Skip to main content

View Diary: Justice Scalia says Revolution may be necessary (185 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  U disprove your argument: 1st specifically says 'p (9+ / 0-)

    ress' bc it is not a separate entity but bc it is something people do.  Exactly as 'speech', which is immediately follows.  

    The fact that the Founders meant people to mean corporeal persons is then supported by the very next part of the 1st A: 'the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government...'  These are both activities that corporations can engage in.  If the Founders intended the Constitution to treat them as 'people', there would have been no need to insert 'people' and thus limit it.

    As for the Civil War amendment's 'person', the Congression record is clear: that term was specifically meant to refer to corporeal people, which special emphasis on former slaves.  No corporation has ever been a slave.

    The entire genis of the 'corporations are people' doctrine is a letter by the Chief Justice who was a railroad lawyer on a court dominated by railroad lawyers.  Their primary aim was to protect railroad corporations and their ruling reflect that.  Yet even they did not go so far as to rule - or indeed even write in their opinions - that 'corporations are people'.  That was left to a century long project by the legal and political scions of Carnegie, Morgan and Rockefeller - who btw basically owned most the media and used it ruthlessly to prevent William Jennings Bryan's election in 1896 bc he proposed a very modest progressive agenda with such horrors as limiting child labor and work weeks.

    •  chris - the SCOTUS has never declared that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coffeetalk, nextstep

      corporations are people, not in 1886 or 2010, but the concept that, in the United States, associations of people have constitutional rights is centuries old.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Sun Apr 20, 2014 at 02:25:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, not centuries,old. The first case is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Just Bob

        probably Buttons v. NAACP,  right of association and privacy of membership lists.  That was a political association case, not a corporate case.

        Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

        by StrayCat on Sun Apr 20, 2014 at 03:39:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  'People' as in persons for the 14th, 1st etc. The (0+ / 0-)

        only way to strike down a state statute limiting corporate contributions on 1st A grounds was to hold the corporation, as an entity separate from the individual members, is a 'person' for 14th A purposes and thus the 14th A 'incorporation' doctrine applies to pass thru 1st A protection. (Since the 1st expressly limits itself to Congress.)  Which is one thing Citizens United and the one striking down the irrc Montana statute did.  

        (Another was the ludicrous minimization of corruption and public good interests in this context, until we have Roberts saying essentially only a quid pro quo is corrupt influence.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (130)
  • Community (55)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Culture (30)
  • Environment (26)
  • Republicans (21)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Rescued (18)
  • Media (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (17)
  • Science (17)
  • Education (17)
  • Elections (17)
  • Labor (17)
  • Law (16)
  • GOP (16)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Marriage Equality (14)
  • Racism (14)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site