[PEN-L:33409] Re: Re: Re: Local Government Rejects Corporate Personhood

[andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Whatever the original case may have said, there are a billion cases saying it now. jks

 Ian Murray <seamus2001@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "andie nachgeborenen"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 8:13 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:33404] Re: Local Government Rejects Corporate Personhood


>
> Alas, the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution means
that this gesture has no legal effect. Federal law is supreme over
municipal la, and the US Supreme Ct has jheld long ago that corporations
are persons for purposes of the 14th Amendment, and thus for purposes of
the various rights in the Bill of Rights that have been subsequently
incorporated against the states via the 14A, including due process, no
takings, and the like. A local govt pronouncement cannot trump an Sct
opinion. jks

==================

Except Santa Clara never said that. Thom Hartmann went and looked u! p the
original case. The infamous short note that everyone is taught as the
case was the headnote written by the Court reporter, a man who happened
to have worked for the railroads. Hartmann's arguments may be found in
"Unequal Protection: The rise of corporate dominance and theft of human
rights" which was published in October.

Ian

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now