EDITORIAL: Corporations = Citizens?
Jesse Heath
Issue date: 11/16/01 Section: Opinions & Editorials
- Page 1 of 2 next >
The fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed in the wake of the Civil War in order to secure "the freedom of the slave race," according to Supreme Court Justice Samuel F. Miller (1873). However, very soon after its ratification the Supreme Court, our "impartial" institution of defining justice, transformed the amendment to serve the interests of corporations.
The precedent was set in 1886, just 18 years following the fourteenth amendment's ratification. The case was Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. The details of the case itself were not what made this case so important, but rather the framework of argument to which the Supreme Court limited the case. Before the opening arguments, Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite stated, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution…applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion it does."
Thus, with one careless remark, Chief Justice Waite forever changed the legal status of corporations by interpreting them, in the words of the court reporter, as "persons within the intent of the clause in section one of the fourteenth amendment…" And apparently, the late nineteenth century was a period in which corporations were subjected to malicious and discriminatory attacks. Indeed, between 1890 and 1910, of the fourteenth amendment cases brought to the Supreme Court, nineteen dealt with African-Americans and 288 dealt with corporations.
The judgment of Waite's declaration of corporate citizenship is questionable. The reasoning behind it is that since corporations are owned and operated by citizens, then they ought to be afforded the same protections as those citizens. However, several contradictions arise from this argument. For example, if U.S. law interprets corporations as legal citizens, and shareholders own these "citizens," then ownership of a corporate citizen violates the Thirteenth Amendment, which outlaws slavery.
The precedent was set in 1886, just 18 years following the fourteenth amendment's ratification. The case was Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. The details of the case itself were not what made this case so important, but rather the framework of argument to which the Supreme Court limited the case. Before the opening arguments, Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite stated, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution…applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion it does."
Thus, with one careless remark, Chief Justice Waite forever changed the legal status of corporations by interpreting them, in the words of the court reporter, as "persons within the intent of the clause in section one of the fourteenth amendment…" And apparently, the late nineteenth century was a period in which corporations were subjected to malicious and discriminatory attacks. Indeed, between 1890 and 1910, of the fourteenth amendment cases brought to the Supreme Court, nineteen dealt with African-Americans and 288 dealt with corporations.
The judgment of Waite's declaration of corporate citizenship is questionable. The reasoning behind it is that since corporations are owned and operated by citizens, then they ought to be afforded the same protections as those citizens. However, several contradictions arise from this argument. For example, if U.S. law interprets corporations as legal citizens, and shareholders own these "citizens," then ownership of a corporate citizen violates the Thirteenth Amendment, which outlaws slavery.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
jm5302771238
jm5302771238
posted 2/10/02 @ 8:31 PM CST
The "Corporations = Citizens?" editorial by Jesse Heath is a worthy effort towards meeting the true Citizen's need to be fully informed. My one negative criticism is in the the use of the term "careless" when attempting to describe Chief Justice Morrison Waite's 1886 court participation in an outrageous injury to the American people. (Continued…)
Post a Comment