Retry: Should "Union Pacific vs. Santa Clara' be reheard?

Question

think it should. As I understand it, it was closed without any arguments, testimony or anything. Such a major case that put meat on the bones of corporations and begun the process of granting them the rights of human beings, and allowing them to have only the ethic of money-making (thus making them psychopathic) and is a decision that I think is responsible for many of the problems in America today.

I'm not sure what the process for such a thing should be, but I think it should be heard with testimony regarding this decisions massive effects on the country, ethicists heard on the subject of the ramifications of granting human rights to corporations et. cetera...

Answer 1

First, it is Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Rail Road. It is from 1886. And it is the generic name give to a series of three cases.

It is important legally to recognize a corporation as a person because it not only affords the corporation protection, it allows the government to go after the corporation as a legal entity.

Besides, corporate person-hood has been around for centuries prior to this decision. Corporations have been able to act as limited persons in that they can enter contracts, etc. This is to shield the investors of the corporation from personal losses associated with the corporation.

Answer 2

Well, we all have our opinions. Personally, I think Texas blew it on Roe v. Wade when they failed to challenge the jurisdiction of the USSC and failed to claim that Texas asserted an interest in the life of the unborn, which was the whole reason the law in question was even submitted as a bill, so I'd like to see that retried on strictly the jurisdictional question, but hey, you can't always get what you want.