Can someone explain to me WHERE in the Constitution corporations are given 'personhood'?

[Kablooie]

I can't seem to find it but it's the whole foundation of the SCOTUS changing the basic fabric and freedoms of our country.

It must be in there somewhere since their whole job is simply to interpret the Constitution.

[tekisui]

Quit looking, it isn't there.

This is a fabrication.

The Supreme Court has given us some good ones, this is most assuredly a very bad one.

[sharesunited]

1. It was an emerging concept when the founding documents were written.

Like the 2nd Amendment.

And equally obsolete today.

[Hugabear]

2. The SCOTUS has the "real" copy of the Constitution

It's written in invisible ink on the back of the 3rd page, down in the lower left corner in tiny print. It can only be viewed by passing light from an oil lamp through Benjamin Franklin's bifocals. This must be done in a secret underground chamber, with a Freemason present.

It's quite an elaborate ritual. Surprised you haven't seen it on the History Channel.

[AndyA]

9. Oh. I thought the real copy of the Constitution was ruined when

George W. Bush wiped his ass with it and flushed it down the john.

I guess if they were able to wipe off the skid marks, it might be legible under the proper conditions. :rofl:

[Hugabear]

13. What Bush thought was the Constitution was actually a "Peter Rabbit" coloring book

n/t

[enlightenment]

17. Is Sean Bean involved in this?

'Cuz I want in on it if he is . . .

[Posteritatis]

3. Should all of their rulings be ignored, then?

While I loathe the idea of corporate personhood, picking and choosing which precedents you recognize leads down some very bad roads.

[Hugabear]

7. The Supreme Court also gave us the Dred Scott decision

The SCOTUS isn't infallible. It took a long time, but thankfully we were able to overcome that one.

[Posteritatis]

15. Never suggested that it was, of course

I read about Dred Scott for the first time a few months ago as a Canadian trying to improve his US history knowledge and I'm still stunned at how vile that one was. About the only good thing I could say about it is that it would be pretty difficult to top.

However, I'm just wary of us doing the same "the judiciary doesn't count" dance that the right does when it makes sane rulings.

[NeeDeep]

4. It's a con-fabulation just like them appointing Bush to

president. Some people find it real easy not to care about people or consequences. Their reward system is based on something else altogether.

[ottothewise]

5. why we need a constitutional amendment

Corporations were granted the legal fiction of the rights of a person by the US Senate about 15 years ago.

[Posteritatis]

16. It was a hell of a lot longer ago than that. (nt)

[lapfog_1]

6. Not in the Constitution.

But a previous supreme court decision...

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.

[DJ13]

8. Its not, its a conservative perversion

The people that make up corporations each have the right to free speech as individuals.

This perverse ruling states they should have TWICE the rights for free speech, both individually and collectively, as the rest of us.

Its unconstitutional.

[Learning Nomad]

10. If I'm not mistaken, the Constitution doesn't confer rights

it forbids Congress to infringe upon them. Like the right to privacy, which isn't set forth in the Constitution either, but it is a right.

[BrklynLiberal]

11. It is NOT in the Constitution...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7531024&mesg_id=7531247

[doc03]

12. What is worse what about a foreign corporation? n/t

[clear eye]

14. Not in Constitution, but Hamilton used the construction to justify the creation of the Nat'l Bank.

Sorry but I'm not sure I understand his argument well enough to explain it. I'm sure you can find something if you research it though. It was bull in a good cause then, but it's disastrous bull now.

I was disappointed w/ the argument by those on the FEC side of the case. They just used something about how it would overwhelm real persons and that the money was derived from a commercial venture. That's all true but it doesn't cut it legally. I would have emphasized how the members of the corporation supplying the money are not permitted by corporate law to freely express their beliefs. I think even this court would have had a hard time getting around that.