Posted on 01/23/2010 3:00:57 AM PST by free1977free
Counting the majority opinion and the various partial concurrences and dissents, today’s landmark First Amendment decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission clocks in a hefty 183-pages. But one thing that jumped right out while reading the dissent (it’s also a concurrence, in parts) written by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor, is Stevens' angry tone. He calls the idea that the First Amendment forbids distinctions between individuals and individuals organized as a corporation “a glittering generality” with no foundation in the law, and later declares, “Under the majority's view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.” Well!
But most significantly, Stevens accuses the majority of making “only a perfunctory attempt to ground its analysis in the principles or understandings of those who drafted and ratified the Amendment.” Stevens even cites the influential legal conservative Judge Robert Bork to impugn the majority’s originalist credentials. That's not something you see everyday.
Justice Antonin Scalia, however, isn’t having it:
I write separately to address JUSTICE STEVENS’ discussion of “Original Understandings”... This section of [Stevens'] dissent purports to show that today’s decision is not supported by the original understanding of the First Amendment. The dissent attempts this demonstration, however, in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment. It never shows why “the freedom of speech” that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form. To be sure, in 1791 (as now) corporations could pursue only the objectives set forth in their charters; but the dissent provides no evidence that their speech in the pursuit of those objectives could be censored....
The [First] Amendment is written in terms of "speech," not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals--and the dissent offers no evidence about the original meaning of the text to support any such exclusion. We are therefore simply left with the question whether the speech at issue in this case is "speech" covered by the First Amendment. No one says otherwise.
Bush Jr. to his credit gave us Alito and Roberts but to our chagrin, gave us big government debt serving up a tax-increase excuse for the liberals.
Reagan gets credit for fighting through the liberals and his own party to give us a significant tax decrease - I think the greatest tax decrease in history. The road to economic health is always limited government and low taxes. Reagan did it and America experienced an unprecedented 20-year economic boon. Bush Sr, didn't get it and his "read my lips" proposed tax increase brought in Clinton who was smart enough to leave things basically alone (too busy with Lewinsky, I guess).
Geez. Nothing like having sitting Justices be painfully ignorant of basic legal concepts.
136. Persons-
This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons.
2.It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and the Laws of the United States of America and of the Several States of the American Union, by John Bouvier. Revised Sixth Edition, 1856.
Scalia was nominated by Reagan, but Thomas was nominated by GHWB.
Just wanted a post on this thread, since I think THIS SCOTUS ruling might be, in the end, even more important that the MA Results!
Reagan also nominated Douglas Ginsburg, but the Democratic controlled Senate refused to confirm him because he had once smoked pot.
Unfortunately, the majority opinion by the unreliable Kennedy, leaves partially intact, the forced disclosure of campaign contributions.
Two comments:
1 - God bless Thomas - his words are few but always on point.
2 - The admonition attributed to Jefferson : "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Obviously there's more to be done to overturn these hideous contribution regulations.
SCOTUS ruling good, but not good enough (see post 26).
One is an M1A and one is a little gun with a cork and a string attaching the cork to the gun... so you don’t lose it.
LLS
Scalia alone destroys the combined Colossal Ignorance of the Leftist pack of Buffoons
Scalia to Stephens: “This is sophistry.”
OUCH! That will leave a mark!
Reagan nominated Scalia. Bush I nominated Thomas.
OUCH! That will leave a mark!
Sorry
But I bet that Stevens didn’t have a problem with the UNIONS skating. The Leftists are everything for me and nothing for thee. Sooooo transparent.
Sure. If you read the decision, you can understand that the dissenting opinion by Stevens et al. is only about the role of corporation in our society.
The idea that corporations have some degree of civil rights has some rather bizarre origins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad
The US Supreme Court decision in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (1886), was a minor case dealing with taxation of railroad properties.
As such, it was just another case out of the pile, until it was time for the Supreme Court court reporter to write up a summary that would be published throughout the US, to explain the decision.
He wrote, “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.”
But this statement, or anything like it, did not exist in the actual decision rendered by the court. In other words, as such, it was wholly the opinion of the court reporter, not the Supreme Court!
To his credit, the court reporter then sent a memo to the Chief Justice, asking if this was indeed the opinion of the court, to which he replied:
“I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.”
So even the Chief Justice blew off putting the idea in *his* own name, leaving the credit with the court reporter.
The case is most notable for the obiter dictum statement that corporations are entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Amendment_to_the_US_Constitution
However, by 1949, Justice William O. Douglas wrote that, “the Santa Clara case becomes one of the most momentous of all our decisions... Corporations were now armed with constitutional prerogatives.”
This is now such a troubling situation, that there is some talk of a constitutional amendment to specifically *strip* corporations of any perceived civil rights, which would require a rewriting of the vast majority of the corporate law which exists in the US.
It is noteworthy that all that is currently required of a corporation to have the equivalent of US “citizenship”, is registration in any US State. This means that foreign corporations with no loyalty to the US, as well as racketeering shell corporations.
One of the few things he did right.
So what? They can’t vote. Who cares if they are foreign corporations? Citizenship? LOL With millions of illegal aliens, who cares about a few corporations? I would rather have foreign corporations doing business here than millions of illegals sucking on the tit.
Bottom line is this: Liberal heads are exploding because they won’t be able to game the system like they did to get Odumbass elected. They wanted an Oligarchy and this throws a monkey wrench into their takeover. Screw ‘em.
Bush I nominated Thomas.
__________________________________
One of the few things he did right.
__________________________________
I was going to be snarky and say we got lucky that the best Republican judge in the country was a conservative since Bush was just looking for the minority check mark, but Bush I also appointed Thomas to the court of appeals. So he really did a lot for Thomas.
The trouble is that when corporations are chartered by States, but then operate nationally or internationally, in past they have argued that State laws do not apply to them. So, for example, they cannot be zoned or regulated, may pollute at will, as long as it is within federal standards.
In effect, joining their corporate person-hood with the interstate commerce act, or even the prerogatives of foreign governments. And while they technically are like a person under the law, as proxy organizations, no one is easily held criminally responsible for criminal acts.
Having broad assets, if they are sued in court, they can delay the proceedings indefinitely, until their opponent dies or gives up. This costs the taxpayers endless millions of dollars.
Far more serious are when corporations buy elected officials, at all levels. During the Clinton years, an internal executive memo was leaked from Tyson Corporation, detailing a complete list of Arkansas State office holders, and the amounts of bribes to be given to each one.
In truth, corporate person-hood is potentially far worse than illegal aliens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.