No law expert, but isn't Jonathan Turley missing the point that a Corporation is not a person?

[Quixote1818]

Meaning it does not have the same "free speech" rights as a person?

See video of him with Keith: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50YHDkc2DkU&feature=player_embedded


On Edit: Would like to see Turley and Thom Hartmann debate this on Thom's show. I think Thom would open his eyes on some old cases etc.

Thom Hartmann on Corporations and personhood: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUYPO2b2jDQ




.

[napi21]

1. A long time ago the SCOTUS declared that Corps WERE persons.

Turley is not wrong. He;s just stating what the SCOTUS said.

[sandnsea]

3. True, but this court could have overturned that

And the people won't start demanding it until the educated pundits like Turley explain the craziness of considering a corporation a person.

[underpants]

5. Santa Clara v. So. Pacific Railroad- the court did not rule that way a clerk wrote it up that way

and the clerk was probably a plant

corporations had been trying for years to be declared entities and their former employee got'er done for them

A passing remark
Bancroft Davis, the Court Reporter and former president of Newburgh and New York Railway

The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in U.S. v. Detroit Timber and Lumber (1905), headnotes are defined as "not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."<5>

The court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:

"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."<6>

In other words, corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons.<7> However, this issue is absent from the court's opinion itself.

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

John Chandler Bancroft Davis (December 22, 1822 – December 27, 1907), commonly known as Bancroft Davis, was an American lawyer, judge, diplomat, and president of Newburgh and New York Railway Company.<1>


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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.C._Bancroft_Davis

[Quixote1818]

Thank you. Thats in Thomm's video I posted above. nt

[Quixote1818]

6. Dupe

[sandnsea]

2. Or that for-profit isn't the same as non-profit

And that the only reason a non-profit is called a "corporation" is because they're legislated that way. They could just as easily be called a "beneficial cooperative" that isn't regulated under corporate laws, and then there would be no comparison and no concern.

I think you have to accept the personhood thing before you can become concerned about the speech of activist groups.

[NeeDeep]

4. These people have forgotten one of the tenets of goverment

and that is citizens need protection from power and money and corporation are both. If we didn't have goverment to respond to our needs we would be working 80hr weeks with no benefits and our children would be working in coal mines. I really hate these Libertarians who find any reason to undermine the goverment as being more important than care and protection for people embodied in goverment.