Title: Question of the Day. If Congress..... Source:
[None] URL Source:[None] Published:Nov 24, 2011 Author:A K A Stone Post Date:2011-11-24 21:31:24 by A K A Stone Keywords:None Views:8091 Comments:36
If congress is forbidden to make a law. Can they go ahead and make that law anyways?
Very simple question. My 11 year old could get the answer right. Can liberals?
speech (spch) n. 1. a. The faculty or act of speaking. b. The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words. 2. Something spoken; an utterance. 3. Vocal communication; conversation.
You're welcome. But next time to to the local elementary school and ask one of the fourth graders.
Stone would have been a Tory during the Revolution, since it was the only position that supported the Monarchy/East India Co, corporatism is free speech, alliance that existed then.
The founders got rid of that concept and now the dummy TeaBaggers want it back.
The founders got rid of that concept and now the dummy
Liar Liar your pants are on fire!
I've already proved that wrong with the first amendment. If you think they ignored their own first amendment you are going to have to show me some law passed that did as you say. If you do that I will say sorry for calling you a liar. But lying does have a definition. You know it was wars position that corporations didn't exist back then so there was no prohibition. War can correct me if I am not exactly right on what he said.
I've already proved that wrong with the first amendment. If you think they ignored their own first amendment you are going to have to show me some law passed that did as you say. If you do that I will say sorry for calling you a liar. But lying does have a definition. You know it was wars position that corporations didn't exist back then so there was no prohibition. War can correct me if I am not exactly right on what he said.
Show me where it was commonly practiced before the SCOTUS decision.
Show me where it was commonly practiced before the SCOTUS decision.
The Supreme court simply undid an unconstitutional act that congress previously passed. So under color of law people were restricted from freely speaking.
I'm not sure when congress passed the acts that were struck down. Mid 20th century?
The Supreme court simply undid an unconstitutional act that congress previously passed.
The use of the word "persons" in the 14th Amendment (1868) opened the way for corporate personhood and a court reporter ran with it.
Wikipedia:
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 United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), 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."[3]
The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, 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."[4]
In other words, the headnote indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons.[5] However, this issue was not decided by the Court.
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.[6]
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.[6]
C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. 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[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases."[7]
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.[8]
So before 1868 corporations were not persons and were not entitled to free speech.
