10 Supreme Court Rulings That Turned Corporations Into People Mother Jones and Alex Park July 10, 2014
https://www.alternet.org/2014/07/10-supreme-court-rulings-turned-corporations-people/
The following story first appeared on Mother Jones. For more great Mother Jones content, click here to subscribe.
Last week's Hobby Lobby ruling charted new legal territory by granting corporations the same religious rights as real people. The rationale behind the decision—that expanding constitutional rights to businesses is necessary to "protect the rights of people associated with the corporation"—is far from novel. A line of Supreme Court rulings stretching back 200 years has blurred the distinction between flesh-and-blood citizens and the businesses they own, laying the groundwork for Hobby Lobby and the equally contentious Citizens United ruling. Here's a timeline of the corporation's human evolution:
1809 (Bank of the United States v. Deveaux): In the early days of the republic, when state and federal courts were still working out their jurisdictions, the Bank of the United States—a precursor to the US Treasury—sued a Georgia tax collector named Peter Deveaux for property he had seized when the bank failed to pay state taxes. Deveaux argued that, because corporations weren't people, they couldn't sue in federal court. Chief Justice John Marshall agreed. This meant businesses could only sue or be sued in federal court if all the shareholders, and at least one member of the opposing party, lived in the same state. According to Burt Neuborne, a corporate law professor at New York University, Wall Street banks hated this decision because it restricted suits to state courts where judges were partial to the banks' local clients—typically Midwestern farmers.
1844 (Louisville, Cincinnati, and Charleston Railroad v. Letson): It soon became apparent that Marshall's decision in Bank of the United States was unworkable because it put corporations outside the reach of the federal courts. Thirty-five years later, after hearing the Louisville, Cincinnati, and Charleston Railroad case, the Supreme Court shifted course, ruling that corporations were "citizens" of the states where they incorporated. Still, it was difficult for a corporation to sue or be sued in federal court unless all its shareholders lived in the same state.
1853 (Marshall v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad): The Supreme Court later upheld the notion that corporations were citizens, but only for the purposes of court jurisdiction; they did not have the same constitutional rights as actual people. The court also ruled that, for litigation purposes, shareholders would be considered citizens of their company's home state. This made it easier for corporations to sue or be sued in federal court by eliminating jurisdictional conflicts.
1886 (County of Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad): Now that corporations were legally citizens, corporate attorneys worked to expand their rights. When California officials levied a special tax on the Southern Pacific Railroad, the railroad sued, arguing that singling out the company violated its rights to equal protection under the 14th Amendment, which was intended to protect freed slaves. In a strange twist, the court reporter—a former railroad man—wrote in the published notes on the case that the 14th Amendment did, in fact, apply to the company. Even though this notion appeared nowhere in the high court's actual ruling, 11 years later the court declared it was "well settled" that "corporations are persons within the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment," citing Santa Clara.
1898 (Smyth v. Ames): Building on the Santa Clara decision, the court voided a Nebraska railroad tax, ruling that it was akin to the government taking a corporation's property without due process—a violation of its 14th Amendment rights. (The decision was overturned in the 1944 Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas decision.)
1906 (Hale v. Henkel): Having blocked unlawful seizures of corporate property, the court went on to shield companies from other kinds of intrusion. Writing for the majority, Justice Henry Billings Brown found that corporations, like people, are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment (although the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination did not apply).
1931 (Russian Volunteer Fleet v. United States): A Russian shipbuilder, Russian Volunteer Fleet, sued the US government, claiming that government officials had unlawfully seized property worth more than $4 million. The high court sided with the company, ruling that even foreign corporations are protected from unlawful government seizures under the Fifth Amendment, which ensures fair treatment by the legal system.
1977 (United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co.): After a criminal trial for two linen companies and their owner was dismissed due to jury deadlock, federal prosecutors appealed the decision. The Supreme Court ruled that a second trial violated the companies' rights to be tried only once, expanding the double jeopardy rule to include both humans and corporations.
2010 (Citizens United v. FEC): In the run up to the 2008 election, the Federal Elections Commission blocked the conservative nonprofit Citizens United from airing a film about Hillary Clinton based on a law barring companies from using their funds for "electioneering communications" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. The organization sued, arguing that, because people's campaign donations are a protected form of speech (see Buckley v. Valeo) and corporations and people enjoy the same legal rights, the government can't limit a corporation's independent political donations. The Supreme Court agreed. The Citizens United ruling may be the most sweeping expansion of corporate personhood to date.
2014 (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby): Corporations are legally people with the right to free speech, but do they have religious rights? Apparently, they do. In 2012, Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma-based craft store chain, sued the federal government, arguing that a provision in the Affordable Care Act requiring it to provide contraception coverage for employees violated shareholders' constitutional rights to freedom of religion. The Supreme Court sided with Hobby Lobby and found that corporations can assert the religious rights of their owners, greatly expanding the power of shareholders while creating a world of confusion for corporate attorneys.
The Future: If a corporation has First Amendment rights, could it also claim Second Amendment protections? Amazingly, this is a question some scholars are seriously pondering. As Darrell A.H. Miller wrote in his 2011 article "Guns, Inc." in the NYU Law Review, "If Citizens United is taken seriously, the Second Amendment, like the First Amendment and like many other provisions of the Bill of Rights, guarantees liberties to natural and corporate persons alike." Bang!
ahh, touché - have not had a post reach the top of the main page highlighted in red
A MOD has to do it, that is why I asked.
Thank you for asking, much appreciated.
What has me thinking is what they are desperately trying to hide as they run their theatre of diversion tactics – many are not aware there were already 30 companies in the Americas well before the Revolutionary War – and while they want us to believe their false narrative of nomads riding bare back and living in camps of branches covered in cowhide, that these nomads built the monolithic pyramids, temples, palaces, tombs and fortresses found from coast to coast here on the American continent – which Ancient Dynasty (Kingdom) came to the American continent in exile or was a Dynasty already here? Are they searching for the bloodline(s)? What is 23andMe Ancestry Kit about? mRNA alters DNA?
The Smithsonian institution, created by a foreign entity, destroyed evidence and was proven to be involved in major historical cover-ups (few links as examples below)
https://worldnewsdailyreport.com/smithsonian-admits-to-destruction-of-thousands-of-giant-human-skeletons-in-early-1900s/
https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread741628/pg1
Juicy!!!! I have notes on the Smithsonian and the Giants.
A long long time ago, so funny, buildings were considered to be living entities. Some being said to breath, even. What if the offspring of the Sons of God (angels) and the daughters of Man (women) were built? Osiris was said to have "rebuilt" her husband, replacing his penis with an obelisk and some how managed to produce "children" from that) They did love them some big ass buildings back in the day. If those buildings were considered alive then all of the people would be under law which forbade them from messing with the buildings like they would have been forbidden from messing with other people. Kind of like how they are trying to erect Giants today with the same rights as people. It lends a huge helping hand to the slave state if you can encourage people to join and why do people often join cities vs. toughing it on their own in the wilderness? Corporations are considered people, under the law, to protect the owners of the corporation and their board of directors not to protect the people at large. (DuPont) This could be considered a law against man and thus a law against God whom is said, by Jesus Christ, to reside in the hearts of man. What if the Smithsonian falsified the story of the "real" giants to confuse man at a time when the Corporation was well on it's way to being deemed a legal person and citizen? The "Giants" of old were said not to be able to possess the Spirit of the Almighty, is this because they didn't have actual hearts? "My Father will no longer rest his spirit in the temples."
The angels would have the know how to build such things. Solomon is even said to have used demons to help build his temple. Technology isn't yet what it used to be before the flood. As it was so shall it be again.
Just a theory.
I do feel like they are looking for someone or a group of people. Could be the 12 tribes that were sent out into the world. I do not think that they will find them like that though. 23 and me seems to me to be a nod to Jesus himself as it is said that someone had gotten DNA from the shroud that covered him in the tomb and he had 24 chromosomes. 23 from his mother and 1 that had never been seen before without a definitive source, God.
Art can be unfortunate in that those that created it were often unable to be direct in their approach of communication through it our they might lose their lives. This is one reason that I enjoy satire when I get it.
I believe architects and builders may refer to the structures created from natural materials sourced from the earth (clay, wood, stone, sand, etc.) that organically expands and contracts as breathing, due to the everyday internal and external dynamics of the buildings environment, yet in no way is a building alive just as a corporation is in no way a legal person or citizen. Would they also be working on redefining the definition of what is it to be human, encouraging humanity to agree in granting the same rights to robots as people?
While many of our methods and techniques of today are not new just modernized, ancient Egypt was a very advanced society, as the reference to the Osiris story, just a theory here, could have been a medical device used in ancient Egypt in the shape of or similar to an obelisk for artificial insemination, which would be a miracle and truly a spiritual gift for a woman to conceive with this method.
Keep in touch while we witness the desperados deviate quest (ddq) has lost power, this is biblical.
Glory Be To God