The father of corporate personhood?

[Truthmatters]

An 1886 Supreme Court decision ruled corporations are persons - FALSE - De-fact-o.com - Untangling The Web One Fact At A Time


Michael Kinder recently uncovered a letter from Supreme Court Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite to court reporter J.C. Bancroft Davis informing Davis that it didn't really matter whether or not he included a comment about the arguments before the court that corporations were persons "as we avoided meeting the constitutional questions in the decision."


It looks like a Court Reporter at the time added the language after the fact.

 

[Truthmatters]

When Is a Corporation Like a Freed Slave? | Mother Jones

It aint over folks.

This MJ article is about local areas passing ordnaces that say corporations do not have personhood within their jurisdiction.

NO ONE SUED.

This means the corps themselves KNOW the will lose in the high court if they try to press it.

 

[Truthmatters]

Really interesting stuff here


Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite simply pronounced before the beginning of arguement in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company that

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 opinion that it does.

The court reporter duly entered into the summary record of the Court's findings that
The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Thus it was that a two-sentence assertion by a single judge elevated corporations to the status of persons under the law, prepared the way for the rise of global corporate rule, and thereby changed the course of history.
The doctrine of corporate personhood creates an interesting legal contradiction. The corporation is owned by its shareholders and is therefore their property. If it is also a legal person, then it is a person owned by others and thus exists in a condition of slavery -- a status explicitly forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. So is a corporation a person illegally held in servitude by its shareholders? Or is it a person who enjoys the rights of personhood that take precedence over the presumed ownership rights of its shareholders? So far as I have been able to determine, this contradiction has not been directly addressed by the courts.

 

[Avatar4321]

You do realize that this is completely irrelevant to the decision the other day, don't you?

 

[Chris]

You do realize that this is completely irrelevant to the decision the other day, don't you?

A decision which will one day be overturned.

 

[Avatar4321]

You do realize that this is completely irrelevant to the decision the other day, don't you?

A decision which will one day be overturned.

Well, it's always possible that the Courts will overturn it and ignore the fact that the Constitution clearly provides that Congress can make no law abridging the freedom of speech. However, I find it unlikely to happen anytime soon.

 

[Truthmatters]

If Corporations are persons then we can convict them of murder and put them to death and then put on trial the CEOs as accessories to murder.

 

[Barb]

I've been screaming about this for years, others have for decades. Sad fact is, legal precedent has been written on that little fraud for over a century, and I don't see a century worth of precedent being overturned ever. Corporations Are People, Too

 

[Truthmatters]

Then they should be tried for murder in the oil rig disastor.

Then we can convict them to death.

We kill the Corp and take its assests to pay for the crime and then try the CEOs for being acessories in the crime of murder.

11 people died because this corp put them in danger knowingly.

 

[Tom Clancy]

Kill Corps?

Who's the one spewing Death Threats now?

Shit, then why didn't we hear shit when the Bailout was put into law? Why didn't we kill them too for doing a bad job eh?

Death is the Solution i'm guessing?

 

[Truthmatters]

Death threats?

the death penalty is part of our existing laws.

in case you forgot 11 people lost their lives in the oil rig explosion

 

[Tom Clancy]

Death threats?

the death penalty is part of our existing laws

Yes Death Threats. You're threatning to Kill these CEO's and People who work there..

That's ridiculous.

Let's just kill everyone why don't we? Criminals and this Fiasco are two different Stories.

Answer the Question, What should we have done about those giving Loans to People who couldn't pay them back? When the Banks knew that themselves? Kill them?

 

[RadiomanATL]

 

[L.K.Eder]

with great power comes great responsibility.

can't claim the benefits without accepting the malefits.

 

[Truthmatters]

Death threats?

the death penalty is part of our existing laws

Yes Death Threats. You're threatning to Kill these CEO's where in the fuck did I talk of killing CEOS, STOP LYINGand People who work there..

That's ridiculous.

Let's just kill everyone why don't we? Criminals and this Fiasco are two different Stories.

Answer the Question, What should we have done about those giving Loans to People who couldn't pay them back? When the Banks knew that themselves? Kill them?

Thes coprs killed 11 people, try them and upon conviction kill the Corporation by disolving it.

Then try the CEOs as acessories to murder.

 

[Tom Clancy]

Murder isn't Killing? You're threatening to Convict the corps of Murder, then put them to Death.

Mind answering my Question for me?

 

[Truthmatters]

Murder isn't Killing? You're threatening to Convict the corps of Murder, then put them to Death.

Mind answering my Question for me?

So you are anti death penalty?

 

[Tom Clancy]

Nope, I'm all for the Death Penalty when it comes to the right reasons.

But this? Not even close.

 

[Truthmatters]

So you think Corps can just kill at will with NO repercussions yet get most of the priviledges of personhood?

 

[Truthmatters]

Nope, I'm all for the Death Penalty when it comes to the right reasons.

But this? Not even close.

Why do you insist that these 11 people were not murdered?