Major Decisions By The U.S. Supreme Court
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-06-26/major-decisions-us-supreme-court
The U.S. Supreme Court has signaled to states that there are limits to their authority in dealing with undocumented immigrants. Yesterday the justices struck down most of Arizona's tough anti-illegal immigration law. Most see the decision as a win for the Obama administration. But supporters of the Arizona law were pleased the court upheld the provision dubbed "show me your papers." It requires police to check the status of suspected illegal immigrants. The nation's highest court also ruled that it's unconstitutional to give juveniles mandatory life sentences without parole. And it declined to revisit its controversial two-year-old Citizens United campaign spending decision. Diane and her guests offer analysis of the court's key rulings.
Guests
Jeffrey Rosen
professor of law, The George Washington University; legal affairs editor, The New Republic.
Fawn Johnson
correspondent, National Journal magazine.
Michael Scherer
White House correspondent, Time magazine.
Supreme Court Decision: Arizona v. United States
The full text of the Supreme Court decision in Arizona et al., vs. the United States is below:
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
"Corporations are People" ,and human beings are excrement. So says the T-Party 5 on the SCOTUS. A solid 100% voting record in favor of the U.S.Chamber of Commerce,a right wing front group. A 0% voting record for human being issues like the 6 million current and former employees at the Big Box store. These 6 million people were told to take a hike.
I thought Bush v Gore was a one time power grab. WRONG.It was their license to steal,over and over again.
Sounds like people to me! could it be that the "corporation" has become something more in political discourse than what it is in reality. Since money has little to do with election results and corporations are indeed comprised of people, the use of the word "corporation" as a political negative is a red herring. Saying elections were bought instead of accepting that the defeat was because of a poor message or a bad candidate is a pretty flimsy argument.
Highly recommend the link below on the effects of money in campaigns, it's interesting that 2/3 of losing incumbents out spent their opponents.
Definition of CORPORATION
1a : a group of merchants or traders united in a trade guild b : the municipal authorities of a town or city
2: a body formed and authorized by law to act as a single person although constituted by one or more persons and legally endowed with various rights and duties including the capacity of succession
3: an association of employers and employees in a basic industry or of members of a profession organized as an organ of political representation in a corporative state
http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472099213-ch8.pdf
One would imagine the smartest people in our history,the Founding Fathers,could have mentioned corporations,and corporate liberties once had they chosen.. Instead,they choose individual liberties instead of the King`s imposed taxes and laws of the East India Corporation.The REAL villain. Unfortunately,they could never imagine right wing extremism,and PEOPLE are Corporate Charters. While living,breathing,human beings and their rights being are discarded.
"We the People"....XXXXX scratch that....... delete
Jefferson,Washington,Adams,etc,you stupid morons. How is it you could not see the Constitution and Bill of Rights like the T-Party 5
Patsy Nomore wrote: "One would imagine the smartest people in our history,the Founding Fathers,could have mentioned corporations"
They did! they called them people. No people no corporation. At it's essence your argument is that no organized group of people should be allowed a voice in the political system if their politicaly demonized.
Sorry monte, being a constitutional fundamentalist means that you have to take the constitution as the complete and inerrant word of the founders.
You cannot have it both ways as you so often castigate and condemn others for.
The word "corporation" does not appear in the Constitution, and there is considerable evidence that the founders were extremely worried about corporate influence. If it's not there, then it shouldn't be an influential part of politics! If the founders intended that corporations were people they'd have said so....or is the constitution a living document after all?
I find it a strange view of the "holy constitution" to say that when it says every "person" must have "equal protection," it does not protect women, but that freedom of "speech".... something only humans were capable of in 1787 and today....guarantees corporations the right to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.
But it matters little.... we are not far from a fascist state and soon that will be complete. Torchlight parade anyone?
Question????
What happens when the only non elected branch of the United States Government takes on the robes of Facisim ???
( YEAH I SAID IT. So what are you gonna do? Arrest me for sedition?????)
Answer!!!!!!!!
Citizens United.
Question ?????
Who do the Justices Answer to.........
A. the people of the United States?
B. The Koch Brothers and the Oligarchs?
C. No one?
Answer!!!!!!!!!
C. (and they like it that way)
Question
How can the corporatist Justices on the Supreme Court pack the Court with like minded Facists?????
Answer!!!!!!
Citizen United.
Question???
Are you awake yet?
Answer
????????????
Question???
Have we lost our Democracy to the Oligarchs???????
Answer!!!!!
Are you awake yet ???????
Question???
Who owns America?
Answer!!!!!!
ARE YOU AWAKE YET ??????
Question ?????
How do we get our democracy back????
Answer!!!!!!!
ARE YOU AWAKE YET ???????
Remember that you have the power to determine who will choose the next Supreme Court Justice,with the power of your vote in Novemeber.
Question ??????
What will your vote be worth if the Black Robed Facists Have their way?????
Answer!!!!!!!!!
Diddly
ARE YOU AWAKE YET ??????
ARE YOU AWAKE YET ??????
ARE YOU AWAKE YET ??????
ARE YOU AWAKE YET ??????
Why the Revolutionary War? If everything is about corporate liberty and not individual liberty,all we needed was a corporate takeover. Nobody had to die. A corporate raider,aka Vulture Capitalist could have accomplished this without spilling 1 drop of blood.
In Iraq,19 innocent women and children were gunned down by corporate private military contractor. In Orlando Florida,a homeless,jobless American holds up a sign reading "WILL WORK FOR FOOD".... >>> WHO GOES TO JAIL <<<
Answer: Homeless,Jobless,hungry,American......
Teece Bowman wrote: "Sorry monte, being a constitutional fundamentalist means that you have to take the constitution as the complete and inerrant word of the founders. You cannot have it both ways as you so often castigate and condemn others for."
Sorry but the burden is on you. I am not the one that claims corporations are not people. The fact that the constitution does not list any type of non governmental organization comprised of people such as labor unions and the myriad of non profit foundations that exercise their first amendment rights via campaign donations does not mean there is a conflict with "Original Intent". The burden is on you to explain why one organized group of people has first amendment rights and another does not.
Lets have it?
On the SB1070 decision:
Hmm. Of the four sections of the law it examined, the Supreme Court struck down 3, and left just one "intact". (I put that in quotes because arguably much of the "teeth" in that one part depended on some, if not all, of the other three). And yet my Governor calls this a "victory"?
Meanwhile, if you read the decision, you'll see it was a clear vindication of Federal authority against the too often raised shallow cry of "States' Rights". Indeed, the one part left intact escaped only because the Court found Congress had authorized that kind of provision. (I don't agree, but the only opinion that counts is the "Supremes'".)
On the issue of corporate "personhood":
As is often the case, I find both "sides" in this argument to be simplistic, and therefore wrong.
The legal fact is corporations are people, artificial people, the product of a legal fiction. (A very valuable fiction. It's what prevents shareholders from being personally liable if the corporation makes a mistake, or sells a defective product.)
The real question, therefore, is whether this fictitious "person" should enjoy the same rights as "natural" persons. I say no, for a simple reason. As creations of statutory law, passed by the State governments, they should be subject to such limitations as those governments choose to impose. Indeed, originally corporations were allowed to have only very limited powers. So, despite the "original intent" blather, I doubt the Founders intended or could have intended for corporations to have the same rights as "real people". (I doubt even this Supreme Court would grant them the right to vote, for example.)
But that doesn't end the relevant inquiry. There is little doubt that everyone posting here could fund political campaign ads as individuals. The real question is whether greater restrictions should be allowed if we choose to do so through a corporation. That is far too complex and subtle a matter to be resolved simply by crying: "Corporations are/aren't people!"
To uselesseater, writing on June 25, 2012 @ 9:54 pm:
Whether you or I like the outcome of a Supreme Court decision or (more importantly to me) the reasoning employed to reach that outcome, doesn't make them Fascists, or any other form of tyrants.
Like it or not, the Judicial Branch of our government is charged with interpreting and applying our laws, including the Constitution. As Chief Justice John Marshall declared two centuries ago: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." - Marbury v. Madison.
What would you prefer instead? The British system where the "Constitution" is simply the body of laws passed by Parliament, and subject to modification or outright repeal by that same body? Perhaps the President (say through signing statements) should have the power to declare which laws shall be followed, and which won't? Maybe we should put all such matters up to public referendum, so that all of our "rights" will be directly subject to popular vote (with the majority determining the rights of the minority)?
The Founders wanted to put certain things beyond the reach of "temporary majorities", whether those majorities expressed their view through the Legislative or Executive Branches. (And they certainly feared direct democracy - which is why there is no mention of referendums in the Constitution.) Their solution was to write our rights into the Constitution, to make that document difficult to amend, and to leave it to an independent Judiciary (free from political winds) to apply and enforce its commandments.
Whether or not you agree with that system, it's the one they gave us!
(But I agree with you about choosing Presidents carefully since they choose the Justices. For me that is always Issue #1 every four years.)
Fascism as envisioned by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile is the Coming together of the State and the Corporations to rule the ignorant peons.
In their world only the elite had the necessary wisdom and understanding to make the important decisions that affected the nation.
So like good fascists they took away the power of the Italian people to participate in any reasonable way in governing themselves and gave it to the corporations.
What's the difference between that and what the Black Robed Fascists on the Supreme Court are attempting to do?
In my opinion (because as an American citizen I'm allowed to have one, at least for now) there is none.
If a law comes before this court that affects the power of the Oligarchs to rule this country, the Black Robed Fascists will almost always rule in favor of the Oligarchs. They will even contradict their own previous opinions if they have to.
They have proven time and time again that they no longer see themselves as working for the freedom and democracy of the American People.
They are just doing their jobs and doing it well and when they are finished
America will be a very different place.
Remember my fellow peons.
!!!!!!!!!!!! SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE !!!!!!!!!!!
I feel that the 'corporation as a person' and the 'Arizona alien' decisions are the perfect set-up for the following:
1. Can laws be passed to tax corporations as individuals? Can there be some legislative or prosecutorial actions taken against a corporation as if it were a person?
2. Can the recent Arizona alien decision be the cause of a "Rosa Parks" moment? Some one sets them self up as a test case that will result in the law being totally rejected?
Instead of complaining about the decision, create an action that brings it back to court. What has happened to creative peaceful civil disobedience?
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote: "On the issue of corporate "personhood":As is often the case, I find both "sides" in this argument to be simplistic, and therefore wrong."The legal fact is corporations are people, artificial people, the product of a legal fiction. (A very valuable fiction. It's what prevents shareholders from being personally liable if the corporation makes a mistake, or sells a defective product."
When I had an LLC I still bled and required food to survive as does the members of any type of corporation. The members of any type of corporation are flesh and blood not manikins or fictitious entities. While the forming of a corporation does offer certain protections it does not eliminate liability completely, case in point the tobacco companies. Corporation are successfully sued and held liable all the time, it's members do feel the pain of financial loss just like anyone else.
Interesting how no one responds to the fact in my first comment that "corporations" pose no real threat to democracy or the electoral system. I suppose it is just too difficult to let go of this security blanket of lies that allows you to feel you are a victim of fictitious corporate masters.
The name of Corporate corruption of State government is A.L.E.C.... The American Legislative Council.... For just $100K your T-Party State politician will allow corporate lobbyists,and lawyers,to write legislation and contracts,as well as determine State policy. For a small bribe to the T-Party by the power companies the skies the limit on rate hikes. How about the bribe to the T-Party by cable companies that raise our cable and internet rates 100% in 1 decade.
OH YEA! "GREED IS GOOD" FOR SOME,BUT NOT ME !!!
People make such a fuss about Citizens United, but haven't corporations had a personhood status since Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819? Is the hullabaloo then because of the political implications?
It seems that if the issue is merely political, then it is really nothing new. Campaign reform should be the goal and has been a recurring issue for nearly a decade.
What are some options being discussed regarding campaign reform?
Also, has the decision on the Arizona Immigration law shed any light on the outcome in the Healthcare case?
Here's why monte:
"The truth is useless. You have to understand this right now. You can't deposit the truth in a bank. You can't buy groceries with the truth. You can't pay rent with the truth. The truth is a useless commodity that will hang around your neck like an albatross -- all the way to the homeless shelter. And if you think that the million or so people in this country that are really interested in the truth about their government can support people who would tell them the truth, you got another think coming. Because the million or so people in this country that are truly interested in the truth don't have any money."
~Jeb Bush
So unless you have money, there is no such thing as the truth. Corporations have lots of money, the average citizen has none.
Sure lots of Scotus/Obama issues.
On the immigration issue hear little to nothing about decades of U.S. employers hiring illegal immigrants and few arrest ,prosecutions or employers going to prison. When will the MSM go state by state and report about these stats? Employer arrest, proseutions and imprisonment of employers...can someone address this. Why did these illegal immigrants come? These employers often get away with slave wages.
Regarding the fear elicited by the AZ law, that's the result the proponents want. "Self deportation" is precisely this: fill human beings with the sense of being constantly hunted, so they leave the state.
Proponents need to take responsibility for this ugliness.
Teece Bowman wrote: "So unless you have money, there is no such thing as the truth. Corporations have lots of money, the average citizen has none.'
Strange how you use an anti big government speech and the relevance of facts in political discourse. If anything I would be more correct using Jebs words to bolster my position than you using it to bolster yours which is completely lacking any factual information, after all aren't the facts the truth? and the fact is corporate money has little if any influence.
If these states (mostly Southern states) feel that their sovereignty is so supreme that they would make and enforce laws traditionally reserved by the federal government, then why don't they just secede from the Union (again).
If corporations are people, do they need to be 'American Citizens' to contribute to political campaigns?
According to the federal election campaign site, they state:
Can non-US citizens contribute?
Foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S. Please note, however, that "green card" holders (i.e., individuals lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S.) are not considered foreign nationals and, as a result, may contribute. For additional information, consult our "Foreign Nationals" brochure.
Why aren't organizations i.e. US Chamber of Commerce, Mobil, Exxon, etc. being investigated to see if they are 'legal citizens' of the USA?
As a country we naturalize about 800,000 people per year, more than all of the European Union countries combined. If you listen to the debate you would think our immigration policies are something less than incredibly generous.
http://www.gafnervisalaw.com/2011/01/28/how-many-people-naturalize-each-...
Arkus,
So sad about all that blood you shed as an LLC but the fact is that the LLC itself had no blood, sweat, or tears, similarly to the S Corp I used to own and a couple of joint parnerships (unincorporated). The fact that Our Constitution makes explicit references to both individuals and groups of people (aka humans) but NEVER allots rights or privileges of any kind to companies/corporations/businesses as entities should indicate the lack of treating those as "people". Conservatives routinely decry activist justices when they "make law from the bench"........except when it benefits their greedy interests. Funny how avarice affects one's view of human rights.
Note that SCOTUS struck down Montana's attempt to limit campaign money for state contests even though they explicitly omitted federal campaigns.......another conservative artificial protection of corporate money. IF as you say money makes no difference in an election, then why does anyone ask for or donate $$$$$? Fact is that money matters a great deal and corporate leaders believe it. Note that conservatives work hard to deprive unions of such actions and complain about union money going to candidates and issues that may not be agreed to by all union members.....hence all those bogus Right to Work laws. What's sauce for the goose is gravy for the gander.....you cannot rationally have it both ways.
I guess you then agree wholeheartedly that "unions are people" too. Yeah, right.
Does my adopted Korean-born daughter need to carry 'documentation' at all time to prove her American citizenship? Are we turning into totalitarian countries requiring citizens to carry papers at all times? It seems as if there is one set of standards for people who look "American" to those who don't look like 'Immigrants'? Sounds racist to me.
I’m listening to the broadcast this morning and all the gushing from the panel particularly those remarks from Rosen and his attempts to influence the court; as if the judges are yielding to populous thoughts today.
When the Supreme Court's rulings alter the makeup of the legislative and executive branches, as with the Bush v. Gore and Citizens United cases, that's an attack on the separation of powers. It breaks down the checks and balances that limit the power of the judicial branch.
LibVet wrote:"but the fact is that the LLC itself had no blood, sweat, or tears"
As stated before it does, the LLC cannot exist without a living human body. The assets of the LLC are indeed vulnerable against law suits, maybe I could keep my house but my livelihood can be taken away and I would suffer as a human being.
LibVet wrote: "I guess you then agree wholeheartedly that "unions are people" too. Yeah, right."
There are about 28 posts here and several are mine, if your going to attempt to debate a point with me don't you think you should at least read what I have already written, I have no interest in writing the same comment over and over.
Whenever I see the SCOTUS official picture with FF Scalia with his smug smirk, Alito, Roberts looking clueless Thomas looking like he'd wandered into the wrong room, Dicken's line come to mind “If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”
Truly, a group of posteriors, sorely in need of a human experience.
With the Supreme Court taking up the issue of Health Care Thursday ,I wanted to bring up an interesting point that has not been disscussed.
The federal government imposses "clean air and water"standards to corporations,and this ,making corporations go out and purchas and install equipment to meet the standards set.(Well if corporations are "people" then what is the differance with asking "people"to buy insurance?If on one hand the federal government can mandate to (people)corporations,then why not people people?