Talk:Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co.

message: Should the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission(2010) be mentioned under significance?
: And now corporations have religious rights via Hobby Lobby. I did not know a corporation could practice religion.
: Jeffrey Walton  (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citizens United decision 

message: The story in this section sounds suspicious.Even it this *weren't* an accurate precedent surely there would be other supreme court cases on the topic.Roadrunner 22:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogosity meter tripped 

message: FYI, (1) Chief Justice Waite himself explicitly stated in his (recently discovered) letter of 31, May 1886 that the case DID NOT apply the Fourteenth Amendment to "juristic persons".  link to Waite Correspondence to Court Reporter J.C Bancroft Davis. A reading of case itself (instead of the headnotes of the case) will quickly confirm this. (2) The case HAS been widely and frequently (and mistakenly) cited by USSC for over 100 years as being the Court's first declaration that corporations are "persons" for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. In fact this case HAS been misunderstood in exactly the manner described.
It's now a matter of history.
The decision did not rule that corporations are persons: Davis added it in the headnotes (commentary) on his own, and subsequent courts have incorrectly based decisions since 1886 on the headnotes and not the case.  (Thanks to Michael Kinder, who found this in the J.C. Bancroft Davis collection of personal papers in the National Archives in Washington, DC, where they had been sitting, unnoticed, for over a century.), 
   
The letter from Davis to Waite asking if he got the comments right precedes Waite's response. Davis writes, after quoting language stating that corporations are persons, "please let me know whether I correctly caught your comments and oblige [reply]." 
In his reply to Davis, Waite writes: "I think your mem(ory) in the California Rail Road tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the arguments began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the Constitutional question in the decision." ''
Waite-Davis letters from the National Archives 
 
 
riverguy42 21:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bogosity meter" failed; zero "bogosity" found 

message: Can someone revert this to the last version by User:Bibliophylax? I'm not very good at this. >.> --AgentCDE 04:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: The content of this article is, by most peoples' accounts, disputed. See Corporate personhood debate. Could someone mark it as such?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrio (talk • contribs) 01:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Worse than disputed, I would say.  Most of the article seems to have been taken verbatim from this article in a publication called "The People's Voice".  A footnote was added but this kind of content copying is not appropriate and The People's Voice is hardly a reliable source.  Note also that content was added by an anonymous user in the revision of 14 February.  Accordingly, I am deleting the added content.  Elliotreed (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed? 

message: That article struck a cord with somebody, even though it appears to be nonsense.
Anyway, those watching this article may also want to watch Bancroft Davis (the Court Reporter), who has apparently changed the face of legal history in the US forever despite essentially being a glorified typist. The article also claims he was himself a former railroad President, which seems to be a fact plucked straight out of the authors you-know-what.
Someone had put in a huge chunk of what was removed from this article.--EchetusXe (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In regards to recent 'debate' 

message: In this talk about Corporate Power, Law Firms, and Law Schools, Ralph Nader asserts that personhood was granted not by the judgment itself, but by the headnote given by the scribe to the court. – Kaihsu (talk) 09:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ralph Nader 

message: What's with the "smoke signals" sentence (added "19:47, 22 July 2009 91.104.42.107")?  It's one thing to say generically that they can rule however they want and another to mention a specific method that is preposterous. 63.147.59.14 (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smoke signals?