Skip to main content

View Diary: Ending the criminal insanity of the concept of corporations as people (280 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Challenge Santa Clara County v. S Pacific Railroad (40+ / 0-)

    The case used to establish the fraud that is corporate personhood was Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. In 1886 the railroad tried to evade county taxes, was sued by the county, and took its case to the Supreme Court which decided for the railroad. But only on the narrow tax question, not at all on its corporate status as a person.

    The Supreme Court decision was reported by a court reporter who wrote the decision's headline to say the court had decided the corporation was a person under the Constitution. That reporter was a past president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company. His fraudulent headline technically carried no legal value. But subsequent cases citing the report to perpetuate the fraud were decided to validate the personhood policy that was never decided by a court.

    The proper remedy would be a case brought to challenge the precedential chain. A Supreme Court decision that there is no legal basis for the corporate personhood claim would radically improve our democracy and everything that comes from it.

    Of course, our corporatist court would at least decide that a century of treating the fraud as truth has encoded it into our society blah blah blah, and leave personhood established, and likely strengthened (and proof against revision for quite some time, probably for generations).

    The only way to save ourselves from a corporation president and Congress voted in by hundreds of millions of voting corporations, according to their "rights", is to rehab the Supreme Court itself. Better justices would just ignore the SCC v SPR precedential chain, knowing it's bogus and toxic. That means a better Senate and better presidents. Because indeed corporate personhood is encoded in our society after a century of treating the fraud as truth.

    But if we don't, it's literally President Inc running our future.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 06:18:18 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  This (4+ / 0-)

      From your comment

      His fraudulent headline technically carried no legal value. But subsequent cases citing the report to perpetuate the fraud were decided to validate the personhood policy that was never decided by a court.
      I read about this issue when Citizens United was being heard by SCOTUS.  The language SCOTUS and Corporations try to hang their legal hat on is some wording in the preamble or introduction of SCC v SPR.  

      Isn't there some way this can be rectified in the courts, without resorting to the arduous and lengthy process of amending the Constitution?  

      Any legal experts want to weigh in on this?

      If cutting Social Security & Medicare benefits for low income seniors is what Democrats do after they win a budget standoff, I'd hate to see what they do after they lose one.

      by Betty Pinson on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 11:44:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (132)
  • Community (65)
  • Media (32)
  • Elections (32)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (31)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Law (28)
  • Environment (28)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Culture (25)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Science (21)
  • Labor (20)
  • Economy (19)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site