[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: Deprivation of rights under color of law TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 13 – § 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. Poster Comment: Found this as a comment somewhere I was reading Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest 14th Amendment, Section 1:
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. The 14th Amdt requires equal protection of the law to any person. That phrasing encompasses citizen and non-citizen alike. Corporations are considered persons too! 14th Amendment, Section 5:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. I do believe you found the enforcement legislation. http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2010/title18/parti/chapter13/section242/
2010 US Code http://tvwiki.tv/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad
Some historians have speculated that the reason Chief Justice Waite may have declined to hear arguments regarding the personhood status of corporations is because he may have been convinced that this was the original intent of Congress when drafting the amendment through testimony by Roscoe Conkling during the San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case of 1882. Roscoe Conkling was one of the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment and he claimed that members of congress were careful to use the word "person" rather than "citizen" when writing the Fourteenth Amendment so that corporations could be included in the definition. As evidence, he read from a secret journal that was written during the drafting process. However, in 1932, a Stanford law librarian, Howard Graham discovered that the entries read during Conkling's testimony differed from the entries in the secret journal. He concluded that Roscoe Conkling, who was working for the railroad industry at the time of his testimony before the Supreme Court, purposely mislead the court with his testimony in order to grant corporations the same constitutional rights as natural persons. Eight detailed publications by Graham about the topic were compiled and republished as Everyman's Constitution in 1968.
#2. To: nolu chan (#1) I was hoping you would chime in on this. You always have something to offer that is enlightening. Do you have anything else interesting about this Roscoe Conkling? Did you just learn about him or have you heard of him before?
#3. To: nolu chan (#1) (Edited) use the word "person" rather than "citizen" when writing the Fourteenth Amendment so that corporations could be included in the definition Corporations being considered persons and privileged ones at that, is one of my pet peeves. I believe that the special person status afforded corporations, violates the Constitution's prohibition against "Titles of Nobility". The board of directors is deemed to have special privileges and immunities not recognized for regular citizens.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice. #4. To: A K A Stone (#2) Do you have anything else interesting about this Roscoe Conkling? Did you just learn about him or have you heard of him before?
Roscoe Conkling was a well known Whig and later Republican, a big time lawyer, and then a Congressman and Senator. Grant offered to make him Chief Justice of the Supreme Court but Conkling declined. I have known about Conkling and this Santa Clara story for years and have several books that cover it at length. The relevant chapter of a book by Thom Hartmann is online and is an interesting read. http://www.thomhartmann.com/unequal-protection/excerpt-theft Unequal Protection: The rise of corporate dominance and theft of human rights Excerpt from Unequal Protection: The Theft of Human Rights
The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act. Another book is Age of Betrayal: The Triumph of Money in America 1865-1900, by Jack Beatty. His relevant chapter is called The Scandal of Santa Clara. U.S. Const., Article 3, Section 4, Clause 1 defines the jurisdiction of Federal courts:
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. You may notice that for individuals to invoke the jurisdiction of the court, the Constitution speaks explicitly and repeatedly to citizens. Even when you are able to think of corporations as artificial persons, it remains difficult to imagine them as citizens. It is an interesting tale of legal legerdemain.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|