfish.. Who stands to lose if a public option is created?? Certianly not the people.. The insurance companies..

Companies are not individuals and have no business in politics.. The people that work in those companies all have the same right to vote and donate to campaigns as everyone else.. Allowing companies to do it denies people the right to be heard..

This ruling is a travisty and goes against everything the constitution stands for.. The justices that voted in favor of this have no reason being on the bench.. This is judicial activism at its worse!!

LOL

Yeah, the NY Times should not enjoy First Amendment rights becuase it's incorporated

LOL

They have freedom of the press you moron!! Sheeesh!! Can you be any more retarded??

 

[Barb]

Corporations should not be classified as a "person"

But they are. And always have been. I like what they do in Latin American.. they call them SA (Sociedad Anonima, The Anonimous Society) Very cool.

They have NOT "always" have been.

Corporations Are People, Too

Monopolies As Persons

As the new country grew, so did its institutions. Trading companies, banks and eventually railroads all used the corporate form to conduct business, reduce shareholder liability and accumulate profits. America boomed through the early 19th Century, then experienced a severe economic depression in the decade just before the Civil War, then boomed again, starting in the post-war years of the late 1860s.

And then a curious thing happened.

The stage was set when, just after the Civil War on July 9, 1868, three-quarters of the states ratified the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as part of a set of laws to end slavery. The intent of Congress and the states was clear: to provide full constitutional protections and due process of law to the now-emancipated former slaves in the United States. The 14th Amendment's first article says, in its entirety:

"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."

Along with the 13th Amendment ("Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude ... shall exist within the United States") and the 15th Amendment ("The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude"), the 14th Amendment guaranteed that freed slaves would have full access to legal due process: "equal protection of the laws."

Corporations Aspire To Personhood

During this same period, because everybody understood Paine and Jefferson's argument that human-made institutions must be subordinate to humans themselves; virtually every state had laws on the books that regulated the behavior of corporations.

The corporate form is, after all, just a legal structure to facilitate the conversion of products or services into cash for stockholders. As Buckminster Fuller wrote in his brilliant essay, "The Grunch of Giants," "Corporations are neither physical nor metaphysical phenomena. They are socio-economic ploys -- legally enacted game-playing -- agreed upon only between overwhelmingly powerful socio-economic individuals and by them imposed upon human society and its all unwitting members."

Thus, states made it illegal for corporations to participate in the political process: Politicians were doing the voters' business, and corporations couldn't vote, so it didn't make sense they should be allowed to try to influence votes. States made it illegal for corporations to lie about their products, and required that their books and processes always be open and available to government regulators. States and the federal government claimed the right to inspect companies and investigate them when they caused pollution, harmed workers or created hazards for human communities, even if in the early years that right was unevenly used.

These constraints and oversights had been a thorn in the side of the barons of trade and industry from the earliest days of the new American republic. But what to do about it?

With the passage of the 14th Amendment, the owners of the what were then America's largest and most powerful corporations -- the railroads -- figured they'd finally found a way to reverse Paine's logic and no longer have to answer to "we, the people." They would claim that the corporation is a person. They would claim that for legal purposes, the certificate of incorporation declares the legal birth of a new person, who should therefore have the full protections the voters have under the Bill of Rights.

It was an amazing irony, given that one of Jefferson's original proposed Amendments was an explicit ban on corporations becoming so large as to gain monopoly power and be able to easily crush or stifle small, local entrepreneurs. But, setting the irony aside, the railroads threw massive resources into their new campaign to be given full human rights.

Acting on behalf of the railroad barons, attorneys for the railroads repeatedly filed suits against local and state governments that had passed laws regulating railroad corporations. They rebelled against restrictions, and most of all they rebelled against being taxed.

The main tool the railroad's lawyers tried to use was the fact that corporations had historically been referred to under law not as "corporations" but as "artificial persons." Based on this, they argued, corporations should be considered "persons" under the free-the-slaves 14th Amendment and enjoy the protections of the constitution just like living, breathing, human persons.

Using this argument for their base, the railroads repeatedly sued various states, counties and towns claiming that they shouldn't have to pay local taxes because different railroad properties were taxed in different ways in different places and this constituted the creation of different "classes of persons" and was, thus, illegal discrimination under the 14th Amendment.

For almost 20 years, these arguments did not succeed.

In 1873, the Supreme Court made its first explicit comment on the 14th Amendment. The Amendment's "one pervading purpose," Justice Samuel F. Miller wrote in the majority opinion, "was the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppression of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him."

The railroads, however, had a lot of money to pay for lawyers, and railroad lawyer S. W. Sanderson had the reputation of a pit bull. Undeterred, the railroads again and again argued their "corporations are persons" position all the way to the Supreme Court.

The peak year for their legal assault was 1877, with four different cases reaching the Supreme Court in which the railroads argued that governments could not regulate their fees or activities, or tax them in differing ways, because governments can't interfere to such an extent in the lives of "persons" and because different laws and taxes in different states and counties represented illegal discrimination against the persons of the railroads under the 14th Amendment.

By then, the Supreme Court was under the supervision of Chief Justice Morris Remick Waite, himself a former railroad attorney. Associate Justice Stephen Field, who was so openly on the side of the railroads in case after case that he annoyed his colleagues, also heavily influenced the court. In each of the previous four cases, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment was not intended to regulate interstate commerce and therefore not applicable. But in none of those cases did Waite or any other Justice on the court muster a majority opinion on the issue of whether or not railroad corporations were "persons" under the constitution, and so Miller's "one pervading purpose" of the 14th Amendment (to free slaves) prevailed, and year after year, the railroads were told that they were not persons.

Having lost four cases in one year took a bit of the wind out of the sails of the railroads, and there followed a few years of relative calm. The railroads continued to assert they were "persons," but states and localities continued to call them "artificial persons" and passed laws regulating their activities.

For 20 years corporate personhood was debated. Across America, politicians were elected repeatedly on platforms that included the regulation of corporations, particularly the railroads. But the legal fight continued -- and in 1886 the railroad hit paydirt.

The Supreme Court ruled on an obscure taxation issue in the Santa Clara County vs. The Union Pacific Railroad case, but the Recorder of the court -- a man named J. C. Bancroft Davis, himself formerly the president of a small railroad -- wrote into his personal commentary of the case (known as a headnote) that the Chief Justice had said that all the Justices agreed that corporations are persons.

And in so doing, he -- not the Supreme Court, but its clerical recorder -- inserted a statement that would change history and give corporations enormous powers that were not granted by Congress, not granted by the voters, and not even granted by the Supreme Court. Davis's headnote, which had no legal standing, was taken as precedent by generations of jurists (including the Supreme Court) who followed and apparently read the headnote but not the decision.

 

[Oldandtired]

While I've lost the ability to give a fuck, really: I do ponder how some posters reconcile their beliefs sometimes.

It seems to erk everyone when they feel their politicians are "beholden to special interests," yet seemingly this would punctuate that issue ten fold. Hmmf.

You are 100% correct.
However, you do not say the constitution should apply to one thing and not another out of convenience.

This brings us to personal responsibility. We, as a people, shopuld start voting with our heads and not with our emotions.

You will quickly see politicians no longer being beholden to spercial interest groups and start working for the people. ANd yes, then those politicians will not get the donations from the groups...and this whole debate will be for naught.

When wilkl the people see that it is US that dictates what happens with our politicians.

Just like it is US that dictates the price to a football game...a movie...the salaries of athletes and actors.