What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

As I said, it's your side only for now, because the money is pouring in to oppose liberal social and economic policies. But take a conservative issue like devolving law-making responsibilities from the federal to state governments. Once the fix is in and corporate lobbyists are getting everything they want from a tamed federal government, conservative candidates supporting that stance will never have a chance. For that matter, if the kleptocracy is being fed with federal dollars for social programs, those programs will never be cut.

Small government conservatives should be even more opposed to this than class warfare liberals are.

Eh, maybe so. And then I'll be quite eager to sign on to your amendment campaign.

For what it's worth, I think Newt's *****ing about getting outspent by those eeeeevil SuperPACSs and negative ads is just as insufferable as liberal *****ing. See, bipartisanship!
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Were you employed by Cornell while you were there? IMO, if Cornell U (NYS College of Agricultural & Life Science on the other side) is not a corporation, then can they cannot legally enter into an employment contract, right?

Either corporations are legal persons or everything turns into a partnership.

This doesn't logically follow at all. You can create a legal entity that has the right to enter into an employment contract without other rights associated with personhood. You can define it however you want -- it's a fictional legal creation. Money isn't speech and a corporation is not a person. Each may have certain characteristics of the other, but they are not identical unless arbitrarily defined as such. There is no inevitability to this, it's all a matter of political force.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

This doesn't logically follow at all. You can create a legal entity that has the right to enter into an employment contract without other rights associated with personhood. You can define it however you want -- it's a fictional legal creation. Money isn't speech and a corporation is not a person. Each may have certain characteristics of the other, but they are not identical unless arbitrarily defined as such. There is no inevitability to this, it's all a matter of political force.

Even accepting that money is speech, the proper way is to simply say that governments have a compelling interest in ensuring a fair and impartial election, and that unlimited political contributions/spending inherently impedes that interest and therefore can be regulated even under a strict scrutiny analysis.

But standard of review is a *****. There are so few things a government can do under the compelling interest / strict scrutiny standard that once it's in play, the government will lose. (likewise though, find something that falls under the rational review test, and the government will almost always win).
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

This doesn't logically follow at all. You can create a legal entity that has the right to enter into an employment contract without other rights associated with personhood. You can define it however you want -- it's a fictional legal creation. Money isn't speech and a corporation is not a person. Each may have certain characteristics of the other, but they are not identical unless arbitrarily defined as such. There is no inevitability to this, it's all a matter of political force.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think you're looking @ upsetting many centuries of common law.

Now Wiki is not Blackstone, but it'll do for the purposes of our little group...

Creation and history of the doctrine

In the common law tradition, only a person could sue or be sued. This was not a problem in the era before the Industrial Revolution, when the typical business venture was either a sole proprietorship or partnership—the owners were simply liable for the debts of the business. A feature of the corporation, however, is that the owners/shareholders enjoyed limited liability—the owners were not liable for the debts of the company. Thus, when a corporation breached a contract or broke a law, there was no remedy, because limited liability protected the owners and the corporation wasn't a legal person subject to the law. There was no accountability for corporate wrong-doing.

To resolve the issue, the legal personality of a corporation was established to include five legal rights—the right to a common treasury or chest (including the right to own property), the right to a corporate seal (i.e., the right to make and sign contracts), the right to sue and be sued (to enforce contracts), the right to hire agents (employees) and the right to make by-laws (self-governance).

Since the 19th century, legal personhood has been further construed to make it a citizen, resident, or domiciliary of a state (usually for purposes of personal jurisdiction). In Louisville, C. & C.R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497, 558, 11 L.Ed. 353 (1844), the U.S. Supreme Court held that for the purposes of the case at hand, a corporation is "capable of being treated as a citizen of [the State which created it], as much as a natural person." Ten years later, they reaffirmed the result of Letson, though on the somewhat different theory that "those who use the corporate name, and exercise the faculties conferred by it," should be presumed conclusively to be citizens of the corporation's State of incorporation. Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 16 How. 314, 329, 14 L.Ed. 953 (1854). These concepts have been codified by statute, as U.S. jurisdictional statutes specifically address the domicile of corporations.

Limitations

There are limitations to the legal recognition of legal persons. Legal entities cannot marry, they usually cannot vote or hold public office,[4] and in most jurisdictions there are certain positions which they cannot occupy.[5] The extent to which a legal entity can commit a crime varies from country to country. Certain countries prohibit a legal entity from holding human rights; other countries permit artificial persons to enjoy certain protections from the state that are traditionally described as human rights.[6]
Special rules apply to legal persons in relation to the law of defamation. Defamation is the area of law in which a person's reputation has been unlawfully damaged. This is considered an ill in itself in regard to natural person, but a legal person is required to show actual or likely monetary loss before a suit for defamation will succeed.[7]

United States
In part based on the principle that legal persons are simply organizations of human individuals, and in part based on the history of statutory interpretation of the word "person", the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that certain constitutional rights protect legal persons (like corporations and other organizations). Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad is sometimes cited for this finding because the court reporter's comments included a statement the Chief Justice made before oral arguments began, telling the attorneys during pre-trial that "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 any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." Later opinions misinterpreted these pre-argument comments as part of the legal decision.[8] As a result, because of the First Amendment, Congress may not make a law restricting the free speech of a corporation, a political action group or dictating the coverage of a local newspaper,[9] and because of the Due Process Clause, a state government may not take the property of a corporation without using due process of law and providing just compensation. These protections apply to all legal entities, not just corporations.

So, it you want to change it, you'll probably need a Constitutional Amendment. I don't see it passing.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I WISH! If I could, I'd marry Walmart, dump that cheating wh*re, and take half the assets.
You're assuming Wal*Mart would stoop to marrying you. :p
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

So, it you want to change it, you'll probably need a Constitutional Amendment. I don't see it passing.

That's a good summary, thank you.

I think politically the difficulty could be as soon as you started to define "person," you know who would muscle up to the table, and all deals would be off.

It would be interesting to see what the legal status of a corporation's "personhood" is in other countries.

I do like that we can now indefinitely detain a corporation without violating US law. I have a list...
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I was going to consult my Board of Directors to decide what to have for lunch then I remembered I'm a person, not a corporation.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/23/high-court-warrant-needed-to-plant-gps-device-on-suspects-car/

The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously for a drug suspect who had an electronic tracking device attached to his car by police, who did not first obtain an extended warrant.

The justices on Monday said secretly placing the device and monitoring the man's movements for several weeks constituted a government "search" and therefore the man's constitutional rights were violated.

This is reason to celebrate. There is still hope for this country. The fact that it was unanimous makes me extremely happy.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

So, it you want to change it, you'll probably need a Constitutional Amendment.

Here is the text of the First Amendment:

"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."

Like it or not, it seems the plain meaning is that people can organize into groups, and then these groups can advocate on their behalf. To me this seems to apply to lobbyists, labor unions, corporations, charitable organizations, foundations, etc.

I'm scared when judges ignore plain English and pretend to find "penumbras" in the law, not because they really exist, but simply because the judges don't like the way it is.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Here is the text of the First Amendment:

"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."

Like it or not, it seems the plain meaning is that people can organize into groups, and then these groups can advocate on their behalf. To me this seems to apply to lobbyists, labor unions, corporations, charitable organizations, foundations, etc.

1I'm scared when judges ignore plain English and pretend to find "penumbras" in the law, not because they really exist, but simply because the judges don't like the way it is.

The thought occurred to me...based on that text, how are curfews constitutional?

I wiki'd the topic (yes, a slow news day today) and I got...Hence, any state's curfew law may be overruled and struck down if, for example, it violates the teen's 1st, 4th, 5th or 14th Amendment rights (or the parent's 9th Amendment right to privacy in parenting).

Curfews can violate 5 amendments...shows the state of things.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

It is a reason to celebrate but my first thought was, "how bad does your case have to be for *this* Court to rule unanimously against you?" ;)

heh. True, but there's been a couple 9-0 cases recently.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Think they'll hear it? http://washingtonexaminer.com/2012/02/court-california-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional/246146

Seeing it is the 9th Circuit and the SC seems to look at the 9th very closely, I say they will, but what they decide is a different matter.

IMO, it depends what California's Constitution says on marriage (if it does) and the right for the people to address their grievances via the proposition route. This one's going to be looked at very closely.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Think they'll hear it? http://washingtonexaminer.com/2012/02/court-california-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional/246146

Seeing it is the 9th Circuit and the SC seems to look at the 9th very closely, I say they will, but what they decide is a different matter.

IMO, it depends what California's Constitution says on marriage (if it does) and the right for the people to address their grievances via the proposition route. This one's going to be looked at very closely.

My guess is they don't touch it with a 10' pole.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

From time to time, I really wish the Supreme Court would say "the Constitution does not provide adequate guidance one way or the other for us to rule. This matter needs to be decided by the political process."

I thought they really blew it with Roe vs Wade. It seems to me that the writers of the Constitution could not have anticipated some of the technological advances that have occurred in the past 220 years.

I'd have very much preferred that they ruled very narrowly: "if an unborn child would be viable on its own outside the womb, then in that narrowly-construed instance you are not committing abortion you are committing murder. at the other end, if a woman causes a fertilized egg to be expelled from her body before it implants in the uterine wall, then that is perfectly okay. fertilization may be a necessary antecedent for human life yet fertilization alone is not sufficient. For anything in between, there is no clear guidance one way or the other. The states and legislatures have to figure this one out."
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Doesn't this belong in the puns thread?
Only if accompanied by this.

gal_dwarves.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top