Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 is the REAL problem

[ddeclue]

As long as corporations continue to be granted "personhood", we will continue to have this issue.

Please write your Congressman and Senators and demand that they pass a law overturning this court decision by clarifying that the 14th Amendment applies only to actual human beings and NOT to any organization or business entity of any sort.

[Political Heretic]

1. The decision didn't grant personhood.

It was actually a court recorder who wrote that into the decision. Who happened to be formerly employed by.... wait for it... wait for it.....

Railroads.

(I can't remember if it was specifically southern pacific railroad or not)

[ddeclue]

2. As far as THIS SCOTUS is concerned, it is a valid precedent.

therefore, we must pass a law to overturn it.

[Political Heretic]

6. No I understand and I didn't mean to derail. I just though the real history was interesting

and tragic.

To me, it shows that even when it comes to our courts we can just sit back and think that they will fix everything. According to Thom Hartmann (at least, I read the information and the source notes from his book) the judge in the case even wrote a letter objecting to the court reporters addition, stating explicitly that the issue of personhood was NOT taken up by the court in the case.

It didn't matter. Corporations seized on it, and the courts let them. Of all the petitions filed citing the fourteenth amendment, designed to protect freed slaves, corporations have filed almost all of them.

[KamaAina]

3. Former president of an RR in NY state

per Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bancroft_Davis#Role_in_corporate_personhood_controversy

Acting as court reporter in the 1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case, Davis is a key figure in the corporate personhood debate. Journalists have since cited Davis's prior position as president of Newburgh and New York Railway as evidence of a conflict of interest in the corporate personhood interpretation of the ruling.

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. I hear GREAT PLOT FOR A MOVIE!

[elleng]

15. Its both interesting and tragic.

Discussed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

[ParkieDem]

4. Look at today's decision.

The Southern Pacific case isn't the problem. The Supreme Court, time and time again, has recognized that First Amendment rights extend to corporations -- in today's court opinion, about 12 cases are cited as precedent for this principle. The whole "corporate personhood" meme is a red herring.

[ddeclue]

7. No, the basis for corporations HAVING rights is that legally they are "persons"

if a law is passed overturning THAT decision, then the court can no longer grant rights to corporations any more than they can to other inanimate objects.

[cascadiance]

10. But they used the head note for this case as the basis for their subsequent decisions...

And as noted, the headnote was not reflecting the actual case notes, which subsequent courts were too lazy to read, but the compromised opinion of a court reporter that had conflicts of interests.

Even if challenging this is unsuccessful, exposing not only Judicial activism, but worse than that "court clerk" activism, that the right wing side of the court is siding with in this case, would make it pretty hard for them to argue to overturn Roe v. Wade later, with a history of supporting stare decisis in this more extreme case than Roe v. Wade, where you actually had court justices making the decision, not a court clerk, unless the right wing want to claim that the court clerk has more rights to craft law on their own than justices do.

[Political Heretic]

17. No, it isn't. You do not understand the history, or the legal rights granted by personhood.

Corporate Personhood isn't just a cute phrase. It has legal standing.

I pointed out the bizarre way in which defined corporate personhood came to be accepted as judicial precedent, but it is accepted.

It granted corporations the right to sue and be sued in court, the right to participate in elections, the right to buy and sell property and other corporations, among a list of other things. All of these things led to abuse as these new "persons" had most of the rights of ordinary people but none of the responsibilities or limitations of ordinary people. Corporations can live forever, to give one example.

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. I though that the courts, not Congress interprets the Constitution

[ddeclue]

8. Yes but the Congress can overturn a court decision through a law.

[Political Heretic]

9. Courts are made up of people, and people can be wrong, or biased, or coopted

And when they are, courts can be overruled.

Unfortunately the process is so difficult it makes the prospect daunting to put it mildly.

[elleng]

11. Yes, courts interpret the Constitution.

Congress is free to try to make laws to change a result with which they disagree.

[EFerrari]

12. Thank you for posting about this seminal case! Well done.

[elleng]

16. Good work to have posted, but 'seminal' is a bit of an overstatement!

It was an ordinary tax case, in which a great wrong was done, INCIDENTALLY! Read all about it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

[sybylla]

14. K & R

This has been the root of economic, financial, free market and governmental woes practically since it was enacted.

There's a group on Facebook if anyone is interested:

One Million Strong for the Separation of Corporation and State
http://www.facebook.com/#/group.php?gid=43811311612&ref=ts

[struggle4progress]

18. Corporations being legal fictions created by the State, how can the State not regulate them?