Of course corporations and unions can defend against false attacks. They have the right to sue and be sued, and of course defamation is a legitimate cause of action.
Justices Reject Campaign Finance Limits
- Thread starter toomuchtime_
- Start date
Of course corporations and unions can defend against false attacks. They have the right to sue and be sued, and of course defamation is a legitimate cause of action.
Congress shall make no Law, thought I already spoke on that issue. Congress if you read further is composed of the following;
Section 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.
Article I | LII / Legal Information Institute
Congress;
CONGRESS - 1. An assembly of the deputies convened from different governments, to treat of peace or of other political affairs, is called a congress.
2. This name was anciently given in France, England and other countries, to the indecent intercourse between married persons in the presence of witnesses appointed by the courts, in cases when the husband or wife was charged by the other with impotence.
3. The name of the legislative body of the United States and is composed of two independent houses; the Senate and the House Of Representatives. U.S. Constitution, Art.1, s.1.
Legal Definition of Congress
A comporation and a Union is a legal entity that exists ONLY on paper and exists only by law, those laws are passed by congress who is made up of a body that represents and is elected by and composed of people!! The laws they pass, that allow for companies to exist are at the discretion of those very same people. It is HIGHLY inconsistant to advocate for Free Speech and constitutional constructionism and then turn around and advocate for the position that companies and unions which are entities created by law are entitled to the same rights under the First Amendment as the people that pass them. Further, the flaw in the logic that companies are entitled to Free Speech then confers that constitutional right upon not just American companies but EVERY SINGLE company wishing to do business in the United States and it's employees. So if you are advocating such things as prisoners have no rights under our constitution because they are not citizens then it is highly inconsistant to then argue that companies and unions are denied privlidges under the 1st Amendment.
James MAdison on the Constitution;
The amendments which have occurred to me, proper to be recommended by Congress to the State Legislatures, are these:
First, That there be prefixed to the constitution a declaration, that all power is originally rested in, and consequently derived from, the people.
That Government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their Government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.
Secondly, That in article 1st, section 2, clause 3, these words be struck out, to wit:
"The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative, and until such enumeration shall be made;" and that in place thereof be inserted these words, to wit: "After the first actual enumeration, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number amounts to —, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that the number shall never be less than —, nor more than —, but each State shall, after the first enumeration, have at least two Representatives; and prior thereto."
Thirdly, That in article 1st, section 6, clause 1, there be added to the end of the first sentence, these words, to wit: "But no law varying the compensation last ascertained shall operate before the next ensuing election of Representatives."
Fourthly, That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
Madison's Introduction of the Bill of Rights - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Section 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.
Article I | LII / Legal Information Institute
Congress;
CONGRESS - 1. An assembly of the deputies convened from different governments, to treat of peace or of other political affairs, is called a congress.
2. This name was anciently given in France, England and other countries, to the indecent intercourse between married persons in the presence of witnesses appointed by the courts, in cases when the husband or wife was charged by the other with impotence.
3. The name of the legislative body of the United States and is composed of two independent houses; the Senate and the House Of Representatives. U.S. Constitution, Art.1, s.1.
Legal Definition of Congress
A comporation and a Union is a legal entity that exists ONLY on paper and exists only by law, those laws are passed by congress who is made up of a body that represents and is elected by and composed of people!! The laws they pass, that allow for companies to exist are at the discretion of those very same people. It is HIGHLY inconsistant to advocate for Free Speech and constitutional constructionism and then turn around and advocate for the position that companies and unions which are entities created by law are entitled to the same rights under the First Amendment as the people that pass them. Further, the flaw in the logic that companies are entitled to Free Speech then confers that constitutional right upon not just American companies but EVERY SINGLE company wishing to do business in the United States and it's employees. So if you are advocating such things as prisoners have no rights under our constitution because they are not citizens then it is highly inconsistant to then argue that companies and unions are denied privlidges under the 1st Amendment.
James MAdison on the Constitution;
The amendments which have occurred to me, proper to be recommended by Congress to the State Legislatures, are these:
First, That there be prefixed to the constitution a declaration, that all power is originally rested in, and consequently derived from, the people.
That Government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their Government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.
Secondly, That in article 1st, section 2, clause 3, these words be struck out, to wit:
"The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative, and until such enumeration shall be made;" and that in place thereof be inserted these words, to wit: "After the first actual enumeration, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number amounts to —, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that the number shall never be less than —, nor more than —, but each State shall, after the first enumeration, have at least two Representatives; and prior thereto."
Thirdly, That in article 1st, section 6, clause 1, there be added to the end of the first sentence, these words, to wit: "But no law varying the compensation last ascertained shall operate before the next ensuing election of Representatives."
Fourthly, That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
Madison's Introduction of the Bill of Rights - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
I've read it numerous times...Like it or not (and I don't) that's how the ruling has been applied.
Actually, it's not the law.
Santa Clara is in fact the law, but it was not decided on 14th Amendment grounds. It has been cited as such, but read the decision and you see it was decided under statutory grounds, not Constiutional ones. The 14th issues were never reached.
Read it for yourself, you've already posted the link so I know you know where to find it.
The fact that it's been misused and cited as Constitutional authority instead of a statutory decision is appalling, but doesn't change the fact that relying on it is a fiction.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse for ordinary citizens. Too bad it seems to be an excuse for the judiciary in this case, eh?
Yurt
Gold Member
political parties are similar corporations, why not ban them from political speech?
http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.pdf
Political parties are for the most part regulated quite heavily as to what they can and cannot do.
Yurt
Gold Member
Actually, it's not the law.
Santa Clara is in fact the law, but it was not decided on 14th Amendment grounds. It has been cited as such, but read the decision and you see it was decided under statutory grounds, not Constiutional ones. The 14th issues were never reached.
Read it for yourself, you've already posted the link so I know you know where to find it.
The fact that it's been misused and cited as Constitutional authority instead of a statutory decision is appalling, but doesn't change the fact that relying on it is a fiction.
The Supreme Court ruled on an obscure taxation issue in the Santa Clara County vs. The Union Pacific Railroad case, but the Recorder of the court -- a man named J. C. Bancroft Davis, himself formerly the president of a small railroad -- wrote into his personal commentary of the case (known as a headnote) that the Chief Justice had said that all the Justices agreed that corporations are persons.
And in so doing, he -- not the Supreme Court, but its clerical recorder -- inserted a statement that would change history and give corporations enormous powers that were not granted by Congress, not granted by the voters, and not even granted by the Supreme Court. Davis's headnote, which had no legal standing, was taken as precedent by generations of jurists (including the Supreme Court) who followed and apparently read the headnote but not the decision.
What is especially ironic about this is that Davis knew the Court had not ruled on this issue. We found a handwritten note in the J.C. Bancroft Davis collection in the Library of Congress, from Chief Justice Waite to reporter Davis, explicitly saying, "we did not meet the constitutional issues in the case." (In other words, the Court had decided the case on lesser grounds, which it always prefers to do when possible.)
Yet Davis wrote that the constitutional issue of corporate personhood had been decided, and his headnote was published the year Waite died, most likely after Waite's death. The railroads were persons, he wrote (in the headnote), implying that they're entitled to the same rights as persons. And Davis attributed this new legal reality to Chief Justice Waite who had specifically, in writing, disavowed it (although that note wouldn't become public for over a hundred years -- it's now on my Web site).
Corporations Are People, Too
Yurt
Gold Member
that doesn't take away from the fact they can give money to candidates and create political advertisements...
that is the issue...if organizations as large as the DNC or RNC are entitled to 1st amendment protections re political speech, so should corps....
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Good 1, Yurt.
Actually, it's not the law.
Santa Clara is in fact the law, but it was not decided on 14th Amendment grounds. It has been cited as such, but read the decision and you see it was decided under statutory grounds, not Constiutional ones. The 14th issues were never reached.
Read it for yourself, you've already posted the link so I know you know where to find it.
The fact that it's been misused and cited as Constitutional authority instead of a statutory decision is appalling, but doesn't change the fact that relying on it is a fiction.
The Supreme Court ruled on an obscure taxation issue in the Santa Clara County vs. The Union Pacific Railroad case, but the Recorder of the court -- a man named J. C. Bancroft Davis, himself formerly the president of a small railroad -- wrote into his personal commentary of the case (known as a headnote) that the Chief Justice had said that all the Justices agreed that corporations are persons.
And in so doing, he -- not the Supreme Court, but its clerical recorder -- inserted a statement that would change history and give corporations enormous powers that were not granted by Congress, not granted by the voters, and not even granted by the Supreme Court. Davis's headnote, which had no legal standing, was taken as precedent by generations of jurists (including the Supreme Court) who followed and apparently read the headnote but not the decision.
What is especially ironic about this is that Davis knew the Court had not ruled on this issue. We found a handwritten note in the J.C. Bancroft Davis collection in the Library of Congress, from Chief Justice Waite to reporter Davis, explicitly saying, "we did not meet the constitutional issues in the case." (In other words, the Court had decided the case on lesser grounds, which it always prefers to do when possible.)
Yet Davis wrote that the constitutional issue of corporate personhood had been decided, and his headnote was published the year Waite died, most likely after Waite's death. The railroads were persons, he wrote (in the headnote), implying that they're entitled to the same rights as persons. And Davis attributed this new legal reality to Chief Justice Waite who had specifically, in writing, disavowed it (although that note wouldn't become public for over a hundred years -- it's now on my Web site).
Corporations Are People, Too
Nice find!
What a lot of people forget is the Courts' decisions are largely researched and written not by the Justices and Judges but by clerks and interns in their employ. The boss tells them what they want to say, and it's the peons' job to go find it.
It's not surprising that cases are sometimes misused, but that doesn't change what they mean. The systematic, or maybe habitual, misuse of certain cases is appalling sloppiness - or to the cynic, political hackery. Either way, reliance on Santa Clara for bestowing 14th Amendment rights on corporate entities is a fiction.
A collection of people, whether it is a union, an activist rights group, a privately owned company, or a large corporation, have a right to voice their opinion at their own expense.
The people themselves do. The fictional entity does not. Or rather now it does, but it should not.
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Sorry Dude, I believe you.
You're not the only one arguing Santa Clara around here on all these threads though. In fact I believe it was cited in the decision that caused all this ruckus in the first place. You know, the one that's so "correct" according to some other posters. Just sayin'.
So in other words a collection of people should not have a voice. And what exactly is a "fictional entity"? Are you now trying to say that companies and unions don't really exist?
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,273
- 1,283
- Banned
- #457
Who is allowed to own an American corporation?
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Arguing it as the relevant case, viz. corporate "persons", still doesn't equal approval.Sorry Dude, I believe you.
You're not the only one arguing Santa Clara around here on all these threads though. In fact I believe it was cited in the decision that caused all this ruckus in the first place. You know, the one that's so "correct" according to some other posters. Just sayin'.
Just sayin'.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON v. BELLOTTI, 435 U.S. 765 (1978)
Freedom of the press is a `fundamental personal right' which `is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. . . . The press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.' . . . The informative function asserted by representatives of the organized press . . . is also performed by lecturers, political pollsters, novelists, academic researchers, and dramatists. Almost any author may quite accurately assert that he is contributing to the flow [435 U.S. 765, 802] of information to the public . . . ." Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 704 -705 (1972), quoting Lovell v. Griffin, supra, at 450, 452.
The meaning of the Press Clause, as a provision separate and apart from the Speech Clause, is implicated only indirectly by this case. Yet Massachusetts' position poses serious questions. The evolution of traditional newspapers into modern corporate conglomerates in which the daily dissemination of news by print is no longer the major part of the whole enterprise suggests the need for caution in limiting the First Amendment rights of corporations as such. Thus, the tentative probings of this brief inquiry are wholly consistent, I think, with the Court's refusal to sustain 8's serious and potentially dangerous restriction on the freedom of political speech.
Because the First Amendment was meant to guarantee freedom to express and communicate ideas, I can see no difference between the right of those who seek to disseminate ideas by way of a newspaper and those who give lectures or speeches and seek to enlarge the audience by publication and wide dissemination. "[T]he purpose of the Constitution was not to erect the press into a privileged institution but to protect all persons in their right to print what they will as well as to utter it. `. . . the liberty of the press is no greater and no less . . .' than the liberty of every citizen of the Republic." Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 364 (1946) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
In short, the First Amendment does not "belong" to any definable category of persons or entities: It belongs to all who exercise its freedoms.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
CITIZENS UNITED v . FEDERAL ELECTION
COMMISSION
(b) The Court has recognized that the First Amendment applies to corporations, e.g., First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti , 435 U. S. 765
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N
The first case should shed some light as to the reasoning behind the most recent decision, while the first one was also a split decision, and I remain of the same opinion, this perhaps will help both sides in the argument.
Freedom of the press is a `fundamental personal right' which `is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. . . . The press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.' . . . The informative function asserted by representatives of the organized press . . . is also performed by lecturers, political pollsters, novelists, academic researchers, and dramatists. Almost any author may quite accurately assert that he is contributing to the flow [435 U.S. 765, 802] of information to the public . . . ." Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 704 -705 (1972), quoting Lovell v. Griffin, supra, at 450, 452.
The meaning of the Press Clause, as a provision separate and apart from the Speech Clause, is implicated only indirectly by this case. Yet Massachusetts' position poses serious questions. The evolution of traditional newspapers into modern corporate conglomerates in which the daily dissemination of news by print is no longer the major part of the whole enterprise suggests the need for caution in limiting the First Amendment rights of corporations as such. Thus, the tentative probings of this brief inquiry are wholly consistent, I think, with the Court's refusal to sustain 8's serious and potentially dangerous restriction on the freedom of political speech.
Because the First Amendment was meant to guarantee freedom to express and communicate ideas, I can see no difference between the right of those who seek to disseminate ideas by way of a newspaper and those who give lectures or speeches and seek to enlarge the audience by publication and wide dissemination. "[T]he purpose of the Constitution was not to erect the press into a privileged institution but to protect all persons in their right to print what they will as well as to utter it. `. . . the liberty of the press is no greater and no less . . .' than the liberty of every citizen of the Republic." Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 364 (1946) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
In short, the First Amendment does not "belong" to any definable category of persons or entities: It belongs to all who exercise its freedoms.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
CITIZENS UNITED v . FEDERAL ELECTION
COMMISSION
(b) The Court has recognized that the First Amendment applies to corporations, e.g., First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti , 435 U. S. 765
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N
The first case should shed some light as to the reasoning behind the most recent decision, while the first one was also a split decision, and I remain of the same opinion, this perhaps will help both sides in the argument.
Of course a collection of people should have a voice. But a corporation exists solely on paper, as a result of filing another piece of paper and paying a State a fee. Don't make the mistake of confusing the legal entity that is a "corporation" with the people who happen to own pieces of it, or do work under its auspices.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Jeanine Pirro’s appointment as U.S. attorney might not be legal- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 0
-
Thai girls dance to Antisemitc dance song and solute H- Started by Quasar44
- Replies: 1
-
A question for the people who are skilled with the computer
- Started by MayorQuimby
- Replies: 0
-
-
The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World
- Started by MayorQuimby
- Replies: 0
