It's official: A Corporation is running for Congress!

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.

U.C.C. law is Area 51 law.... DMZ citizens don't need to deal with it.

Learn that in traffic court.

The Supreme Court acted outside its jurisdiction and mandate and extended the Constitutional Rights of individual Persons to corporations.

As "persons" with the Constitutional Rights of individuals, corporations have the Right to run for office - not just to buy politicians and the US political process.

Time to speak up and fight back.

More info here: Americans: Supreme Court got it wrong! 80 Percent oppose ruling!

Sign petition here: Move to Amend

...The petition is online at movetoamend.org

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.

Let's end this.

Hmm.

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.

You are really scraping the bottom of the scare tactics barrel with that one.

reply to post by soficrow


Not really any scare tactic, it's just more of a reflection of how badly the language has become and misused.

I see a suffix, a prefix, and a root word, and some dictionary that describe such combination of those in a way that is totally off from the precursory definition. I consider it lost truth.

It's rather stupid to vote to have "no skin" and the word "corporal" isn't even that archaic to describe body in such a way.

That's why I mentioned the distinction between "corporation" and "incorporated" as these are quite different in all their meanings of the words.

I do not accept a word for some "oh, but we mean this particular meaning of the word" excuse in legal text because that is the most common way the legal system as become a mess. I've seen laws pass for "one reason" and they get used in the end "to the full extent of the law."

If we know these words are going to be used to to fullest, then I know better not to be so stupid to listen to some lawyer lies that they mean any less.

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]

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 doctrine of corporate personhood is no doubt a dubious doctrine, but it does not at all help the cause of reigning in corporations to obey the limits imposed upon them by their charters. Perpetuating false data only undermines your own cause. The actual formality of "defining" a corporation as a "person" began first in England in 1844 and 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. It was remarked upon and made distinct in its dicta that it was not holding. Dicta is not holding, and the Supreme Court Justices of Santa Clara County never held that corporations were persons. There are many mistakes of fact and misconceptions put out as fact, and the mistake of fact that the only legal document that defines corporation as "person" would be the U.S. Code is now just one more of them.

Indeed the very etymology of the word corporate gives insight into its basic purpose. Corporate or corporation is derived from its Latin root of Corpus to become corporatus meaning "to form into one body". 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. We the people can come together in order to form a more perfect union and forge a government with the intent of creating a governing body that would protect the rights of the individual while establishing justice and providing for the common defense, among other things.

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 the whole question of "judicial review" which would be the very doctrine relied upon when the SCOTUS struck down Section 441b of the BPFRA, has been a controversial one since Marbury v. Madison, when Chief Justice John Marshall first declared the authority of judicial review as being implicit in the Constitution. However, since that ruling the courts have relied heavily upon judicial review to keep both the legislative bodies and the executive branches in line with the Constitution. Which is what the majority ruling argued in Citizens United, that Congress had overstepped its own jurisdiction and could not make the kind of laws they were guilty of legislating with Section 441b.

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.

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 ...

Obviously, I was referring to legal documents in the USA.

There is no doubt that TPTB started positioning long ago to replace monarchies with corporations as "front" institutions to rule for them.

But whatever 'rulings' England and the Catholic Church made with respect to corporations, said rulings have no standing in US law.

True - US law, and historical convention, recognize corporations as persons - but only for the express and limited purpose of conducting activities necessary to do business.

Current (and past) travesties push the window. The recent Supreme Court ruling is meant as the endgame to secure absolute power for corporations over the nation's government.

The doctrine of corporate personhood is no doubt a dubious doctrine,

No doubt.

...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.

Thank you for bringing that important fact to light.

To clarify - you say the "dicta is not holding." Which dicta? Both can be said to exist:

a. Corporations do NOT have the rights of persons - but corporate lawyers have successfully argued that the Santa Clara ruling is not a legitimate precedent?
...or,
b. Corporations DO have the rights of persons - but democratic lawyers have successfully argued that the definition does NOT extend to Constitutional Rights?

You entered this thread beginning with the erroneous claim that corporations were just now and sneakily so attempting to gain more power.

Nope. My thesis always has been that replacing monarchies and other forms of government with corporations is the strategy. ...Check my old threads.

My claim is, and was, that this "move" by the Supreme Court is the endgame.

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.

Agreed - except that it's not the 'corporations' that are seeking more power and wealth, but rather, the people behind the world's key corporations.

...The American Revolution and the concept of "democracy" put a real crimp in their plans - held them up for what? about 200 years?

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.

Semantics, referring to external quotes, but point taken. However,

...Are you implying that corporations have inalienable rights? ...Or that the Constitution itself implies that corporations have inalienable rights?

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.

Marbury and Marshall's rulings are irrelevant - there is no relevant US legislation to strike down OR uphold.

Or - are you seriously suggesting that the US Supreme Court accept rulings from the Catholic Church and England's courts as pertinent to the interpretation of US Constitutional Law?










[edit on 25-2-2010 by soficrow]

reply to post by soficrow


While it is good that we can both find agreement in the undeniable truth that corporatism and the rise of the multinational corporation is a major problem and can act as a major obstruction to justice and freedom, it is also why I labor so hard to challenge the assertions you've made outside of this one we do agree upon. Corporations, and for the United States particularly those multinational corporations that obtained charters from outside the U.S., have for many, many, years influenced the legislative process, zealously advocating and ensuring local, state and federal governments created "licensing laws" to do business, regulatory agencies to ensure these businesses abide by the terms of their license or charter, if you will.

Corporations love regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration who demand a rigorous testing method before approving any product, which makes certain products to cost prohibitive for smaller competitors, allowing only the elite to play in the markets of these particular products. Indeed, there has been a great and ceaseless push by major pharmaceutical companies who lobby, unabashedly so, for stricter regulations on vitamins, herbs and minerals...even water! A discussion of that topic can be read in this very site ATS in a thread here.

Compare the above article and thread to an article on the web by www.cbsnews.com... and you get a glimmer of how influential corporatism is and just how hard they are working at gaining complete control of the world markets, which include the political theaters across the world. This rise of multinational corporatism has been an ongoing problem for a number of years and existed long before the SCOTUS made their ruling on Citizens United.

Your outlandish claim that this SCOTUS ruling is the "endgame" to some sort of corporate strategy to usurp national, even state and local, politics, would require that the, at the very least, five Supreme Court Justices who held that Section 441b of the BPCFR was unconstitutional and struck it down, did so in order to fulfill some nefarious corporate strategy. In fact, so disrespectful to, not just the five Supreme Court Justices who held this matter, but to the rule of law, is this argument that it demands a proper challenge.

You have taken the one argument I was willing to concede had validity and worth consideration that you have made, that being the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and declared it irrelevant. In your own words you state:

"Marbury and Marshall's rulings are irrelevant - there is no relevant US legislation to strike down OR uphold."

What is anyone who knows what the Citizens United ruling held, supposed to make of that claim. Are you suggesting the Sections of the Bi Partisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, struck down as unconstitutional, had no relevance to the Case brought before the Supreme Court? Just what precisely do you mean there is no relevant U.S. legislation to strike down or uphold? Have you actually read the ruling? Do you even know what was held?

Reading Case Law is not nearly as difficult as one might imagine and can very often be quite illuminating and some of the best sources of legal education one could hope for. Understanding Case Law requires tenacity and a willingness to do the necessary research. Understanding any particular Case means necessarily reading that Case as any opinions held about the Citizens United Case by those who couldn't be bothered to actually read the Case, are not informed opinions.

Understanding any case law requires the modicum of understanding a certain amount of legalese. Simple words like dicta and holding, can become misunderstood and lead to misinterpretations of law and mistakes of fact. When I made the distinction between Dicta and holding in regards to the Santa Clara County Case, I was referring to an off hand remark the Justice delivering the opinion made regarding the so called "personhood" of corporations. While he made clear that the Court was making no such ruling, Chief Justice Morrison Waite opined that he and the other Justices were inclined to view corporations as a person.

This passing remark by Chief Justice Waite, this obiter dictum, if you will, was picked up on by a court reporter, one J.C. Bankcroft Davis, who wrote the following as part of his headnotes:

"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."

The above quote can found within the ruling of Santa Clara County, but it is not what was held and is merely obiter dictum. That it was reported the way it was in a headnote by a court reporter is generally viewed as the source to all the confusion on what the Courts have held in regards to corporate personhood. Indeed, subsequent courts have relied upon that dictum as if it were holding, thus; long before the recent SCOTUS ruling of Citizens United, the courts were all ready viewing corporations as "persons" and affording them equal protection under the law.

The disrespect to the Justices who ruled on Citizens United and even the disrespect for the rule of law becomes evident when not only what was held is ignored in favor of histrionics, but also what gets ignored is the First Amendment and its clear text and meaning. The Citizens United Court did strike down as unconstitutional Section 441b of the BPCFR and they did so by relying heavily upon the language of the First Amendment to do so.

In fact, so reliant upon that First Amendment were they, the dissent made a point to acknowledge the great pains by which the five who ruled took to express as authority the First Amendment, and in doing so bordered on complaining of those great pains made. The Language of the First Amendment is clear, and it seems to me that we both agree that the First Amendment is not granting any rights to anyone, and since it is not granting rights it makes no effort at all at distinguishing who or what gets those rights. What is made clear is that Congress is prohibited from making any laws that abrogate or derogate the rights listed in the First Amendment.

In striking contrast to legislation that would grant persons a certain privilege, The First Amendment is not an Act of legislation granting anything at all, but instead it is an Act of Prohibition, and it is Congress who has been restrained by this Amendment. Congress ignored those restraints when they legislated parts of the BPCFR that endeavored to "chill speech". The SCOTUS relied upon their power of judicial review to strike down this legislation as abhorrent to the First Amendment and it was legislation abhorrent to the First Amendment. Congress is the one who lacked jurisdiction when they legislated Section 441b of the BPCFR and it became the Courts job to point that out and strike down what was illegal to begin with.

That is and has been since the ruling was delivered, the fact of the matter regarding the recent SCOTUS ruling. No rights were granted to anyone or anything because of this ruling, and the whole granting of rights thing is a favorite meme of certain politicos they love to keep out in the peoples consciousness.

RE: There is no relevant US legislation to strike down OR uphold.


Our Founding Fathers did not consider corporations to be persons, certainly not persons with Constitutional Rights - corporations are NOT included either in the letter or intent of the law.

A Constitutional Amendment is required to recognize that corporations have the Constitutional Rights of persons - reference to conventions, precedents and case law review don't cut it, no matter how lengthy they might be.

There is no relevant Constitutional Amendment. The 14th Amendment refers to human ex-slaves, NOT corporations.

Bump.

This issue needs to be remembered - not forgotten.

True, it's kind of old news - but still important.

LoL well they can, remember the Supreme court ruled that a corporation is entitled the same rights as a "Person"

Maybe someone can help.

If a corporation is now being considered equal as to an individual, then does an individual by default have then the same rights that a corporation has?

If so, what rights does a corporation have that we the individuals may want? Tax exemptions under many guises for a start...