Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

PoiBoy

(1,542 posts)
14. I totally agree...
Tue Feb 28, 2017, 04:56 PM
Feb 2017

..however, if I understand correctly, it never was "legal".. correct..?

That’s it. A clerk’s personal opinion, carrying no weight of law and misinterpreting what the court said—this is the pillar on which rests today’s practically limitless assertions of corporate “rights".

What made it "legitimate" was the concept of precedence...

At the very least, this is a wrinkle in the normal understanding of the workings of the Court's tradition of stare decisis – the reliance on precedence. It is an instance in which a statement which is neither part of the ruling of the Court, nor part of the opinion of a majority or dissenting minority of the Court has been taken as precedent for subsequent decisions of the Court.

It seems to me that once the Corporate gained "personhood", there was no need for any quid pro quo on their behalf... in other words "Eff off America...we got ours so FU..."

Thank you for your posts... As the myth of personhood is a particular peeve of mine I'm trying to understand how to fight back and your posts are very informative...



Latest Discussions»General Discussion»How Did We The People Los...»Reply #14