LAWYERS, I have been asking this question to a lot of DU'ers.

[dotymed]

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since, unfortunately Reagan conveniently repealed the FAIRNESS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.

[merh]

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]

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.

[merh]

20. But that is my point.

The reported opinion is the case precedent.

It is the law and only what is written in the opinion can be relied upon today.

SCOTUS would have had to have corrected the opinion in the 1800's. Just a statement saying the court recorder was wrong doesn't do a thing.

[ljm2002]

21. First, IANAL...

...but it is my understanding that precedent, in the form of case law, does indeed carry weight in the law, regardless of the ultimate source of the decisions.

[merh]

26. you will have to forgive me

but I have no clue what you mean by "First, IANAL."

[ljm2002]

32. Oh dear, sorry...

...I Am Not A Lawyer.

[merh]

36. Thank you

sorry for being so dense :blush:

[Greyhound]

40. It was not the court's opinion, in fact one of the justices (I'd have to look up which one)

specifically noted that this was not the factual nor intended disposition of the judgment. The headnotes are no part of the decision and the clerk had no authority whatsoever to do what he did.

[fascisthunter]

94. exactly.... making corporate personhood bull crap

[dotymed]

5. I read.

The opinion was against the corporations. The person who
wrongly recorded the decision, doesn't change the decision. It
is the law. We need to set the record straight (corporations
have fought against this) and enforce the ruling. The rulings
that were made on an improperly recorded can not legally
stand, they were wrongly based. We need the ACLU or another
entity to set the record straight. The corporations would
fight us tooth and nail. Easier still, if the corporate owned
congress would confirm that corporations are not people and
must have their charters approved. This would change our
country and go a long way to end our profit at any price
corporate society. Real people would come first. Can I please
get a K&R? Yes, I did see this Thom Hartman segment. There
were no suggestions for enforcing the original ruling, only
that legally, the incorrect recording of the ruling is
insignificant. This is one of a handful of legal rulings that
Americans can use to change our course and put people back in
charge. There are others. The greedy corporations relied on
manipulation rather than real law. We can use actual laws to
shut them down, but it will take an ACLU or a Southern Poverty
Law Center maybe George Soros....money and power, to retake
our country.

[DavidDvorkin]

2. I've always wondered about that, too

Does precedent overrule the original ruling?

[dragonlady]

4. Interesting fact about the court reporter

The caption under his picture on Wikipedia: Bancroft Davis, the Court Reporter and former president of Newburgh and New York Railway. So did he have a soft spot in his heart for railroads?

A good, short explanation is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

[adamuu]

6. wow. I never knew that "corporate personhood" had such a weak beginning

the weakest imaginable
It is sad that the concept took on so much steam
I wish there were a way to revoke it.

[annabanana]

7. k&r. . . . . n/t

[Xicano]

8. A Person "in law" is defined differently than just a flesh & blood individual.

Let me see if I can't answer this. In law dictionaries a person means something different than just a human being. A person is a legal fiction. You are not a person, but, you do HAVE a person, and since a person is a legal fiction and a corporation too is considered a legal fiction, they are both on equal footing.

However, even though JOHN DOE is a legal fiction and subject to admiralty laws as with any other business, john doe nevertheless is a flesh and blood human being subject only to common laws.

* Black's Law Dictionary: Person: "In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers."

* Oran's Dictionary of the Law: Person: "1. A human being (a "natural" person). 2. A corporation (an "artificial" person). Corporations are treated as persons in many legal situations. Also, the word "person" includes corporations in most definitions in this dictionary. 3. Any other "being" entitled to sue as a legal entity (a government, an association, a group of Trustees, etc.). 4. The plural of person is persons, not people."

* Duhaime's Law Dictionary: Person: "An entity with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are "persons" in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity. Many laws give certain powers to "persons" which, in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations.

* Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law: Legal Person: "a body of persons or an entity (as a corporation) considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural person and esp. the capacity to sue and be sued.

Here view this video for a better understanding of this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7040453665540929835

[dotymed]

28. These definitions must have been written after the 1886

wrongly recorded SCOTUS ruling. Before that time, all
corporations had to be granted a charter. The charter was
granted only if the aspiring corporation could prove they
operated for the good of the people. The charters had to be
regularly reviewed and if they were not a benefit to society,
they were absolved. The false recording of the SCOTUS ruling
stooped this, because (in 1866 only the wealthy knew anything
about SCOTUS and even if that were not so, we've come a long
way in communication). We must have the ACLU or THE SOUTHERN
POVERTY LAW CENTER or some wealthy altruistic person to invest
in revealing and returning the original SCOTUS ruling. In a
true Democracy, the SCOTUS would never have allowed this lie
to remain or they would, even now, take steps to remedy this
lie on America. We are supposed to be a country of laws not
lies. Similarly, the SCOTUS ruled that you can not tax people
on their labor. The IRS will lie about this or refuse comment
(seen the documentary on FREE SPEECH TV?) but ultimately, they
will "legally" arrest you if you refuse to pay taxes
on your labor. If the laws of the land can be perverted like
this, then we live in a dictatorship, with many very wealthy
dictators in charge.
We have a lot of "ammunition" like this to prove
that our government is corrupt and therefore not entitled to
govern in it's present state. I do not want Anarchy (maybe
they do) or bloodshed (ditto too)but I want the same thing our
forefathers fought for (not the status quo), life,liberty and
the pursuit of happiness. Taxes are fine, but must be legal
(and graduated, pre-Reagan). Corporations must serve the
public good or not exist (pre-1886). Come on ACLU save
America. Return us to a country of laws, not a country for and
by the corporate elite. If we choose this route of truth and
freedom, we will be hurt and killed. So were our ancestors in
the civil rights and labor movements, but they prevailed,
thank God or whomever you choose to believe in.The time is
right, more so than I have ever seen. And Americans want real
change. Lets do it for our children.

[Xicano]

38. Yes thank you, I am very aware of the early history.

Here's a post I posted earlier I think you'll enjoy dotymed. As for the Santa Clara county v Southern Pacific Railroad case, given what the legal definition of "person" is, which can be found in any law dictionary, the court's ruling has standing. The best way to fix this exploitation of the 14th amendment is to replace the word person in the 14th amendment with the word people.

As far as corporate history goes, again I think you'll enjoy the link below.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6586926




Peace,
Xicano

[jberryhill]

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]

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]

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-SupremeCourtReporter.html

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_0005_0137_ZO.html

Do you actually believe that was taken down as oral dictation using inkwell pens? Really?

[nashville_brook]

16. erm -- you might want to look at this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7013958&mesg_id=7015657

[jberryhill]

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]

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]

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.

[Sinti]

24. I know very little about the story or folklore

and I don't care to discuss the law in question. People are people, corporations are a legal structure.

It struck me funny to hear someone say there's no reporter present for the hearing of the cases - which is what I understood. It struck me funnier that someone might think the reporter could cause the outcome of a case to change.

I don't believe that is possible, I've done the job, not for the Supremes, but for other federal agencies such as the FCC, NLRB, etc. A mistake such as that, or even a much lesser one, intentional or no, would get the person fired, if intentional possibly jailed, and either way the company would be sued for breach of contract and go under pronto. I'd need quite a bit of proof to make me think otherwise.

There is a reporter at every hearing and there is a Reporter of Decisions which is separate.

[jberryhill]

33. Yes... Court reporters are awesome....

Although they used to look scary back in the days of the steno-mask (a scuba diving like face apparatus into which they would repeat the words being said).

The story is about a different usage of the word "reporter", but unfamiliarity with that other usage of the word is why this story has legs. They think a stenographer changed a decision, which became the basis of all-encompassing corporate personhood.

[Sinti]

41. you'd be surprised how many times I was asked if I was on oxygen n/t

[jberryhill]

42. Required equipment for reading freeperville

[Sinti]

49. lol - the old ones covered the nose too n/t

[Manifestor_of_Light]

78. OMG - another broken down court reporter on DU!!

I used a Stenograph.

The only person I ever knew who used a mask was a guy in Federal Court.

I also knew a guy in Federal court who had a dirty word on his license plate in steno!! :evingrin:

The reporters in Federal Court were the unhappiest and most stressed out bunch of reporters I have ever seen. Not that we weren't stressed out and unhappy in State Court, but still, they were worse.

Trivia note: Charles Dickens was a court reporter who wrote in Pitman (Squiggles prior to Gregg).
This is why a)He was nuts; b) he wrote novels with such vivid characters, due to his observations in court.

[Sinti]

82. Lol - the only placed I used a mask was in federal court

on the Hill, FCC, NLRB, Tax Court... I quit doing the Hill back when Clinton was still in office. What passes for the truth straight-faced in Congress was more than I could manage - particularly when we also did the CYA work for when they would appear on TV.

We only do transcriptions for big business now, it's somewhat better (meetings among business leaders, with analysts, and cheer-leading events for product releases). At least we expect them to lie their faces off. But, I'm still appalled at the way their minds seem to operate in this world, especially when they talk amongst themselves. I suspect it may be a global virus that affects the brain.

Anything but grand jury is a step up. Now, that's misery. If I had to do it all the time I think I'd have a breakdown.

[stranger81]

35. Dude, educate yourself.

The Supreme Court has always had (and has today) an official Reporter of Decisions. Before the invention & widespread use of steno machines & typewriters, the official Reporter took longhand (and later, shorthand) notes of the official decision as rendered from the bench, as in the following explanation of the process as it existed just three years before the Santa Clara decision:

"To that end, he got a copy of Bradley’s original opinion, and saw that the passage was correct. The error was likely introduced afterward as the opinion was shuffled back and forth between the court and the printer, Rutherglen said.

The reporter of decisions is the officer of the Supreme Court responsible for seeing the justices’ writing safely entered into the national record.

*********************

Bradley’s longhand manuscript first went to a printer, who produced the preliminary copy. This version was distributed to the press, and contemporary media accounts show that the typo hadn’t yet been introduced, Rutherglen said."

http://128.143.28.141/html/news/2008_sum/rutherglen.htm

And yes, I am a lawyer.

[jberryhill]

47. Like I said, there is a lot of folklore about this...

The issue relates to a headnote - like a West keynote - that was not introduced by the US Reporter.

Marbury v. Madison was not stenographically dictated, and Supreme Court decisions are not and have never been stenographically issued.

But the larger issue with the OP is the magical thinking notion that pointing out the accreted folklore around the headnote in Santa Clara would have some kind of impact on current law.

[dotymed]

29. Everyone here

can google SANTA CLARA COUNTY VS- SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD
and decide for themselves if it is "goofy and/or
ridiculous." It IS the ruling that is cited as giving
corporations "person hood." Also the ruling clearly
states that corporations are not endowed with the same rights
as people. Yet the clerk and former railroad owner,
incorrectly recorded the context of this case. A "silly
story?" gberry....no you're not worth it. Please DU'ers,
investigate this for yourselves. We ALL know that corporations
should not have the rights that people do. Their only
mission,by law, is to increase the profits of their share
holders. Is it also "silly" to say that people are
much more important than profits? If so, I am a
"silly" irrelevant man, not a corporation.

[jberryhill]

60. You are missing the point...

The headnote in that case did not make law. Yes, the case was mischaracterized by the headnote. The notion that this made the law what it is today, is a species of magical thinking.

Court cases are mischaracterized all of the time. Try explaining some time that the Kelo decision only related to a specific state law which renders it irrelevant in virtually every state, and see how far you get with that in a pitchfork bearing mob some time.

There is a large body of decisions on the topic, and you have not found some loose thread that is going to unravel the sweater here.

[fascisthunter]

95. Corporate Personhood is Silly

and so is your objection

[Xicano]

10. Text of the 14th amendment:

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]

12. So, in other words....

The govenrment ahould be able to seize the servers of Democratic Underground LLC without a warrant, for example?

[Xicano]

17. No, because

the language of the fourth amendment is inclusive to both people and persons.

[jberryhill]

19. Can you tell me what is the singular form of the word "people"?

This I gotta hear....

[Xicano]

39. Yes I could.

But with that kinda of attitude why should I further respond to you?

n/t

[demwing]

45. So can a Corporation become President of the United States?

If not, why not? If Corporations are people, then they should be allowed to run for and hold the office, as long as they meet all other requirements - natural born, 35 years of age, 14 years residency.

What of "Natural Born"? technically, if the founding board members of a Corporation were American citizens at the time of the charter, the Corporation was founded in the US, has maintained its charter for 35 years, and has not centered its headquarters off shore within the last 14 years, that Corporation, by your account, would be eligible for the POTUS.

:)

[Xicano]

57. Sigh, what is with the retarded responses?

"If Corporations are people, then they should be allowed to run for and hold office...."

I am sorry your reading comprehension is failing you on this subject. I never said or implied corporations were "people." For the last time, for the mentally challenged. "Persons" as defined in law dictionaries are not just "people." They are defined by law as natural born people, and, amongst others, corporations. Nothing of what I posted said anything about corporations being people. Its not my problem you don't understand the differences of terms in law dictionaries.

And besides, your sarcasm fails in the fist sentence of who's eligible to run for office of the President. "No person except "natural born citizen."

Please brush up on your reading comprehension or avoid commenting on things you obviously don't understand. Thank you.

[demwing]

61. Of go fuck yourself you arrogant, conceited shit - I was trying to joke

I suppose next time I joke with you, I'll have to add a little smiley face - OH WAIT, I did that!! Too bad you're too into your explanation to have a sense of humor about the subject.

Piss off.

[Xicano]

64. Sorry for ticking you off, but, if you're going to post that way, and

see that others have been sarcastic toward what I've tried to explain. Then excuse me for taking it as one of the two ways it could have been taken. I've had smilie faces used after a ha ha, gottcha.

So sorry if I ticked you off, but, I thought I was having to respond to someone trying to be a smartass. Sorry.

[jberryhill]

58. ...and there you go...

The problem with the overall point is treating legal personality as if it was some binary thing as opposed to a context dependent question.

Clearly, we'd have to look out for Hawaiian corporations that are actually from Kenya.

Normally, when a statue seeks to exclude corporate entities, it will refer to "natural" persons, but you can while away the hours in some parts of the Internet arguing over what "natural born" means.

[demwing]

62. Thanks (I think) for sensing the underlying attempt at humor

I hate it when you have to add a sarcasm tag or write out "just joking" or risk getting flamed by some self-absorbed maynard who is too preoccupied with his/her supposed feats of intellectualism to relax and enjoy a (admittedly lame) joke.

[jberryhill]

71. Mark Twain didn't use smileys /nt

[Xicano]

63. I agree the clear intent of the 14th amendment was that persons was to mean "natural born" persons.

That is why I referred to the Santa Clara county case as one which "exploits" the 14th amendment. Nevertheless, as I mentioned, the wording in the 14th amendment and the wording in "legal terms" defining "persons" makes the Santa Clara case have legitimate standing.

This is why even if the Santa Clara county case was quashed, all it would take is another case to make the same legitimate argument and, again, I hate to say it, but, they would have legal standing.

This is one of the reasons why we all loath attorneys. I am sorry for pointing the this little flaw with big implications in the 14th amendment, but, it is what it is, and, all I am doing is pointing out that there is indeed a flaw.

And it ain't like as if the examples I posted above defining "persons" in legal terms are the exception. In every legal dictionary it will be the same thing. Here's a couple of pics from just my pocket legal dictionary I use when arguing on behalf of fellow longshoremen in grievance hearings with shipping companies. The same thing; persons are not just people, but, also corporations amongst others.

If that last use of the word person in section 1. of the 14th amendment was changed to people, or even natural born persons. The Santa Clara case would be dead.

[jberryhill]

69. Here's the thing...

I keep asking you if Democratic Underground LLC has Fourth Amendment rights or not.

I'm asking you for a reason.

All Hell breaks loose around here when a news organization is subpoenaed to find out confidential sources.

The 14th Amendment is the mechanism by which the rest of the bill of rights applies to the states.

So... Why get all bent out of shape if cops want to shut down medical marijuana outlets, or if cops want to walk into newspaper offices and go through the files. Those stores, those newspaper files, are owned by corporations, just like DU LLC is a legal person, not a real one.

Just what result do you want here?

[Xicano]

72. I do understand the premise of your question, and all I am saying is:

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.

And I did try to respond that I am not concerned because if you study the fourth amendment closely, the language of it makes it inclusive to LLC's or any other business because it uses the both terms persons and people.

I am not sure if the framers thought of it that way, but, if we're not going to get into the corruption of the courts when they twist laws, then, it is my opinion that the language of the fourth is inclusive to both entities as defined by law.

Just what result do I want here? For the "intent" of the law by the framers to be followed. There is nothing to indicate that the framers intended for the fourteenth amendment to allow business interest to be on equal footing with "We the People."

So what I would like to see is for just that one word. Just the last usage of the word persons in section 1. of the 14th amendment to be changed to the word people or to the words natural persons so that it would mean ONLY what it was intended to mean. As a result corporations would no longer have lawful standing towards a number of abuses we see. To get a more complete idea of how restricted corporations were intended to be under, allow me to refer you to a history post I posted in the recent past. You can read that here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6586926

I do not believe by doing so it would result in anything else but to strip away a good chunk of wall street influence in washington.

[wroberts189]

11. Check out this movie...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1405412/synopsis

"Hardwired"

It shows the natural path of these decisions. No more democracy anywhere...corporations run amok. Holographic ads fill the sky.

They even mention the failed bailout.

Plot of the movie is that they still want more money... so they are testing a chip in your brain that makes you buy stuff.

[kristopher]

15. Wiki recap of matter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

History and legal dispute

At the California Constitutional Convention of 1878-79, the state legislature drew up a new constitution that denied railroads "the right to deduct the amount of their debts from the taxable value of their property, a right which was given to individuals." <3> Southern Pacific Railroad Company refused to pay taxes under these new changes. The taxpaying railroads challenged this law, based on a conflicting federal statute of 1866 which gave them privileges inconsistent with state taxation (14 Stat. 292, §§ 1, 2, 3, 11, 18).

San Mateo County, along with neighboring counties, filed suit against the railroads to recoup the massive losses in tax revenue stemming from Southern Pacific's refusal to pay. After hearing arguments in San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the California Supreme Court sided with the county. Using the Jurisdiction and Removal Act of 1875, a law created so black litigants could bypass hostile southern state courts if they were denied justice, Southern Pacific was able to appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.<4>
A passing remark
Bancroft Davis, the Court Reporter and former president of Newburgh and New York Railway

The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in U.S. v. Detroit Timber and Lumber (1905), headnotes are defined as "not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."<5>

The court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:

"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 the opinion that it does."<6>

In other words, corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons.<7> However, this issue is absent from the court's opinion itself.

Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:

Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.<8>

Waite replied:

I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.<9>

C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison C. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports...had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac R Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases."<10>

Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself.

Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.<11>

Decision

The court's actual decision was uncontroversial. A unanimous decision issued by Justice ruled on the matter of fences -- in that the state of California illegally included the fences running beside the tracks in its assessment of the total value of the railroad's property. As a result, the county could not collect taxes from Southern Pacific that it was not allowed to collect in the first place.<12>

The Supreme Court never reached the equal protection claims. Nonetheless, this case is sometimes incorrectly cited as holding that corporations, as juristic persons, are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.<13>
Significance

As such, it did not technically - in the view of most legal historians - have any legal precedential value.<14> However, the Supreme Court is not required by Constitution or even precedent to limit its rulings to written statements.

Justice William O. Douglas wrote in 1949, "the Santa Clara case becomes one of the most momentous of all our decisions.. Corporations were now armed with constitutional prerogatives."

Justice Hugo Black wrote "in 1886, this Court in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, decided for the first time that the word 'person' in the amendment did in some instances include corporations...The history of the amendment proves that the people were told that its purpose was to protect weak and helpless human beings and were not told that it was intended to remove corporations in any fashion from the control of state governments...The language of the amendment itself does not support the theory that it was passed for the benefit of corporations."

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

[Festivito]

25. A perfecting union first establishes JUSTICE, then on to laws.

These concepts belong to we the people.

It interests me why we conflate person as singular of people, instead of persons. Is it so personhood trumps we the people? Just wondering.

I'm not a lawyer, sorry.

[Hamlette]

27. headnotes (ie notes of the court reporter) are not controlling

if the headnote fudged, and I'm not sure it did without reading the full decision, and later courts and judges used the headnote as precedent, they were idiots.

It is now settled law. Of course, it can be overturned by an act of Congress. That would require a whole new set of laws for dealing with corporations. I don't see personhood for corporations worse than indemnity for the corporate officers and board. Get rid of that and you'd see more responsible decisions. IMHO.

[dotymed]

30. Corporate Idemnity

is one of the reasons they should not have person hood IMO.
There are many other reasons.. Basically, they should be a
benefit to our society or not exist. The same with truth and
the media. For a court to rule that a "news program"
is not responsible to be honest is absurd. We have to have
corporate rules and regulations. They exist at our discretion
and should never interfere, only help, real people.

[Hamlette]

43. corporations are not immune

you can sue a corporation, its done a zillion times a day. And courts saying a news program doesn't have to be honest has nothing to do with "personhood".

[Codeine]

48. Is there a reason for the different typeface in your posts?

Irritating and unpleasant to read on a monitor.

[jberryhill]

52. There is a font shortage in Indiana

There a statewide conservation order, but a lot of them are hoarding Helvetica.

[dotymed]

73. Fonts?

jbery,,,,,what a fucking waste

[jberryhill]

76. It's worse than I thought

Running out of consonants too.

And not enough periods to make an ellipsis.

Good to see you have plent of commas though.

(and maybe there's a reason you don't notice that there is something wrong in the way the typeface in your posts appears)

[dotymed]

87. It may be

that I don't try to be an elitist asshole. Just a theory.

[jberryhill]

89. You have to go out of your way to post in courier font, though.... /nt

[annabanana]

31. If corporate charters, licenses etc were to evaporate after, say

80 years, and the assets could be hit with a healthy "inheritance tax" maybe we could talk.

Corporations don't have a natural lifespan. They are not people.

[onenote]

34. if you really want an answer from a lawyer, I'll give it to you

As others on this thread have indicated, the story you recite is silly and muddled. Whatever may or may not have happened, it is clear that it couldn't have happened as described. Legal opinions from the SCOTUS are, and ALWAYS have been, written and issued by the court. Think about it for a minute; SCOTUS opinions are not the product of a single Justice. A majority opinion needs the concurrence of at least four other Justices. Do you think that the court achieved majorities without a written decision for the justices to review and vote on? How do you think that would work.

You have your answer. Whether you choose to accept it is up to you.

[Xicano]

37. dupe

.

[HamdenRice]

44. I have to agree with the other lawyers in this thread. This is a silly myth. Headnotes are not law.

I'll try to make this as straightforward as possible. A reporter is a person or company who takes court opinions -- written and printed by the court itself -- and reprints them, and binds them into books, which are then sold to lawyers and judges chambers.

Back in those days before the internet and "search" functions, it was very, very important that cases be indexed. An opinion was useless, unless a lawyer or subsequent judge could find it -- in the example, under some heading like "Taxes--corporations," or "Fourteenth Amendment--corporations".

So that the lawyers and later judges don't have to read the entire case, the reporters add "headnotes," which are part index and part summary of the opinion. They appear in the reporters' books just before the reprint of the courts official opinion.

Headnotes are notoriously bad. Always have been. They are not law. They are part of the indexing system and a sort of summary to enable the lawyer or judge to determine whether to read the whole case opinion.

So this story is about a possibly biased reporter misunderstanding or maybe even intentionally misinterpreting the opinion, which was printed by the court, and putting it in his book as a headnote.

This may have influenced subsequent judges, in the sense of putting an idea in their heads, but it is the opinions of subsequent judges agreeing that corporations are persons that count -- not the headnotes. If subsequent judges mis-cite Santa Clara, so what? It's the subsequent judges' opinions that made and ratified the rule of law that corporations are persons. The idea would have been adopted by some other court somewhere else because it was clearly being talked about by lots of lawyers and judges -- how to sue corporations and allow them to be sued.

Another myth is that corporations are persons for all purposes, just like natural persons, and have all the rights of natural persons.

That has never, ever been true. If that were true, there wouldn't be a "corporate tax" separate from "income tax," nor would there be much relaxed rules on regulating what corporations say under the "commercial speech" doctrine that distinguishes "free speech" of natural persons from the "commercial speech" of corporations.

If corporations weren't persons for limited purposes you wouldn't be able to sue them for things like defective products.

[Crabby Appleton]

50. +1

[jberryhill]

51. Good Explanation

Having started with paper.. It was always irritating to find out there wasn't citable support for a headnote proposition in a case.

[HamdenRice]

55. I started with headnotes. I remember Lexis came out in my 1st or 2nd year

of law school. It was too expensive to use for several more years.

Thanks for the support, but I don't think facts are ever going to make a dent in this weird myth.

[TexasObserver]

53. I approve this message.

I don't have the patience to address this kind of nonsense, and am glad you do. These stories always have as their premise that if we all knew the "real" ruling from way back when, the world would change immediately. As if today's Supreme Court would suddenly alter any of its positions on corporations and their rights. The GOP voting justices would not change their position on personhood if James Madison appeared to them and told them to do so.

Every year, in many cases, the high court further refines and defines corporate rights and personhood. Anyone who wants to do something about the problem wants one thing: a court majority that will stop the expanding of corporate personhood and rein it in. No misconstrued or misunderstood old opinion by a former court will do that. Only replacing one of the five rightward voting justices will do so.

Every good lawyer knows NEVER to rely on head notes, because lawyers who do so are invariably embarrassed to learn while arguing a motion that the case doesn't stand for what the headnote says it does. We read the opinions, and we find the HOLDINGS, and those we follow, those we cite.

Every Supreme Court opinion is written by a justice, and to get five votes, it must meet with the approval of five justices.

[jberryhill]

56. Ever heard of the "phantom 13th amendment"

There is a class of conspiracy thinking that revolves around a 13th Amendment which was ratified by the states, but through similar clerical legerdemain is not in the Constitution taught by our evil overlords.

It's of a piece with certain militia group legal theories.

[TexasObserver]

75. I try to avoid all such discussions ...

... since the likelihood one can explain something to a person who believes such things is roughly the same as Oily Taint learning how to plead the elements of a cause of action.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

77. You are right. Headnotes are not law.

Headnotes are short statements of the principles of the case, used for indexing. I remember looking up cases and Shepardizing and the Decennial Digests, back in my law school days before computers.

I know that meaning of "reporter". Growing up I used to read the Southwestern Reporter, because my dad practiced law in Texas. I was so bored I read the murder cases.

There are Federal Reporters, Tax Reporters, Appellate Reporters, yada yada.

The court reporter, or stenographer, sits in a TRIAL court and takes down the testimony in shorthand. They bang on a Stenograph machine. Then they type it up. Then the lawyers call them up and yell at them for charging too much. I know this because I was a court reporter for about twenty years and it drove me insane.

The appellate opinions of the courts are written out by the justices with input from the law clerks, who do research on precedents.

A trial transcript and an appellate record (briefs) are completely different animals.

The appellate courts and the trial courts are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

I assume that the appellate arguments in the supreme court are recorded on audio but I don't know if they have an actual stenographer to make sure that nobody mumbles, and makes sure that it is a usable record (tape recorders DO NOT replace stenographers).



I also have a law degree I earned at night while working at the courthouse full time and typing transcripts. Why? I was nuts.



I am a lawyer, but I do not play one on TV, and I don't practice law either, so you are safe. I can't sue you myself. :D

[jberryhill]

91. There's no need for an appellate transcript

Some courts record them for archival purposes, but since it is all argument with no testimonial evidence, there is no need.

[laughingliberal]

46. A complicated problem. Nevertheless, I was encouraged to read

our newest justice, Sotomayor, was recently questioning the validity of Santa Clara and corporate personhood. We need a few more like her.

[Greyhound]

65. Oh no, you just don't understand.

Justice Sotomayor is nothing compared to DU's self appointed keepers of reality.
:eyes:

[laughingliberal]

66. Thank you. I underestimated the esteemed company in which I found myself

:rofl:

edited for conciseness

[AngryAmish]

54. This is just about the stupidest thing I have ever heard

You sound like a tax resister.

[jberryhill]

59. I don't know if this one is part of their bag...

But the thinking is very much like the kind of "they are hiding the real laws from us" sort of thing.

[laughingliberal]

67. Perhaps but he has company

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125314088285517643.html

By JESS BRAVIN

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.


SONIA SOTOMAYOR
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... a creature of state law with human characteristics." <snip>

<snip> "A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible," Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in an 1819 case. "It possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it."

But as the Industrial Revolution took hold, corporations proliferated and views of their functions began to evolve.

In an 1886 tax dispute between the Southern Pacific Railroad and the state of California, the court reporter quoted Chief Justice Morrison Waite telling attorneys to skip arguments over whether the 14th Amendment's equal-protection clause applied to corporations, because "we are all of opinion that it does."

[jberryhill]

70. You are missing the point

"Personhood" is not an all-puporse binary question.

It depends on the context.

If you don't want newspapers to have Fourth Amendment rights, then you explain why.

[laughingliberal]

74. I simply posted a link to an article where Sonia Sotomayor

is quoted as questioning this. I'm thinking she knows more about it than I do. I am alarmed at the prospect that SCOTUS may soon lift all limits on the rights of corporations to donate to political causes.

[HamdenRice]

79. Nothing in her comments supports what you're arguing

She said that nineteenth century courtS, ie, no a single headnote in Santa Clara, gave corporations some of the same rights of personhood as people.

In particular she says they should not have any first amendment rights -- a position I agree with.

[laughingliberal]

81. I'm just arguing against conveying rights of personhood on corporations

this is one argument I found:


http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html

Far more remarkable, however, is that the doctrine of corporate personhood, which subsequently became a cornerstone of corporate law, was introduced into this 1886 decision without argument. According to the official case record, Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite simply pronounced before the beginning of arguement in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company 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 to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.
The court reporter duly entered into the summary record of the Court's findings that
The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen 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.
Thus it was that a two-sentence assertion by a single judge elevated corporations to the status of persons under the law, prepared the way for the rise of global corporate rule, and thereby changed the course of history.


The point I am making is not, entirely, that a single headnote gave corporations the status of 'persons.' What I see is a "two sentence assertion by a single judge elevated corporations to the status of persons under the law."

[jberryhill]

80. Yes, but that's not a "personhood" issue...

Corporations can sue and be sued. Corporations can enter into contracts. Corporations can and should do a lot of things that natural persons do.

Whether they can contribute without restraints to political campaigns is a narrower question than whether they are "persons" in any given context.

Wanting to obtain a particular result on a narrow question is not a good reason for throwing out all of the results one likes.

[laughingliberal]

68. kick for attention to problem of corporate personhood nt

[Romulox]

83. Supreme Court cases are decided on naked ideology. Afterwords, clerks hunt for some *justification*

to sanctify what otherwise amounts to little more than the Justice's personal prejudices writ into law.

So the point is and has always been moot; they would've found some other justification (perhaps discovered in a "penumbra"!) to do what they otherwise desired to do anyhow.

Which is more a critique of the disproportionate powers of our Court, when compared to most others around the world, than it is of the practices of some long dead scribe...

[HamdenRice]

84. Obviously stated by someone who has never read a brief, court opinion

or legal history book about how various judges came to their decisions. In other words, all noise, no signal.

[Romulox]

85. You never tire of embarassing yourself, Hammy. Have a nice weekend, btw?

:rofl:

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Romulox]

88. Where do you reckon I got the word "penumbra" from, Mr. Holmes?

;silly:

[jberryhill]

90. The "tell"...

Of course, the clerks and the entire legal profession are all in on this charade. What gets taught in law school is largely origami and crossword puzzles. I've never managed to work myself into one of these intellectually bankrupt professions where people just collect big checks for pulling stuff out of their asses and covering up for corrupt overlords. Just unlucky, I guess.

[HamdenRice]

92. "What gets taught in law school is largely origami and crossword puzzles"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You owe me a cup of coffee now, and maybe even a keyboard!

[Romulox]

93. The "tell" is that Hammy didn't pick up on the word "penumbra"

(which is a buzz-word taken from one of the most famous cases of all time.)

All while castigating somebody else about how many "briefs" (sic) they've read! :rofl:

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Romulox]

98. LOL. Since when do you speak for Hamden Rice?

"it is a key case for conservatives who like to ridicule it"

And yet I wasn't ridiculing it in the least. At any rate, the word whooshed right over Mr. Rice's head, as he proceeded to castigate me for "never having read a brief (sic), court opinion...". :hi:

"What HamdenRice, and I, chose to do, is not to chase after every childish comment you've made on the basis of your general ignorance of how the law works."

No, what you are unable to do is to correct a thing I've said, as it is essentially true (and not something that is subject to "yes/no" falsification, at any rate!)

"The reasoning and type of interpretative scheme applied to a given analysis is certainly influenced by the underlying judicial philosophy of a particular justice. But your view of how opinions are written is more revealing of your personality, than of the process.

HamdenRice is a good case in point. He and I have disagreed viscerally and passionately on other things, but I can respect that he has his reasons for those opinions."

HamdenRice is the person who calls those who disagree with him "cultists" and addresses persons to his left as "comrade". Either you've chosen to be his champion out of ignorance, or you approve of his hunt to root out "cultists". So which is it?

At any rate, none of this serves to allay the irony of not picking up on the single hottest buzz word in the single most famous case in SCOTUS history, all while castigating someone for not having read a brief (how Hammy feels a brief is reflective of the judicial decision making process is best left unexplored!) ! :hi:

[jberryhill]

100. Your belief that your reference to "penumbra" is significant...

...indicates that you probably aren't all that familiar with the law.

Most people can recognize the William Tell Overture as "that Lone Ranger song". It doesn't say much about their knowledge of classical music.

(Most people will recognize this lovely melody as "Stranger In Paradise". But did you know it is really from the Polivetzian Dances Number 9 by Borodin?)

[Romulox]

102. Gimmeabreak. It is significant to ANYONE with a passing familiarity with Con law.

Your excuses are more embarrassing than the primary offense at this point. :hi:

[jberryhill]

105. That is my point... "a passing familiarity"... /nt

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Romulox]

107. What absolute tosh. Your (HamdenRice's) ignorance of basic caselaw is not reflective of whatever I

may or may not know about the law. :hi:

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Romulox]

99. Need it be pointed out that Hammy has long FLED this thread, btw?

:hi:

[jberryhill]

101. Ah, because he doesn't obsessively reply 24/7, he has "fled"?

Well then, victory is yours. Corporations are no longer legal persons for any purpose. Nirvana has arrived. Woo hoo!

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Romulox]

110. LOLs. You ran away when you figured out your mistake. nt

[HamdenRice]

111. Just because I find your responses boring doesn't mean I've fled

You have to keep in mind that a lot of what you write is pretty meaningless. There were many other much more interesting threads, so no I didn't "flee" this thread.

You obviously know nothing about judicial decision making from the deterministic post you made at the head of this subthread so forgive me for thinking, this is going to be a boring discussion with someone who knows nothing about judicial decision making and not coming back to check here.

:hi:

[fascisthunter]

96. get ready, because if Corps are allowed to Donate Any Amount

to candidates, our vote will never matter and corporations will finally rule this nation. Our FOrefathers would be disgusted....

[GreenPartyVoter]

104. Hence the need for mandatory publicly funded elections