It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by soficrow
...Noticed you skipped right over these bits:
(The) argument ...dismisses the US Constitution outright, and disrespects the history and intent of Constitutional Law.
Originally posted by dzonatas
reply to post by soficrow
Please sign it, so we can get rid of "marriage" and all this "Mr. and Mrs." that act as an individual with all rights to each.
Originally posted by soficrow
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The list just goes on and on and on regarding long standing definitions of what a corporation is, but those who are anti-free speech, (usually the ones who like to scream "wake up"), know full well they can't just openly and blatantly speak out against free speech, so they have employed a concerted sneaky strategy to misrepresent the actual ruling of Citizens United and present it as being about something it is not. This is why they are constantly self referencing each other, only citing articles, (usually op-ed pieces) that agree with them, never once citing the ruling itself and what was held.
The only legal document that defines corporations as "persons" is the US Code, written for the express and limited purpose of "determining the meaning of any Act of Congress."
The US Constitution is NOT an "Act of Congress," nor does the Constitution define corporations as "persons," or give Constitutional Rights to corporations.
It is inappropriate - and arguably illegal - for the Supreme Court to extend a congressional definition written for congressional purposes to the Constitution. ...A Constitutional Amendment is required to extend Constitutional Rights as "persons" to corporations.
The founding fathers categorically did NOT wish corporations to be considered "persons" under law.
The founding fathers of the United States were not interested in giving constitutional rights to corporations. In fact, they wanted to regulate corporations very tightly because they had had bad experiences with corporations during colonial times. The crown charter corporations like the East India Company and the Hudson Bay Company had been the rulers of America. So when the constitution was written, corporations were left out of the Constitution. Responsibility for corporate chartering was given to the states. State governance was closer to the people and would enable them to keep an eye on corporations.
In the eighteenth century, corporations had very few of the powers that we now associate with them. They did not have limited liability. They did not have an unlimited life span. They were chartered for a limited period of time, say 10 or 20 years, and for a specific public purpose, such as building a bridge. Often a charter would require that, after a certain amount of time, the bridge or road be turned over to the state or the town in which it was built. Corporations were viewed differently in early America. They were required to serve the public good.
But over time people forgot that corporations ad been so powerful and that they needed to be strongly controlled. Also, corporations began to gain more power than the wealthy elite.
Corporations, the U.S. Constitution, and Democracy
Your argument depends on reference to common corporate usage and has nothing to do with the wishes of the American peoples' majority; it dismisses the US Constitution outright, and disrespects the history and intent of Constitutional Law.
[edit on 18-2-2010 by soficrow]
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Originally posted by soficrow
The only legal document that defines corporations as "persons" is the US Code, written for the express and limited purpose of "determining the meaning of any Act of Congress."
The US Constitution is NOT an "Act of Congress," nor does the Constitution define corporations as "persons," or give Constitutional Rights to corporations.
It is inappropriate - and arguably illegal - for the Supreme Court to extend a congressional definition written for congressional purposes to the Constitution. ...A Constitutional Amendment is required to extend Constitutional Rights as "persons" to corporations.
The founding fathers categorically did NOT wish corporations to be considered "persons" under law.
The founding fathers of the United States were not interested in giving constitutional rights to corporations. In fact, they wanted to regulate corporations very tightly because they had had bad experiences with corporations during colonial times. The crown charter corporations like the East India Company and the Hudson Bay Company had been the rulers of America. So when the constitution was written, corporations were left out of the Constitution. Responsibility for corporate chartering was given to the states. State governance was closer to the people and would enable them to keep an eye on corporations.
In the eighteenth century, corporations had very few of the powers that we now associate with them. They did not have limited liability. They did not have an unlimited life span. They were chartered for a limited period of time, say 10 or 20 years, and for a specific public purpose, such as building a bridge. Often a charter would require that, after a certain amount of time, the bridge or road be turned over to the state or the town in which it was built. Corporations were viewed differently in early America. They were required to serve the public good.
But over time people forgot that corporations ad been so powerful and that they needed to be strongly controlled. Also, corporations began to gain more power than the wealthy elite.
Corporations, the U.S. Constitution, and Democracy
Your argument depends on reference to common corporate usage and has nothing to do with the wishes of the American peoples' majority; it dismisses the US Constitution outright, and disrespects the history and intent of Constitutional Law.
[edit on 18-2-2010 by soficrow]
Your first claim that "the only legal document that defines corporations as 'persons' " is the U.S. Code is demonstrably false. History tells us a different story, and the history of the corporation runs at least as far back as The Benedictine Order of the Catholic Church in 529 AD, to the infamous rise of the East India Company, into the industrial revolution, up to today where the multinational corporation threatens a new world order never seen in the history of humanity.
... The actual formality of "defining" a corporation as a "person" began first in England in 1844 ...
The doctrine of corporate personhood is no doubt a dubious doctrine,
...it is often the year of 1886 thrown out as being the year that the U.S. Supreme Court recognized corporations has having the same rights as a person.
The 1886 ruling is Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, and nowhere in that ruling is it ever held that corporations have the same rights as a person. ...the Supreme Court Justices of Santa Clara County never held that corporations were persons.
You entered this thread beginning with the erroneous claim that corporations were just now and sneakily so attempting to gain more power.
The entire history of the corporation is about gaining more power. Whether they've done it secretly and in a sneaky way, may very well be, but that they have endeavored to accumulate wealth and power should be of no question and is self evident.
Another claim you make that gives one enormous concern is when you assert: "...nor does the Constitution define corporations as "persons," or give Constitutional Rights to corporations." The Constitution does not give rights to anyone. Rights preexist constitutions and governments and can not be given by any legal document nor granted by any other human.
...Rights that are given or granted are rights that can be taken away, and as such aren't rights at all but privileges granted one by another. As long as you believe that rights are something that can be granted by legal documents or government officials then it really doesn't matter if corporations have those same rights or not, since they are merely just privileges granted by the elite who could take them away upon a whim.
To give some merit to your arguments ...
If SCOTUS has no jurisdiction to do what they did, it is because the Marbury Court was in error and The Supreme Court does not have the Constitutional authority to strike down legislation they deem unconstitutional. If they do have jurisdiction it would be because they do have judicial review and don't presume to grant rights but uphold the law.