The dissent says that “ ‘speech’ ” refers to oral communications of human beings, and since corporations are not human beings they cannot speak. Post, at 37, n. 55. This is sophistry. The authorized spokesman of a corporation is a human being, who speaks on behalf of the human beings who have formed that association—just as the spokesman of an unincorporated association speaks on behalf of its members.
Like they used to say in Mad Magazine...Yecccch!
If the combat between Scalia and Stevens is judged by intellect, logic, clarity (and truth), Scalia is the tiger and Stevens is the meal. It is such a joy to read Scalia’s opinions.
Didn't Reagan nominate Scalia and Thomas? Since the ObamaMarxists, with Bush's help, have all but obliterated 20 years of Reagan's REAL economic recovery, at least Reagan lives on through the grace of having theses justices as the vanguard of upholding the Constitution against the traitors and tyrants in our midst.
Scalia is, as always, dead on.
The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
It does not grant a right to free speech to individual persons, as the left has argued. It restricts congress from making any law prohibiting or abridging the freedom of speech. Period. The First Amendment is not about what people may or may not do. It is about what congress may or may not do.
“No law means no law.” - Hugo Black
Seems pretty simple if they could all just get their fingers off.
And the FCC should be confined to purely technical issues where signals cross state lines.
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.
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!
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 to Stephens: “This is sophistry.”
OUCH! That will leave a mark!
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.
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.
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.
I am thrilled!
I have been hoping someone would post the pdf file.
Thank you, free1977free!!!!