http://www.democraticunderground.org/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7013958Oh my.
dotymed (587 posts) Sat Nov-14-09 10:23 AM
Original message
LAWYERS, I have been asking this question to a lot of DU'ers.
Hopefully, we have a lawyer here who can explain this to me.
The SCOTUS, in the 1800's, decided against giving corporations "person hood", thereby requiring that all corporations continue to obtain charters proving their
public worth.
A bribed (I assume) court recorder, purposefully recorded that decision falsely. He/she said that the SCOTUS had granted the status of "person hood" on corporations.
Our laws clearly state that no matter how a court decision is recorded, the original decision is the actual law. How did corporations get the status of people,
with inalienable rights and all of the protections reserved for humans?
Just as often happened in America's history, corporations lied, and suddenly this becomes the "law of the land?"
Can Americans, at this late date, demand that the original law, as determined by the SCOTUS, be upheld? It is actually the law. If we can enforce the real law, we have a chance to reclaim our government. How do lies become treated as laws?
The same thing happened with the SCOTUS decision that no person can be taxed on their personal labor, yet the IRS will jail you if you subscribe to the law. America has obviously become a Fascist government.
Can't the ACLU or President Obama demand that since we are (were) a country of laws, we have to abide by these historic decisions? How about a non-violent(on our part), perpetual demonstration, demanding the return to the letter of the law?
Maybe some education for citizens, since, unfortunately Reagan conveniently repealed
the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE and our citizens have been raised on revisionist history.
How can the government deny us, especially in the international community, since our own Supreme Judiciary passed these laws? Please,someone, hopefully an intelligent Constitutional lawyer explain this to me/us. A country of laws? Let's use that to regain our freedom.
The methamphetimine primitive:
merh (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-14-09 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
1. how do you know the court recorder recorded the decision incorrectly?
Since it was an opinion from 1800's the opinion is the law, that is the official record, isn't it?
edited to add: Not a lawyer and don't even play one on the internets.
ljm2002 (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-14-09 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. The book "Unequal Protection"...
...by Thom Hartmann tells the story. The case was Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, 1886 (not 100% sure of the date). He spells it out, how the decision did not address corporate personhood, but the clerk put in some comments saying it did, and the next thing you know other cases are using that as precedent, and now those cases are used as precedent and here we are with the notion enshrined in case law.
Now wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.
I thought Thom Hartmann was dead.
Ooops, no it's Pete Comejo's who's dead. Sorry.
It's hard keeping Doug's stupid ex-wife's heroes straight.
jberryhill (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-14-09 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
9. That is a goofy and ridiculous story
You have been told a very silly story.
Supreme Court decisions are not rendered by some sort of oral "yes or no" answer that is taken down by a "court recorder".
It's hard to know where to begin with a silly story like this. Perhaps you might like to identify the decision in question, as a first step toward your discovering you have been told a tall tale.
If you are talking about the headnote added to Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, that did not "make" corporations "persons" any more than the publishers notes on the flap of a book are part of the book itself.
stranger81 (987 posts) Sat Nov-14-09 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. In the 18th & 19th centuries, SCOTUS opinions were, in fact, issued orally and written down by a court reporter. Every Supreme Court opinion from this era lists the name of the reporter, and bound volumes of Supreme Court opinions were amalgamated & published by reporter.
Don't believe me? Head to your local law library and have a look for yourself.
jberryhill (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-14-09 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. No
I've been in plenty of law libraries, thank you.
You seem not to understand the word "reporter" in this context.
A "reporter" is not a person, it is an unofficial publication...
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O184-SupremeCourtRepor...
For example, when you see a legal citation like Doe v. Roe, 35 F.3d 276, 280 (4th Cir. 1995), what that citation is saying is:
"look at page 280 of the 35th volume of West's Federal Reporter, Third Series for the decision of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1995 in the case of Doe versus Roe, which starts at page 276"
The official decisions of the court are indeed written. Historically, private publishers of reporters added an indexing and headnote system that made researching them easier. The deal with the Santa Fe decision involves an erroneous headnote which is not part of the decision, but for which the case is often incorrectly cited.
It's odd you would suggest I go to a law library when anyone at the front desk of same will be happy to show you what a "reporter" is.
If this is news to you, then ponder a simple question. Here is the text of the decision in Marbury v Madison:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR...
Do you actually believe that was taken down as oral dictation using inkwell pens? Really?
jberryhill (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-14-09 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Yes I know that, your point?
You really might give some thought to reading that wikipedia article closely and in full, because I already mentioned that case. The hullabaloo is about one of the headnotes (which I also mentioned above) and has nothing to do with some courtroom scribe changing the opinion in that case.
No, that decision didn't make corporations "persons", but that is a facile "issue" in the first place because it depends on which of the various facets of legal personhood one is talking about. It is not a binary thing.
For example persons can contract, can own property, etc. But I still want to know who thinks it is a good idea for the servers of Democratic Underground LLC are subject to seizure without a warrant. Can you explain to me why that is a good idea?
Sinti (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-14-09 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. I think stranger81 is referring to an official or court reporter
Basically, a reporter is like an old fashioned scribe - it's been around forever as prevalent and necessary for courts as bailiffs.
Every hearing, including Supreme Court hearings, have a reporter present. The official transcript from the reporter becomes the record of law, or in the case of Congress it becomes the Congressional Record. This used to be my job. Yes, I probably could have fudged things if I wanted to - don't think changing the words would have done much more than get me fired, though.
jberryhill (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-14-09 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. That's not what this story is based on
No, Supreme Court decisions are not now, nor have they ever been, taken down by stenographers.
This story is a piece of folklore that has grown up over an errant headnote.
Xicano (794 posts) Sat Nov-14-09 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
10. Text of the 14th amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any *person* within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
After understanding the definition of the term "person" in legal terms, then I hate to say it, but, the court decision has legal standing. So what we need is not to quash the court's decision because all it will take is just another court case that WILL come to the same conclusion. What is needed to eliminate this equal status with people which corporations enjoy is to amend the 14th amendment to change the word person to people.
jberryhill (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-14-09 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. So, in other words....
The govenrment ahould be able to seize the servers of Democratic Underground LLC without a warrant, for example?
Xicano (794 posts) Sat Nov-14-09 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. No, because the language of the fourth amendment is inclusive to both people and persons.
jberryhill (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-14-09 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Can you tell me what is the singular form of the word "people"?
This I gotta hear....
Alas, we never hear.
