Sorry, Trump Is Far From Finished

RealityForAll said:

Interesting aside:  the above case does not explicitly deal with constitutional rights of corporations or corporate personhood.  Instead, the issue is taken up in the headnote (which is not written be the Court and is written by a representative of the publishing company).  I have set forth the relevant headnote as follows:
 
One of the points made and discussed at length in the brief of counsel for defendants in error was that 'corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.' Before argument, Mr. Chief Justice Waite said: 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.

Interesting aside to the aside: The reporter in the 1880s was J.C. Bancroft Davis, whose wildly inaccurate summary of the Southern Pacific case said that the Court had ruled that “corporations are persons within … the Fourteenth Amendment.” Whether his summary was an error or something more nefarious—Davis had once been the president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company—will likely never be known.

From ‘Corporations Are People’ Is Built on a 19th-Century Lie* (The Atlantic)

* Not the headnote

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

lord_pabulum said:

Formerlyjerseyjack said:
I don't believe Trump is a Nazi but he is an economic Fascist. And on top of it all, the trains ain't even running on time.

 What's an 'economic fascist'?

 All (or as much as possible) government economic support is focused on business and industry. Trump focuses his economic programs to benefit business and industry but also adds support for the wealthy.
The betterment of the nation comes from economic planning by government AND corporations. 
Another term for fascism, as it was promoted in the U.S., was corporatism. 
Corporatism is now implemented by Congress and K Street.

 Well said!

DaveSchmidt said:

RealityForAll said:

Interesting aside:  the above case does not explicitly deal with constitutional rights of corporations or corporate personhood.  Instead, the issue is taken up in the headnote (which is not written be the Court and is written by a representative of the publishing company).  I have set forth the relevant headnote as follows:
 
One of the points made and discussed at length in the brief of counsel for defendants in error was that 'corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.' Before argument, Mr. Chief Justice Waite said: 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.

Interesting aside to the aside: The reporter in the 1880s was J.C. Bancroft Davis, whose wildly inaccurate summary of the Southern Pacific case said that the Court had ruled that “corporations are persons within … the Fourteenth Amendment.” Whether his summary was an error or something more nefarious—Davis had once been the president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company—will likely never be known.
From ‘Corporations Are People’ Is Built on a 19th-Century Lie* (The Atlantic)
* Not the headnote

 According to Wikipedia the portion that I quoted was indeed the headnote.  See attached picture.  In addition, I have also set forth a link from SCOTUS with opinion of the court. See https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/394/  The person-hood issue is cited in the syllabus only.

In the Atlantic article that you cite above, the author, Adam Winkler, asserts:  

"Field nonetheless saw Davis’s erroneous summary as an opportunity. A few years later, in an opinion in an unrelated case, Field wrote that 'corporations are persons within the meaning' of the Fourteenth Amendment. 'It was so held in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad,' explained Field, who knew very well that the Court had done no such thing.

His gambit worked. In the following years, the case would be cited over and over by courts across the nation, including the Supreme Court, for deciding that corporations had rights under the Fourteenth Amendment."

Winkler suggests that Field's distorting holdings of the Court are unique to this particular attorney.  It is the obligation of Field's adversary(ies) to point out any such misinterpretation and/or distortion of prior holdings.  If adversaries did not oppose a misinterpretation or distortion set forth in Field's POV on the holding of the Santa Clara County case, then such facts beg the question:  was Field's POV on the Santa Clara County holding indeed correct.

.

The case you cite and it's significance is very poor jurisprudence. That is not just my opinion.

In his dissent in the 1938 case of Connecticut General Life Insurance Company v. Johnson, 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

nohero said:
Somewhat depressing article.  It doesn't help that there are people who call themselves "progressive" who are helping to buttress Trump like this.

If we could sit ordinary Trump voters down in a courtroom for days, many of them probably would follow the evidence and change their minds. But since public opinion and politics don’t work that way, it’s not even a good bet, much less a “safe” one, that Trump’s supporters will abandon him. Even that pro-Trump juror who voted to convict Manafort told Fox News that she still viewed the whole prosecution as a “witch hunt”: “Certainly Mr. Manafort got caught breaking the law, but he wouldn’t have gotten caught if they weren’t after President Trump.”

Will the truth about Trump ultimately bring him down? In the eyes of historians, probably yes—but in the meantime, his fate and the nation’s depend on politics, particularly the internal politics of the Republican Party. Until there are major Republican defections—and we have no sign of them yet—Trump will remain our president.

The recurring expectation of Trump’s imminent political demise may have its deepest roots in a certain kind of American exceptionalism—a belief that “it can’t happen here,” that Trump does not truly represent “who we are,” and that our fellow citizens will surely come to the realization that a man so manifestly dishonorable and deceitful is unfit to be president of the United States.

But it is time to give up these illusions. The truth does not always prevail, and Americans are as susceptible to demagoguery as the people of other countries. We may have thought our institutions protected us from that fate, but now we should know better. Steeled with that realism, we ought to be prepared for the difficult fight ahead. 

Nohero posts this excerpt about Trump supporters

But when asked by ML1 what this has to do with progressives, nohero launches a rant about progressives who challenge the Russia investigation . . . 

LOST said:
The case you cite and it's significance is very poor jurisprudence. That is not just my opinion.


In his dissent in the 1938 case of Connecticut General Life Insurance Company v. Johnson, 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

In my first post on this issue, I merely cited Santa Clara County for the proposition that corporations are treated as natural persons with respect to some constitutional rights.  Initially, there appeared to be some confusion regarding the holding for Citizens United versus the Santa Clara County holding.  My postings were an attempt to illustrate the differences between the two holdings (and also included a bit of history in my interesting aside portion of my post).

Finally, I have expressed no opinion on whether the Santa Clara County SCOTUS opinion is good or bad jurisprudence.

RealityForAll said:

According to Wikipedia the portion that I quoted was indeed the headnote.

Indeed it was. My asterisk was meant to advise readers of the headline that the lie it referred to was not the headnote. It was Conkling’s account of the 14th Amendment deliberations.

dave23 said:
I thought yahoo was referring to Citizens United.

 Yes, that was the case I had in mind.

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

lord_pabulum said:

Formerlyjerseyjack said:
I don't believe Trump is a Nazi but he is an economic Fascist. And on top of it all, the trains ain't even running on time.

 What's an 'economic fascist'?

 All (or as much as possible) government economic support is focused on business and industry. Trump focuses his economic programs to benefit business and industry but also adds support for the wealthy.
The betterment of the nation comes from economic planning by government AND corporations. 
Another term for fascism, as it was promoted in the U.S., was corporatism. 
Corporatism is now implemented by Congress and K Street.

Fair enough definition.  You agree, then, Corporatism (a better word) has been around long before Trump?  I don't support the dismantling of financial regulations put in place by the Dodd-Frank act - in which dismantling safeguards against "too big to fail"  is a good example of corporatism.

RealityForAll said:

Finally, I have expressed no opinion on whether the Santa Clara County SCOTUS opinion is good or bad jurisprudence.

 I know. That is not why I expressed my opinion. I googled he case and found an article that quoted Justice Black. I think it made a rather good point.

In any event thank you for the Constitutional scholarship.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:
Somewhat depressing article.  It doesn't help that there are people who call themselves "progressive" who are helping to buttress Trump like this.

If we could sit ordinary Trump voters down in a courtroom for days, many of them probably would follow the evidence and change their minds. But since public opinion and politics don’t work that way, it’s not even a good bet, much less a “safe” one, that Trump’s supporters will abandon him. Even that pro-Trump juror who voted to convict Manafort told Fox News that she still viewed the whole prosecution as a “witch hunt”: “Certainly Mr. Manafort got caught breaking the law, but he wouldn’t have gotten caught if they weren’t after President Trump.”

Will the truth about Trump ultimately bring him down? In the eyes of historians, probably yes—but in the meantime, his fate and the nation’s depend on politics, particularly the internal politics of the Republican Party. Until there are major Republican defections—and we have no sign of them yet—Trump will remain our president.

The recurring expectation of Trump’s imminent political demise may have its deepest roots in a certain kind of American exceptionalism—a belief that “it can’t happen here,” that Trump does not truly represent “who we are,” and that our fellow citizens will surely come to the realization that a man so manifestly dishonorable and deceitful is unfit to be president of the United States.

But it is time to give up these illusions. The truth does not always prevail, and Americans are as susceptible to demagoguery as the people of other countries. We may have thought our institutions protected us from that fate, but now we should know better. Steeled with that realism, we ought to be prepared for the difficult fight ahead. 

Nohero posts this excerpt about Trump supporters

But when asked by ML1 what this has to do with progressives, nohero launches a rant about progressives who challenge the Russia investigation . . . 

 Sheesh.  You had already commented on that response that you mischaracterize as "a rant about progressives who challenge the Russia investigation", and I responded on the prior page.

Adopting the "It's a witch hunt" argument helps Trump.  That's not arguable.

I don't know why you felt the need to revisit is, which your attempt to "diss" without providing the text of you're attempting to "diss".  Maybe you forgot you'd already commented.  Or maybe you were providing a birthday offering in your own unique way.

If the latter, thanks but you really shouldn't have.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:
Somewhat depressing article.  It doesn't help that there are people who call themselves "progressive" who are helping to buttress Trump like this.

If we could sit ordinary Trump voters down in a courtroom for days, many of them probably would follow the evidence and change their minds. But since public opinion and politics don’t work that way, it’s not even a good bet, much less a “safe” one, that Trump’s supporters will abandon him. Even that pro-Trump juror who voted to convict Manafort told Fox News that she still viewed the whole prosecution as a “witch hunt”: “Certainly Mr. Manafort got caught breaking the law, but he wouldn’t have gotten caught if they weren’t after President Trump.”

Will the truth about Trump ultimately bring him down? In the eyes of historians, probably yes—but in the meantime, his fate and the nation’s depend on politics, particularly the internal politics of the Republican Party. Until there are major Republican defections—and we have no sign of them yet—Trump will remain our president.

The recurring expectation of Trump’s imminent political demise may have its deepest roots in a certain kind of American exceptionalism—a belief that “it can’t happen here,” that Trump does not truly represent “who we are,” and that our fellow citizens will surely come to the realization that a man so manifestly dishonorable and deceitful is unfit to be president of the United States.

But it is time to give up these illusions. The truth does not always prevail, and Americans are as susceptible to demagoguery as the people of other countries. We may have thought our institutions protected us from that fate, but now we should know better. Steeled with that realism, we ought to be prepared for the difficult fight ahead. 

Nohero posts this excerpt about Trump supporters

But when asked by ML1 what this has to do with progressives, nohero launches a rant about progressives who challenge the Russia investigation . . . 

 Sheesh.  You had already commented on that response that you mischaracterize as "a rant about progressives who challenge the Russia investigation", and I responded on the prior page.
Adopting the "It's a witch hunt" argument helps Trump.  That's not arguable.
I don't know why you felt the need to revisit is, which your attempt to "diss" without providing the text of you're attempting to "diss".  Maybe you forgot you'd already commented.  Or maybe you were providing a birthday offering in your own unique way.
If the latter, thanks but you really shouldn't have.
 

Speaking the truth is not arguable.

I looked at the OP and your response to ML1 again and decided that an intervention was needed.

From that perspective, you can consider it a birthday gift.

paulsurovell said:

I looked at the OP and your response to ML1 again and decided that an intervention was needed.

 I've looked at your work the last few days in your "Trump's Not The Colluder, Hillary Is" thread (or whatever it's called), and my suggestion is "Physician, heal thyself."

Hillary should be indicted though.   Trump is not very particular or careful or specific in many of his rants.   Based on the evidence revealed so far there isn’t a convincing case of collusion between Trump and the Russians.   I believe that is the  essentially “witch hunt” he is ******** about.  

notupset said:
Hillary should be indicted though.   Trump is not very particular or careful or specific in many of his rants.   Based on the evidence revealed so far there isn’t a convincing case of collusion between Trump and the Russians.   I believe that is the  essentially “witch hunt” he is ******** about.  

 can't tell if you're being facetious or not.