- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 18, 2011 at 5:31 pm #597993
redblackParticipantour state legislature has just crafted senate joint memorial 8007.
it’s a petition to the federal government asking them to consider a constitutional amendment declaring “citizen” to mean a person, not a corporation.
interesting read.
February 18, 2011 at 5:42 pm #717805
ensignmarvinMemberWould that they would or could. It is an interesting read and so short too.
February 18, 2011 at 5:57 pm #717806
KenParticipantThe 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 United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), 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.”[4]
The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, 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.”[5]
In other words, corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons.[6] However, this issue is absent from the court’s opinion itself.
go to below for references and cites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad
February 18, 2011 at 6:26 pm #717807
DPMemberI’m for this, natch. But it’ll have to be modified a lot, because unless you simultaneously clarify what legal rights corporations DO have, it could really be quite a drastic change to our system to simply revoke corporate personhood and leave it at that.
Some possible consequences of revoking corporate personhood:
1) Removal of PACs and citizens groups (both right and left) from courtrooms. These entities would no longer have standing to present arguments in court.
2) Elimination of the right of citizens to sue corporations for damages. (You can’t sue an entity that has no legal standing.)
3) Elimination of the Limited Liability Corporation, which protects small-business owners from ruinous legal actions.
4) Huge impact on the stock market. (What will happen to corporations if they can’t sue to protect real and intellectual property?)
. . . to name a few.
Denying corporate personhood would have been a much easier proposition in 1906. Too bad we couldn’t have done something about it back then.
February 18, 2011 at 6:44 pm #717808
redblackParticipantDP: i’m pretty sure that articles of incorporation and business licensing requirements – issued by the several governments – define the rights of corporations.
you raise interesting questions, though.
i’ll consider asking the memorial’s authors to answer them.
February 18, 2011 at 10:53 pm #717809
DPMemberWell, the petition itself suggests one way to approach the problem of defining what corporations should NOT be allowed to do, in Lines 14-16:
WHEREAS, [corporations] do not vote in elections and should not be categorized as persons for purposes related to elections for public office;
But the petition then directs Congress to revoke corporate personhood generally and unconditionally, which would have consequences well beyond elections.
If an amendment could be worded such that corporations have no right to spend money, for the purpose of electing any candidate, or influencing any politician or government employee, I would think it would have a better chance.
It’d still be a tough sell, but I can see it happening.
You know, one could argue that a corporation merely represents a method whereby people put their voices together so that they may speak more loudly. I’m not arguing that, mind. But it could be argued . . .
February 19, 2011 at 3:14 am #717810
KenParticipantHistory of corporate personhood and the constitution.
http://www.greens.org/s-r/35/35-19.html
Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person. Like abolishing slavery, the work of eradicating corporate personhood takes us to the deepest questions of what it means to be human. If we are to live in a democracy, what does it mean to be sovereign? The hardest part of eliminating corporate personhood is believing that We the People have the sovereign right to do this. It comes down to us being clear about who’s in charge.
DP:
On the surface your scenarios seem weak. Do you have any links to support these opinions? Corporate law for hundreds of years did not require money = free speech, and indeed corporate structure and property are anything but free speech zones for workers. The standing for sueing of corporations and vice versa are not the same as the ones now used to support corporate personhood. The actual text of the santa clara decision has no mention of the rights of corporations in that context so the fundamental decision would stand. It is the headnotes being used as if it were a precedent that has contaminated corporate regulation and law since the last reign of the robber barons. If we go back to states revoking charters for corporate crimes then Delaware and Texas would be the clear winners until the weight of unfunded services drag them down.
I am not a lawyer but I may ask one to send me references to further clarify the actual effects of this (non binding) request.
Note for those playing at home:
Memorial: A measure adopted by either the House or the Senate (a measure adopted by both is a joint memorial) to make a request of or express an opinion to Congress or the President of the United States, or both. It is not used to commemorate the dead. (See Concurrent Resolution)
February 19, 2011 at 3:53 am #717811
KenParticipantNote this bill is not passed yet and is a longshot but the place to start anyway.
The Senate Judiciary Committee will hear Senate Joint Memorial 8007, a request to Congress to pass a constitutional amendment that would explicitly say corporations should not be legally defined as people, a definition that played a role in the Citizens United Supreme Court decision to overturn some federal campaign-finance rules.
February 19, 2011 at 4:10 am #717812
DPMemberIt sounds like you’ve been following this issue closely, Ken. I defer to your judgment.
Please keep us posted, because this is something I think many folks here would be very interested in.
Thanks!
Party on, Ken!
Party on, redblack!
February 19, 2011 at 3:07 pm #717813
sydneyMemberI read that corporate charters were supposed to expire after 40 years including total dissolution and restrictions on father-to-son dynastics but the rule was… changed? It was too easy to circumvent, maybe?
I also read that not only are corporations required to benefit their shareholders, they aren’t supposed to harm the ‘common good’, which they’re DOING…. when they pollute, cheat, gouge, usure, et cetera.
February 19, 2011 at 5:05 pm #717814
redblackParticipantyeah, sydney, and to make matters worse, the 112th congress – in the middle of the night, DC time – passed a whole slew of amendments to their spending bill which cut the teeth out of EPA’s ability to enforce environmental laws.
as each amendment passed (along party lines mostly) one could hear the cheers of the corporate lobbyists in the gallery.
funny sidenote: doc hastings (R-WA) was speaker pro-tem.
“House lawmakers spent much of the four day debate working through the nearly 600 amendments filed on the 359-page measure. Some key amendments that have passed include: blocking the FCC from implementing net neutrality regulation, banning federal funds to Planned Parenthood and other amendments aimed to defund the national health-care law.“
http://c-span.org/Events/House-Passes-2011-Spending-Bill/10737419709/
here’s a beauty:
91. H.AMDT.101 to H.R.1 An amendment numbered 466 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit use of funds by EPA to implement, administer, or enforce any statutory or regulatory requirement pertaining to emissions of greenhouse gases.
February 21, 2011 at 1:59 am #717815
JoBParticipantcorporate personhood is an oxymoron…
February 21, 2011 at 3:04 am #717816
cathywMemberKen: One of the first things law students are taught in legal research is that a case’s headnote is not the law because headnotes are sometimes incorrect. If it is not in the case itself, it is not the law. According to Thom Hartmann in his book “Unequal Protection,” the clerk made up the part about corporations being persons and inserted it into the headnote on his own initiative. The subsequent cases which relied on that decision, including the Citizens United case, have all been in error.
See the last paragraph in Thom’s article:
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.