is not a story of rugged individualism and heroic sacrifice in pursuit of a dream, but a story of democracy derailed, a revolutionary spirit suppressed, and a once-proud people reduced to servitude.
Really appreciate the history. I keep learning, more and more, how my concept of my country was an illusion. Not surprised it began breaking after the Civil War. The Civil War was truly devastating. So, it comes down to the result of racism, slavery and genocide. We used too much self-deception. We built on sand.
There's a bit more to the story of Santa Clara County versus Southern Pacific Railway, has related by Jim Hightower, the populist former agricultural Secretary of Texas, in a July 27, 2022 posting titled
"How a Clerical Error Made Corporations 'People'"
Hightower writes [Copywrited by Jim Hightower (publisher of the Hightower Lowdown, to which everyone should subscribe) and Creators Syndicate]:
"There's a historic date, which our country ought to mark every year, that has had as great an impact on the world as the July 4 birth of American democracy itself. The date is May 10, 1886 — the day corporate supremacy was born. It came about through a court case that breathed life into these artificial, antidemocratic entities — a move that effectively gave corporations greater power than We the People.
"The reason that today's Powers That Be (which are — big surprise! — corporate powers) don't want us paying the slightest bit of attention to this momentous date is that the birth of corporate supremacy actually was illegitimate, carrying no force of law. An old proverb says: "A lie repeated 1,000 times becomes the truth." This particular lie asserts that every corporate business structure is, in the eye of the U.S. Constitution, equal to real human beings, possessing all the rights of people
"So where do we get today's assumption that a corporation is fully entitled to the constitutional rights of the American people? It was a mistake!
"The mistake came in the writing of a "headnote" to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1886 decision in an obscure tax case called Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. (I'll not burden you with any minutiae from this case, which involved, of all things, the county's right to tax some of the railroad's fence posts).
"The railroads pushed hard in this unheralded case to get the court to rule that corporations have equal taxation and other human rights under the 14th Amendment. Chief Justice Morrison Waite, a failed Ohio politico and former railroad lawyer, seemed a likely bet to do the corporate bidding — but he did not. The court decided in favor of Southern Pacific on the mundane fence-post matter, but it specifically dodged the immense issue of personhood. It held no open court discussion about it, wrote no opinions mentioning it and rendered no judgment on it.
"So where do we get today's assumption that a corporation is fully entitled to the constitutional rights of the American people? It was a mistake!
"The mistake came in the writing of a "headnote" to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1886 decision in an obscure tax case called Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. (I'll not burden you with any minutiae from this case, which involved, of all things, the county's right to tax some of the railroad's fence posts).
"The railroads pushed hard in this unheralded case to get the court to rule that corporations have equal taxation and other human rights under the 14th Amendment. Chief Justice Morrison Waite, a failed Ohio politico and former railroad lawyer, seemed a likely bet to do the corporate bidding — but he did not. The court decided in favor of Southern Pacific on the mundane fence-post matter, but it specifically dodged the immense issue of personhood. It held no open court discussion about it, wrote no opinions mentioning it and rendered no judgment on it.
"But a court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis (a former railroad official), wrote the headnote to the decision — a headnote being a summary of the case, for which reporters like Davis received a commission from the publisher of these legal documents. Davis's lead sentence declares: "The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a state to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"That's it. A clerk's personal opinion, carrying no weight of law and misinterpreting what the court said — this is the pillar on which rests today's practically limitless assertions of corporate "rights." Davis later asked Waite whether he was correct in saying that the court had ruled on corporate personhood, and Waite responded that "we avoided meeting the constitutional questions."
"Corporate attorneys seized on the headnote, quoting it as the law of the land, and it was not long before politicians and judges themselves joined in the farce, either because they were eager to support the corporate cause or were simply too lazy to read the actual case."
————————————————
Personally, I believe it was a deliberate misrepresentation – after all, the guy was a former corporate railroad lawyer – rather than a quote mistake unquote, but that's just me in my unalloyed cynicism. YMMV
So all the SCOTUS “originalists” need to do to fix this is to reverse Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific, and restore corporate law to the principles in place at our nation’s founding. Ha!
Sorry, when I cut and pasted the original article, I accidentally put in two paragraphs twice, as well as in my very first paragraph spelling 'as' as'has,'and I couldn't find any way to edit it in order to correct the mistakes.
Please don’t continue to make immense profits feeding insecurities and falsehoods by marketing and making weapons with the sole purpose of killing and maiming people, and which are used to wage war in order to gain more control over more resources all for you guessed it, more profit.
Really appreciate the history. I keep learning, more and more, how my concept of my country was an illusion. Not surprised it began breaking after the Civil War. The Civil War was truly devastating. So, it comes down to the result of racism, slavery and genocide. We used too much self-deception. We built on sand.
Now more than ever we need Adbusters & culture jamming.
By the way, I really appreciate your posts and your essays
Thank you.
There's a bit more to the story of Santa Clara County versus Southern Pacific Railway, has related by Jim Hightower, the populist former agricultural Secretary of Texas, in a July 27, 2022 posting titled
"How a Clerical Error Made Corporations 'People'"
Hightower writes [Copywrited by Jim Hightower (publisher of the Hightower Lowdown, to which everyone should subscribe) and Creators Syndicate]:
"There's a historic date, which our country ought to mark every year, that has had as great an impact on the world as the July 4 birth of American democracy itself. The date is May 10, 1886 — the day corporate supremacy was born. It came about through a court case that breathed life into these artificial, antidemocratic entities — a move that effectively gave corporations greater power than We the People.
"The reason that today's Powers That Be (which are — big surprise! — corporate powers) don't want us paying the slightest bit of attention to this momentous date is that the birth of corporate supremacy actually was illegitimate, carrying no force of law. An old proverb says: "A lie repeated 1,000 times becomes the truth." This particular lie asserts that every corporate business structure is, in the eye of the U.S. Constitution, equal to real human beings, possessing all the rights of people
"So where do we get today's assumption that a corporation is fully entitled to the constitutional rights of the American people? It was a mistake!
"The mistake came in the writing of a "headnote" to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1886 decision in an obscure tax case called Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. (I'll not burden you with any minutiae from this case, which involved, of all things, the county's right to tax some of the railroad's fence posts).
"The railroads pushed hard in this unheralded case to get the court to rule that corporations have equal taxation and other human rights under the 14th Amendment. Chief Justice Morrison Waite, a failed Ohio politico and former railroad lawyer, seemed a likely bet to do the corporate bidding — but he did not. The court decided in favor of Southern Pacific on the mundane fence-post matter, but it specifically dodged the immense issue of personhood. It held no open court discussion about it, wrote no opinions mentioning it and rendered no judgment on it.
"So where do we get today's assumption that a corporation is fully entitled to the constitutional rights of the American people? It was a mistake!
"The mistake came in the writing of a "headnote" to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1886 decision in an obscure tax case called Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. (I'll not burden you with any minutiae from this case, which involved, of all things, the county's right to tax some of the railroad's fence posts).
"The railroads pushed hard in this unheralded case to get the court to rule that corporations have equal taxation and other human rights under the 14th Amendment. Chief Justice Morrison Waite, a failed Ohio politico and former railroad lawyer, seemed a likely bet to do the corporate bidding — but he did not. The court decided in favor of Southern Pacific on the mundane fence-post matter, but it specifically dodged the immense issue of personhood. It held no open court discussion about it, wrote no opinions mentioning it and rendered no judgment on it.
"But a court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis (a former railroad official), wrote the headnote to the decision — a headnote being a summary of the case, for which reporters like Davis received a commission from the publisher of these legal documents. Davis's lead sentence declares: "The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a state to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"That's it. A clerk's personal opinion, carrying no weight of law and misinterpreting what the court said — this is the pillar on which rests today's practically limitless assertions of corporate "rights." Davis later asked Waite whether he was correct in saying that the court had ruled on corporate personhood, and Waite responded that "we avoided meeting the constitutional questions."
"Corporate attorneys seized on the headnote, quoting it as the law of the land, and it was not long before politicians and judges themselves joined in the farce, either because they were eager to support the corporate cause or were simply too lazy to read the actual case."
————————————————
Personally, I believe it was a deliberate misrepresentation – after all, the guy was a former corporate railroad lawyer – rather than a quote mistake unquote, but that's just me in my unalloyed cynicism. YMMV
So all the SCOTUS “originalists” need to do to fix this is to reverse Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific, and restore corporate law to the principles in place at our nation’s founding. Ha!
Thank you for this. I have been teaching this in my real economics units.
Sorry, when I cut and pasted the original article, I accidentally put in two paragraphs twice, as well as in my very first paragraph spelling 'as' as'has,'and I couldn't find any way to edit it in order to correct the mistakes.
Please don’t continue to make immense profits feeding insecurities and falsehoods by marketing and making weapons with the sole purpose of killing and maiming people, and which are used to wage war in order to gain more control over more resources all for you guessed it, more profit.