General Discussion

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)

51. Not really. A lot of that descends from a note attached to Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific.

Wed Sep 10, 2014, 03:56 PM

Sep 2014

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 US 394 (1886) was a matter brought before the United States Supreme Court which dealt with taxation of railroad properties. A headnote issued by the Court Reporter claimed to state the sense of the Court regarding the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as it applies to corporations, without the Court having actually made a decision or issued a written opinion on that issue. This was the first time that the Supreme Court was reported to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause granted constitutional protections to corporations as well as to natural persons, although numerous other cases, since Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819, had recognized that corporations were entitled to some of the protections of the Constitution.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

104 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The ACLU and Citizens United (note: they oppose the constitutional amendment to overturn CU) [View all] kelly1mm Sep 2014 OP

The question is are corporations people? still_one Sep 2014 #1

And the answer is 100% yes. They always have been. That was not the new part of CU Recursion Sep 2014 #17

but can a corporation serve time in jail? still_one Sep 2014 #22

No more than a real human can be dissolved Recursion Sep 2014 #24

Are corporations often dissolved in this way? Orrex Sep 2014 #37

Arthur Andersen (nt) Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #40

So... Just one. Not much of a deterrent, I should think. Orrex Sep 2014 #42

This is obviously incorrect, as Citizens United was decided in 2010. nt Romulox Sep 2014 #33

Citizens United was not the first time corporations were called people Recursion Sep 2014 #38

For limited matters, Recursion. Not in all things. Read the case law more carefully, please. nt Romulox Sep 2014 #48

If you count the tail as a leg, how many legs does a donkey have? immoderate Sep 2014 #103

Not really. A lot of that descends from a note attached to Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific. Jackpine Radical Sep 2014 #51

Not "always." The notion that corporations have all the same rights as tblue37 Sep 2014 #62

But until that court reporter included that point in his headnote to his summary, tblue37 Sep 2014 #64

No, the question is whether corporations are part of "the press." eallen Sep 2014 #21

The Founders knew what corporations were, and didn't mention them in the Bill of Rights. nt Romulox Sep 2014 #34

They mentioned "the press" explicitly. Which was businesses, then. eallen Sep 2014 #35

Then it is reasonable that they considered the matter, and limited the 1st Amendment's protections Romulox Sep 2014 #47

Your definition of "the press" is circular eallen Sep 2014 #55

And that is why their fund rasing mailers go straight into my garbage can bluestateguy Sep 2014 #2

that makes no sense. La Lioness Priyanka Sep 2014 #3

Talking about throwing physical mail into the trash and not recycling bin. NuclearDem Sep 2014 #7

i got that. still makes no sense though. La Lioness Priyanka Sep 2014 #39

Their entire premise is flawed. Like PETA, they are quickly sabotaging their own organization. Mercy_Queen Sep 2014 #4

The ACLU marym625 Sep 2014 #29

90+% of the time I agree with the ACLU but not on this, money is not speech and Uncle Joe Sep 2014 #5

The ACLU is fighting internally on this marym625 Sep 2014 #30

An amendment would also curtail their spending........(nt) jeff47 Sep 2014 #6

Whttevrrr, aclu. "unfortunately" for you.. not for those of us who give a damn about Democracy. Cha Sep 2014 #8

unbelievable. aclu thinks that corporations are people? i will withhold my donations spanone Sep 2014 #9

Money is not speech BrotherIvan Sep 2014 #10

So if the Republicans passed a law that banned unions from spending money on political campaigning, Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #12

All campaigns should be publicly financed BrotherIvan Sep 2014 #13

You didn't really answer the question, now did you? Hrmm. n/t X_Digger Sep 2014 #15

If it was too subtle, the answer is yes BrotherIvan Sep 2014 #20

So you are proposing essentially abolishing the First Amendment. Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #26

Do you think the 1st Amendment was essentially abolished before CU? kcr Sep 2014 #91

BrotherIvan was proposing a system that went way, way beyond the pre-CU era. Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #93

Should Congress be able to cap my donations to DU? (nt) Recursion Sep 2014 #18

DU is not a candidate and you are paying for a service BrotherIvan Sep 2014 #19

So you are OK with unlimited independent expenditures? Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #25

Paper is not speech, and nor is electricity. Donald Ian Rankin Sep 2014 #23

Exactly. By that logic NYC Liberal Sep 2014 #49

The proposed amendment would allow Congress to ban books. Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #11

How did it work before Citizens United? BrotherIvan Sep 2014 #14

The case was about a smear "documentary" about HRC Recursion Sep 2014 #31

There is no government crackdown on actual speech BrotherIvan Sep 2014 #46

Many posters are extrapolating via fiction, your opinion to frame it in their terms. LanternWaste Sep 2014 #54

That's a good post, LanternWaste, I agree. Uncle Joe Sep 2014 #102

This is not about "money to candidates". Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #94

No, it didn't say anything about money to candidates Recursion Sep 2014 #95

Well-meaning but naive amendments would do more harm than good. X_Digger Sep 2014 #16

Not exactly true. There is a deep rift at the ACLU marym625 Sep 2014 #27

No, it is exactly true. While certainly there is disagreement with the ACLU's official position kelly1mm Sep 2014 #44

I just got off the phone with both the National office marym625 Sep 2014 #45

The link is still on their website, is it not? Is that not the ACLU's national website? kelly1mm Sep 2014 #50

It's not marym625 Sep 2014 #56

If you say so. However, I hope you told them that if they have an official website kelly1mm Sep 2014 #58

I specifically mentioned DU and the disagreements happening because of it marym625 Sep 2014 #60

On more thing - IF they chage their position as described on their website I will post the updated kelly1mm Sep 2014 #59

It's all good marym625 Sep 2014 #61

Well, time to stop donating to the ACLU. MohRokTah Sep 2014 #28

I stopped donating when the ACLU rushed to defend Rush Limbaugh. I know what the official BlueCaliDem Sep 2014 #79

Yep, they defended the Klan's right to march, too. Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #84

I remember that. They even made a telelvision movie out of it, "Skokie". BlueCaliDem Sep 2014 #96

There's a distinct line between "consistent" Blue_Tires Sep 2014 #32

True, Sir The Magistrate Sep 2014 #36

Some people hate the ACLU because they defended the right of the KKK to march. Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #41

Can you please tell me which books and movies were banned before Citizen's United? Bjorn Against Sep 2014 #57

"Hillary: the Movie" was banned. That's what the Citizens United case was all about. Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #63

No Hillary the movie was not banned Bjorn Against Sep 2014 #65

Yes-folks-the-Obama-administration-is-arguing-it-has-the-power-to-ban-books Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #67

No, they could distribute it all they had to do was follow campaign finance laws Bjorn Against Sep 2014 #70

Nye, it's been an amazing run.... ProudToBeBlueInRhody Sep 2014 #66

By agreeing with the ACLU's position on this issue? Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #68

I looked up the source for that second link, it was written by Sarah Palin's Lt. Governor Bjorn Against Sep 2014 #71

Here's a Daily Kos link: Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #72

So you have Sarah Palin's Lt. Governor and an anonymous blogger on your side Bjorn Against Sep 2014 #73

How about the "New Yorker"? Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #75

Well now that you finally show what he said, it turns out he said the opposite of what you claimed Bjorn Against Sep 2014 #78

Well... he said "I'm not saying it could be banned" Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #80

Once again he explicitly said he was NOT saying books could be banned Bjorn Against Sep 2014 #86

"Some limits on financing of campaign books". Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #87

I believe there should be limits on campaign spending Bjorn Against Sep 2014 #88

We have to agree to disagree then. I don't think there should be any limitations, ever, on pamphlets Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #89

Of course I never said any of that and you created a huge strawman to misrepresent me Bjorn Against Sep 2014 #90

"Some limits on financing of campaign books" Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #92

Thank you for your arguments BrotherIvan Sep 2014 #97

The ACLU does lots of good work despite their position on this one issue. Comrade Grumpy Sep 2014 #43

I agree tazkcmo Sep 2014 #53

God Bless the ACLU, I wouldnt have them be any other way, even if they are wrong this time randys1 Sep 2014 #76

ACLU, MONEY IS NOT SPEECH! Money is an economic tool, not speech! Dont call me Shirley Sep 2014 #52

I'm afraid I don't agree; see #23. Donald Ian Rankin Sep 2014 #69

The words written on the paper are the speech and the words written and spoken Dont call me Shirley Sep 2014 #74

Protecting "speech" without protecting the means of speech means absolutely nothing. Donald Ian Rankin Sep 2014 #98

Which is precisely what the monopoly media is doing to the general public, preventing the Dont call me Shirley Sep 2014 #99

And you just made a statement that 2.8 billion people can see, Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #100

Yes, I had to pay to post this. I paid for the computer, the DSL, the wifi, the electricity. Dont call me Shirley Sep 2014 #104

So if a Republican congress passed a law banning unions from spending money on political campaigning Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #82

SO I guess the ACLU thinks people should be able to shout out "fire" in a crowded building too. onecaliberal Sep 2014 #77

If the building is indeed on fire, then yes, I'm sure they do (nt) Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #81

I guess I'm one of the very few DUers who strongly supports the ACLU in every position it holds (nt) Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #83

Wrong version of the amendment? ManiacJoe Sep 2014 #85

ACLU is definitely in the wrong on this bluebomber Sep 2014 #101