Supreme Court: You can't put restrictions on an individual's right to bear arms. Oh, yeah, and corporations are 'individuals.' K Street: Okay! Now let me make my case another way... Tom: Military industrial simplex.
SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO., 118 U.S. 394 (1886):
“Despite the Court’s narrow holding, the case was not without constitutional consequence. In an unusual preface, entered before argument, Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite observed that the Court would not consider the question “whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbade a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the Constitution, applied to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does” (p. 396). It followed that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. ”
Great comments and I’d like to add that that these same Judicial bodies have declared that “speach” is not just words spoken by a human mouth. Now it is actions by individuals such as flag burning. I can hardly wait for our Supreme Court to declare that “day is the same as night!”
This is not just a funny idea for a comic. It is the real, actual truth. The ‘military industrial complex” is indeed powerful, and does, indeed, get its way. That’s why Eisenhower warned us about it as he left office. If anybody knew about this first hand, it was an old general like President Eisenhower.
And if you disagree with the Industrial Military Complex, then you MUST be a socialist. If I understand this right & I’m not a lawyer, this is a pretty RADICAL RULING from a Supreme Court appointed mostly by CONSERVATIVE presidents. I wondered why this conservative court flew in the face of over 200 years of interpretation of the Second Amendment as NOT applying to individuals to say that it did. This is extremely scary.
This is a very serious problem for sure and apparently it started with the 1886 Santa Clara ruling mentioned by wildcard. Now it is creeping more and more into the law and threatening the rights of individuals more and more. This is something that the Roberts court appears to have no interest in curbing.
Motivemagus over 14 years ago
Ouch! I hadn’t thought of that. Okay, Second Amendmentists, whaddya think of this? Corporations fielding private armies to enforce their will…?
wolfhoundblues1 over 14 years ago
If a group of people decide to use arms unlawfully, force then can be used against them. Since when is a corporation an individual?
cdward over 14 years ago
I believe the Supreme Court just ruled that corporations are to be considered individuals in that they enjoy the same rights as individuals here.
Wildcard24365 over 14 years ago
SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO., 118 U.S. 394 (1886): “Despite the Court’s narrow holding, the case was not without constitutional consequence. In an unusual preface, entered before argument, Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite observed that the Court would not consider the question “whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbade a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the Constitution, applied to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does” (p. 396). It followed that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. ”
http://www.answers.com/topic/santa-clara-county-v-southern-pacific-railroad
cjr53 over 14 years ago
Don’t Corporations generally have all the rights of an American Citizen, but none of the moral responsibilities?
bikemaster over 14 years ago
Great comments and I’d like to add that that these same Judicial bodies have declared that “speach” is not just words spoken by a human mouth. Now it is actions by individuals such as flag burning. I can hardly wait for our Supreme Court to declare that “day is the same as night!”
fairportfan over 14 years ago
rikoshay: I assume you are not a lawyer (or, let us say, have a legal degree).
I love to listen to non-attorneys explaining “what the Constitution means”.
It’s funnier than The Simpsons.
seablood over 14 years ago
This is not just a funny idea for a comic. It is the real, actual truth. The ‘military industrial complex” is indeed powerful, and does, indeed, get its way. That’s why Eisenhower warned us about it as he left office. If anybody knew about this first hand, it was an old general like President Eisenhower.
ChuckTrent64 over 14 years ago
And if you disagree with the Industrial Military Complex, then you MUST be a socialist. If I understand this right & I’m not a lawyer, this is a pretty RADICAL RULING from a Supreme Court appointed mostly by CONSERVATIVE presidents. I wondered why this conservative court flew in the face of over 200 years of interpretation of the Second Amendment as NOT applying to individuals to say that it did. This is extremely scary.
parkersinthehouse over 14 years ago
extremely scary if our constitutional lawyer president doesn’t take it on
i feel like i’m suddenly in the twilight zone
tomcib over 14 years ago
“I am the peacemaker and so the theory goes… But I don’t choose the company I keep and it shows.” (Ian Anderson: I am your gun)
nomad2112 over 14 years ago
kat827618 over 14 years ago
Campaigns should have legal spending limits and be funded by grants, with each candidate receiving the same size grant.
Corporations have no morals. They exist only to take profits, unless they are non-profit.
deadheadzan over 14 years ago
This is a very serious problem for sure and apparently it started with the 1886 Santa Clara ruling mentioned by wildcard. Now it is creeping more and more into the law and threatening the rights of individuals more and more. This is something that the Roberts court appears to have no interest in curbing.