Right out of the gate...
Posted on 09/17/2009 2:09:37 PM PDT by Admiral_Zeon
WASHINGTON -- In her maiden Supreme Court appearance last week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor made a provocative comment that probed the foundations of corporate law.
During arguments in a campaign-finance case, the court's majority conservatives seemed persuaded that corporations have broad First Amendment rights and that recent precedents upholding limits on corporate political spending should be overruled.
But Justice Sotomayor suggested the majority might have it all wrong -- and that instead the court should reconsider the 19th century rulings that first afforded corporations the same rights flesh-and-blood people have.
Judges "created corporations as persons, gave birth to corporations as persons," she said. "There could be an argument made that that was the court's error to start with...[imbuing] a creature of state law with human characteristics."
After a confirmation process that revealed little of her legal philosophy, the remark offered an early hint of the direction Justice Sotomayor might want to take the court.
"Progressives who think that corporations already have an unduly large influence on policy in the United States have to feel reassured that this was one of [her] first questions," said Douglas Kendall, president of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Don’t get me wrong. I didn’t see you as making trouble and I just wanted to respond to your point. It was O’Connor who made corruption the key issue in restraining free speech, though no such authority is given to Congress.
One of the points I made earlier is that the Constitution does not per se grant a right of free speech, hence it doesn’t identify an entity to be the recipient of such a right. What it does is forbid Congress from abridging the exercise of free speech. I know that’s subtle, but it is an important distinction. It is that distinction that I believe allows a group to exercise free speech without restrictions from Congress, no matter what the basis for the organization of the group. Here again, its not that they have a right but Congress does not have the power. I would think that is what our founders intended.
I despise George Soros, but he has a right to free speech and to spend his money to exercise that right. I trust all of us believe that and it is not a case of free speech for me but not for thee.
As you are aware, there has been a continuous tension between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist factions since the ratification of our Constitution. All too often, both the Executive and the Congress have issued laws that they know will be determined for validity by the Court, and indeed have stated such during debates on the Floor of Congress or during signing by the President.
One of the most pernicious, and unconstitutional and therefore illegal 'Opinions' issued by the Court has given rise to the vast undermining of our Human Rights by Corporate Privileges. In an 1886 tax case from California, the Court Clerk used an Instruction from the bench given to the attorneys days before and prior to any presentation of evidence; to wit: "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."
That synopsis became stare decisis for countless cases thereafter that have allowed the Corporations to infiltrate and undermine the restrictions our Founders placed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Can it be fixed? I don’t believe so, not in this government. Corporations are socialist by design and operation; they were never meant to have any influence within our constitutional governments.
Here’s a link to an interesting treatise on MultiNational Corporations: MNC’s – Beyond the Profit Motive and a site I found that has more info on the usurpation of privileges that Corporations have engineered: Corporate Personhood.
Obamaism now comes to the Supreme Court, replacing one flaming Liberal with another yet more extreme Leftist.
Next she will be ruling that the Bill of Rights is collective, not individual and only applies to States and above.
At this rate, America will no longer be the “land of the free”.
Then she must be against union donations, 527s, and so on. Except she’ll justify these entities giving campaign contributions under some ‘wise’ rationale (convoluted BS).
Actually, I have in my possession what some call the world's smallest violin (sarc) ...may the corporations that paid for Obama’s coronation enjoy their feckless Narcissistic leader.
As my Father told me, you get what you pay for. You buy cheap you get cheap. They'll soon learn they did not get what they thought they were purchasing.
Very good article. Thanks for posting that link.
I wasn’t aware that the SCOTUS was “pro-active” but rather re-active...
Sure it does.
THE PEOPLE, The PRESS.
Free republic is a Limited Liability Corporation.
Should it be silenced?
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.
Since the “Press” are corporations should they be silenced?
78% of all small business are corporations who are
regulated and taxed to death. If the government is going to
impose a massive burden (like cap and trade and socialized
medicine) making you and your company bound in servitude
as the collector and payer of such things do they not have
a right to collectively gather and address this with the government?
The Marxist culture infused into academics has poisoned most posters in this post.
The GE's of the world can, will, and are buying their
influence in Washington with schemes like Cap and Trade no
matter how much the little family business and small
Corporations are stripped of their rights to redress
the government. That includes donating money to candidates
to prevent other candidates from irreparably damaging them.
what if a candidate wants to force your business to unionize
and drive up your costs until it bankrupts you?
Should you not have the right to collectively fight them
with an organization such as the manufactures association?
Once again many here vote to throw the baby out with the bath water.
And in the end the only one who will be screwed is the
little guy. And their jobs. Nothing will stop the big
corporate bully's from owing the White House like GE's
purchase of your repersentaves with their media outlets
turned into propaganda outlets.
McCain Finegold sure fixed that problem right?
Well actually it made it so only the big power brokers had
access. Just the opposite of what it claimed it would do.
Remember, Free Republic is a Corporation.
Should it be silenced?
That is a crime I would Gladly fight against.
And I mean FIGHT.
How about you?
Sotomayer is a Marxist and agreeing with her is sheer lunacy. But many are fooled.
Most of the time, when we use the word “corporation”, folks think of GE, Ford, P&G — some large business.
The corporations that concern me are those assemblies of people who have sought protection from personal liability by incorporating. Free Republic is an LLC, I believe. Churches are incorporated. I imagine that many citizen groups are, too.
I see these assemblies of persons as fitting the provision in the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution having “the right to peaceably assemble and petition”.
However, I see some Sotomayor ruling against “corporations” also applying to “assemblies” of persons. She and the media would talk it up as “keeping big business out of politics”, but the trojan horse would be the denial of assemblies designed to speak with one voice.
In terms of big business meddling in politics, I’ve no way to distinguish between Procter&Gamble and George Soros, a rich man enriched by big business, using his personal wealth to advertise and organize in favor of his political viewpoints.
So, in the long run, we’re left with the marketplace of ideas. It’s probably best just to allow a free fire zone while requiring the strictest reporting of all money/barter/gifting spent in any way to advance any item or person up for a vote. At least those interested can follow the money.
Please don't use the word "originalist" and the name Sotomayor in the same sentence.
Look at the full context of her statements. It's a free speech case. Sotomayor is hinting that she believes individuals who freely associate with other individuals in a group(in this case a corporation) can have their free speech rights denied. Sotomayor is setting up a strawman fallacy. It's not about corporations having rights. Its about individuals having the right of free association and free speech.
This is not to say that individuals who own corporations give up any constitutional rights by incorporating their businesses...
You want to bet that is exactly what she believes.
Bingo!
Yup. Hopefully some of these posters are starting to catch on.
But that’s the point. “Sure, compare the 78% small family business to Enron...”
Why *should* the law compare those two, when they are so obviously different, other than both being called “corporations”? This is the problem of non-constitutional legal constructs. Legally the two should be completely different.
On your end, having corporate rules is a vital business construct, but though it is theoretically possible for your corporation to “grow up” to become the next ADM, to do so in the real world would require so many transitions of organization that with each level you would become an entirely different entity.
So why in the world should all of these completely different organizations be called “corporations”, or have to play by the same rules?
At your level of organization, you see correctly the great value of your corporate free speech rights. But if you look at the opposite end of the scale, at some gigantic, nebulous corporation, controlled by proxies of other corporations, sovereign wealth funds of foreign powers, and hundreds of thousands of individual shareholders, who should speak on behalf of the corporation?
Is what they are saying in their corporate interest, their shareholders interest, directed and ordered by a foreign government, or by other corporations interests? If they, whoever they are, are in fact directed behind the scenes by some scoundrel like George Soros, willing to spend hundreds of millions of corporate dollars to influence the law and public policy, does that equate in any way with the political rights of free speech by family farmers?
The law giving some degree of civil rights to your corporation makes sense. But it should not be a gateway for a Saudi prince to corrupt US law by lobbying for a parallel Sharia court system in our country, without registering as a foreign lobbyist, but by laundering money through a network of corporations he controls.
Right out of the gate...
People form corporations in order to enjoy limited liability and to shield the owners of the corporation from personal and individual responsibility and for purposes of obtaining tax advantages not available to individuals.
No one is forced to become a corporation and businesses are free to engage in free enterprise without incorporating, but then if they don't incorporate, then the owners of the corporation become individually liable for the torts and debts of the business entity. But if the owners don't incorporate and remain personally liable for the actions of the business, then it would follow that they would enjoy the personal freedoms that are guaranteed by the Constitution.
For good or bad, and most likely for bad, Sotomayor has a point. The Constitution did not create corporations, these are statutory creatures and being statutory creatures, they have no inherent constitutional rights. Their liberties are created by the same statutes that created their existence.
Constitutionally speaking corporations are not "persons". They are statutory entities. That is the bottom line. To grant them constitutional rights as "persons" is to grant them rights not granted by the founders. The rights of corporations are created by the same statutes that created corporations.
Thanks, I wrote it. There is a lot more at that site and its associates you'll probably find valuable.
A little aside--Judge Sotomayer officiated my mom's (most recent) wedding. I've met her. I'm hoping to parlay that into a visit to the chambers...maybe sit down with Nino or Clarence for a little shooting the bull :-). Yea right! Anyway, yeah, she's a lib, and I probably will disagree with her most of the time, but it's still kind of a novelty. How many people can say they were married by a SCOTUS justice? I didn't even realize it til mom told me. I went back to the video, and there she was!
Good on you. I like to see freepers thinking for themselves, and not just going for the knee jerk reaction. It’s part of what makes discussion here informative and valuable, not just cheerleading and vapidity.
Show me the article and section or the amendment.
I don’t think we disagree, but why did you quote me out of context and omit the all important sentence that followed? The point I was making is that the prohibition is on Congress and there is no expressly granted right, but an implied right that is not limited to individuals only. In the same vein, the press is not restricted either, whether it is a corporation, sole proprietorship, non-profit or whatever form of organization it takes.
I’m no fan of corporations that buy influence to corrupt the free market, but as I said in an earlier post, the government that regulates outside the boundaries of the free market is peddling influence and some people, however they assemble, are buying influence.
Sotomayor, and O’Connor before her are pulling the classic trick of trying to create a dilemma where none exists, essentially saying we must choose between free speech and corruption. If Congress were not selling, then GE wouldn’t be buying, but the “good” justices don’t see it that way. Apparently a lot of posters here don’t either.
McCain Feingold is an attempt by politicians to say “we wouldn’t be corrupt if it were not for those big bad corporations tempting us with money we can’t resist.” They are corrupt and McCain Feingold is their smoke screen.
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.