Replies

Joanie - this is indeed a masterful dissertation on some of the egregious problems our country is facing. Unfortunately, I very much doubt that there will be any real improvement without either a revolution (which will not happen) or Congressional action (which also will never happen) or a Constitutional Amendment.

The back story on this --the PACs, the Lobbyists, Ike's 'Military-Industrial Complex', and most other nefarious group involvements with our government and especially Congress, is the illegal and non-legal and non-binding statement added to a case, where the Court Reporter noted in the First Sentence of the Syllabus:

The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

He adapted that from the following, which was not in the Decision made by the Court, but in instructions given to the parties prior to the Oral Argument and Legal Presentations before the bench:

One of the points made and discussed at length in the brief of counsel for defendants in error was that "corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." Before argument, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE said:

"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 opinion that it does."

Reference: SANTA CLARA COUNTY V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC R. CO., 118 U. S. 394 (1886) - United States Supreme Court

I'm fairly certain that all cases before any Court have detailed commentary providing for limitation of the arguments to be presented, to ensure that the specific details are presented in a comprehensive, cogent, manner, and to prevent moving too far afield in the legal precepts necessary for the case at hand.

Lesser Courts and the USSC itself have used that illegal statement to run roughshod over the restrictions in the Constitution, thereby allowing the debacles we find ourselves in today.

Neither the USSC nor Congress has any intention of revising this illegal record, making this government illegal.

Very interesting information, brityank. And an excellent example of the dangers of 'precedent' (or anything akin to it). Just one monstrously bad one opens the door for all manner of abuse of power.

I share your belief that we need a revolution, and we will not have one (not enough of us care enough to 'get involved', even in something much less demanding).

So many of my conservative friends are of the mind that, once a sufficient number of people's oxes are gored, we will all rise up in defense of our liberties. But the ignorance and apathy run so deep that I believe the average American would prefer to relinquish liberties rather than lose his television reception.

Thank you for the little-known, yet extraordinarily important, information. I have it saved for future reference.

~ joanie