Prop 8 campaign seeks to shield internal memos

AP via SacBee ^ | 9/25/9

[SmithL]

SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge is considering whether to order the sponsors of California's voter-approved gay marriage ban to produce their internal campaign records to lawyers now suing to overturn the law.

[SmithL]

Walker, Vaughn R.

Born 1944 in Watseka, IL

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Northern District of California
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on September 7, 1989, to a seat vacated by Spencer M. Williams; Confirmed by the Senate on November 21, 1989, and received commission on November 27, 1989. Served as chief judge, 2004-present.

Education:
University of Michigan, A.B., 1966

Stanford Law School, J.D., 1970

Professional Career:
Law clerk, Hon. Robert J. Kelleher, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 1971-1972
Private practice, San Francisco, California, 1972-1990

Race or Ethnicity: White

Gender: Male

[nickcarraway]

Why would they have to turn over internal memos? What does the other side think are in them?

[Psycho_Bunny]

The fagcists will stop at nothing.

[Julia H.]

The people of California have said NO. Only rapists think “no” means “yes.”

[rbg81]

I’m sure these memos used harsh language. They will exposed for all the world to see how “mean” and “hateful” the Prop 8 people are. Of course, the internal memos from the other side are probably far worse, but those will never see the light of day.

[Lucky Dog]

US Constitution

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It is my understanding that the supporters of the ban are/were private citizens and private organizations versus government entities. Therefore, exactly where would the court arrogate to itself the authority to violate the Fourth Amendment (cited above)?

[Carry_Okie]

The Prop 8 Campaign is not a "person." If these are private papers, that is another matter.

[Lucky Dog]

The Prop 8 Campaign is not a "person." If these are private papers, that is another matter.

Unless theThe Prop 8 Campaign is covered by a California law requiring that its records be in the public domain, the organization is still a non-governmental agency, and, thus, protected by the Fourth Amendment.

[Carry_Okie]

Unless theThe Prop 8 Campaign is covered by a California law requiring that its records be in the public domain, the organization is still a non-governmental agency, and, thus, protected by the Fourth Amendment.

I suggest you read this piece about Selective Incorporation. Constitutional protection for corporations was derived by an act of serious legal malfeasance and political corruption. If corporate persons are to derive privacy rights under contract, the terms should be set by statute. The founders never intended this.

[Lucky Dog]

I read your reference. It was quite interesting. The koan concept is one that is, perhaps, appropriate for considering corporate entities.

Nonetheless, it would be difficult to assert, as you did, that our founding fathers did not intend for corporations to enjoy certain rights under the Constitution.

Corporations existed in that time frame and with much of the same structure and business practices as today. They were treated in common law of that day much as individuals with many of the same privileges and obligations.

The arguments in the reference you cited were against this proposition. However, I did not find them entirely persuasive in every aspect. It must be noted that the arguments were not persuasive for others as well.

Regardless, the source of your desire to forward the reference was whether or not a corporate entity could be forced to divulge records and papers that potentially would be protected by the Fourth Amendment were they in the possession of an ordinary citizen. Notwithstanding that you may disagree, corporations are viewed as having rights under this amendment unless otherwise governed by corporate law. Therefore, they should not be forced to divulge these records without suspicion of criminal activity.

[Carry_Okie]

I read your reference. It was quite interesting.

Thank you. I wrote it.

Nonetheless, it would be difficult to assert, as you did, that our founding fathers did not intend for corporations to enjoy certain rights under the Constitution.

It is easy to assert, and easy to prove that they rejected the idea of Federal enforcement of equal protection in the original BOR. As to corporations, the Founders had had quite enough of the rapacious behavior of the corporations of European royalty and were not in the least interested in inculcating a replicant here in America.

I suggest you go back to that site and read two more articles, the one on the treaty power in the Constitution, and the one on the NRDC. You will then understand why I'm not in the least interested in the "settled law" hand-wave or in federal protections of corporate rights. Once you are done with them, you will know why I would vastly prefer natural law competition among states as a way to optimize the attendant set of countervailing considerations regarding the protection of pooled private property as free association.

[Lucky Dog]

Article I

[Congress shall have the power to…]

Sectilon 8…

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; [excerpted and emphasis added]

Corporations exist to engage in commerce, even non-profit entities. Corporations are chartered and regulated by the various states. Companies were in existence in the colonies, chartered in the name of the crown at the time of the Revolution, and the states, formed therefrom, continued the chartering practice without interference from the Federal government prior to the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, given that corporations were not specifically prohibited nor restricted in the US Constitution, nor in the various state constitutions, it can be reasoned that the practice was, in deed, the intent of the founders.

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish… In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. [excerpted and emphasis added]

Your additional, attempted argument about the intent of the founding fathers concerning posited limitations on corporations and the alleged over-reach of the courts is weakened severely by the sections of the US Constitution noted above.

Congress has the authority under the most recently noted section to control and limit the jurisdiction of all courts, even, the Supreme Court, except in cases of original jurisdiction. Except for a certain former Senator from South Dakota in a bill on agriculture, Congress had not chosen to so in recent legislative history. Therefore, if Congress, in the name of the people and with full Constitutional authority to do so, has not limited the interpretative powers of the courts, it can only be concluded that the power exercised by US courts is not an over reach in the estimate of that co-equal body of government.

Ergo, your argument, as erudite as it is, fails as moot.

[Carry_Okie]

Ergo, your argument, as erudite as it is, fails as moot.

The Commerce Clause was the best you could do? That's really lame, but I knew you'd resort to a hand-wave. You don't have much else.

[Lucky Dog]

Perhaps, you missed Article III, section 1...

The points are twofold: First, the commerce clause, while, some would argue it has been abused, was/is still the governing guidance beyond common law and state regulation for the existence and behavior of corporations. Second, your argument concerning imperial over-reach by the courts is rendered moot by the power that Congress has to curtail that power.

Finally, since when did directly quoting the US Constitution become a hand wave? It would appear that anything, in your opinion, with which you disagree, you consider a hand wave.

I would remind you that ill-supported opinions are like a certain portion of anatomy, and yours doesn't smell any better than anyone else's, your own assessment, notwithstanding.

[Carry_Okie]

The points are twofold: First, the commerce clause, while, some would argue it has been abused, was/is still the governing guidance beyond common law and state regulation for the existence and behavior of corporations.

BS. It was about tariffs and other trade barriers between states.

[Lucky Dog]

It was about tariffs and other trade barriers between states.

I see... Perhaps, you might address the question of whom the tariffs and trade barriers were on? Additionally, how about where, and to whom, the benefit of such tariffs and trade barriers accrued beyond a government treasury?

Finally, you have pointedly refused to address the issue that corporations/companies existed prior to the revolution and that existence was not specifically addressed in the Constitution. The implication is clearly that the founders were content with the common law treatment of corporations/companies as it existed then, and basically continues to the current time.

[Carry_Okie]

Perhaps, you might address the question of whom the tariffs and trade barriers were on?

You are still blowing smoke. The existence of corporate personhood equal to humans is an artifice of corruption, foisted by internationalists and contrary to the intent of the founders. It allows construction of capital pools sufficient subvert the will of the people. I have not once disputed the legitimacy of the existence of corporate charters. However, I do want them operating under State control. Else, Federalism is a joke. Symptomatic is why we have 75% of the American public opposed to illegal immigration while it proceeds totally unchecked.

Additionally, how about where, and to whom, the benefit of such tariffs and trade barriers accrued beyond a government treasury?

They protected selected classes of producers at the expense of others. As usual.

Finally, you have pointedly refused to address the issue that corporations/companies existed prior to the revolution and that existence was not specifically addressed in the Constitution.

Why should I? They were under STATE jurisdiction, which is what I advocate. I am not opposed to the existence of corporations.

The implication is clearly that the founders were content with the common law treatment of corporations/companies as it existed then, and basically continues to the current time.

Uh, no, it doesn't, your obfuscation notwithstanding. You have still not addressed the fundamental issue, of equal legal status with human beings as enforced by Constitutional protections where the observation confirms that their economic equality is not. The necessary consequence is socialized risks that slowly grow until they become catastrophic in scale, as we have seen.

[Political Junkie Too]

Is this just a fishing expedition, or do they have some probable cause to ask for those documents?

-PJ

[Lucky Dog]

Perhaps, you might address the question of whom the tariffs and trade barriers were on?

You are still blowing smoke. The existence of corporate personhood equal to humans is an artifice of corruption, foisted by internationalists and contrary to the intent of the founders. It allows construction of capital pools sufficient subvert the will of the people.

Companies and corporations have existed in British common law since the twelfth century. The modern corporation dates back to 1601, when Queen Elizabeth I created the East India Trading Company. As an example of a corporation that came into existence (and still doing business) from well before the founding of our country, consider that Lloyds of London has been around since 1688. The earliest corporation listed in this country (before it was a country) was in the Virginia colony in 1638 formed for the growing and export of tobacco. Therefore, the concept of corporations as legal entities for hundreds of years in common law and specific corporate law is well established. These companies were not artifices of corruption. Contrary to your assertion there is no blowing of smoke unless you are the one doing it.

Exactly how would your reconcile that statement with your assertion of corporations as an artifice of corruption, foisted by internationalists and contrary to the intent of the founders.

The founders were all citizens of states. In fact, many of them were active in the governments of those states while they were still colonies. Therefore, if any thing concerning state charters for corporations and companies or corporations, in general, was contrary to their intent, there was ample opportunity for these founders to address the issue, not only, in the US Constitution, but in the various state constitutions as well. They chose not to do so. Therefore, your assertion fails the most basic test of logic.

Additionally, as I pointed out earlier, Congress has the power to limit what corporations may or may not do under Federal law and can through Article III keep the courts from changing it. Beyond this point, Federal law concerning commerce trumps state law under Article I. Therefore, any corporation conducting commerce across a state line (and nearly of them do so) is under the limitations and strictures imposed by Congress. Beyond Congressional regulation these corporations are also subject to any imposed by the state granting them a charter. However, I do want them operating under State control. Else, Federalism is a joke. Symptomatic is why we have 75% of the American public opposed to illegal immigration while it proceeds totally unchecked.

Except for a very limited number of entities such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Endowment for the Arts and the US Postal Service, etc., the overwhelming number of corporations in this country obtain their charters from various state governments and operate under the corporate laws of those governments. Even when there are situations where a corporation does business in a number of different states, it still has a headquarters in a specific state and comes under that state’s jurisdiction.

As noted earlier, nearly all corporations do business either in ordering supplies or sending products and/or services across state lines. Therefore, they are fully, and quite obviously, subject to Congressional scrutiny and limitation by virtue of what you have called the commerce clause of Article I of the US Constitution. Your arguments concerning tariffs and other taxes puts corporate entities squarely under this consideration, especially when you consider that every state has a minimum of a sales tax.

Additionally, how about where, and to whom, the benefit of such tariffs and trade barriers accrued beyond a government treasury?

They protected selected classes of producers at the expense of others. As usual.

Gee, you don’t suppose any of those protected classes, etc., would be corporations?

Finally, you have pointedly refused to address the issue that corporations/companies existed prior to the revolution and that existence was not specifically addressed in the Constitution.

Why should I? They were under STATE jurisdiction, which is what I advocate. I am not opposed to the existence of corporations.

The implication is clearly that the founders were content with the common law treatment of corporations/companies as it existed then, and basically continues to the current time.

Uh, no, it doesn't, your obfuscation notwithstanding. You have still not addressed the fundamental issue, of equal legal status with human beings as enforced by Constitutional protections where the observation confirms that their economic equality is not. The necessary consequence is socialized risks that slowly grow until they become catastrophic in scale, as we have seen.

Contrary to your assertion, corporations have existed as they currently do for hundreds of years. In the late seventeenth century, Stewart Kyd, the author of the first treatise on corporate law in English, defined a corporation as, "a collection of many individuals united into one body, under a special denomination, having perpetual succession under an artificial form, and vested, by policy of the law, with the capacity of acting, in several respects, as an individual, particularly of taking and granting property, of contracting obligations, and of suing and being sued, of enjoying privileges and immunities in common, and of exercising a variety of political rights, more or less extensive, according to the design of its institution, or the powers conferred upon it, either at the time of its creation, or at any subsequent period of its existence."