For or against a constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United

[The Minsky Moment]

LaCroix

Sure the decision contains more words.  Obviously I wasn't saying that the 80+ page decision was only 21 words long.  By definition, any set of excerpts that I post that is less than 80 pages could be accused of "cherry picking"

However, the addition  words you quoted add absolutely nothing of substance I said.  The Court just says over and over again that suppressing "corporate speech" amounts to suppressing the expression of speech because it involves suppressing speech by corporations.  That is circular reasoning.  What it does not do at any point is identify the way in which any individual or set of individuals is being inhibited from delivering a message.  '

As for the Court's holding -- that the First Amendment "applies to corporations" -- that is hardly "cherry picking.". In fact it is the very first statement the Court makes on the subject. I think it is fair to say it represents the Court's actual position on the matter.

that's not a holding by the Citizens United court

Of course it is a holding of the Court, it is in the Court's majority opinion - what else would it be?  It is the Court explicitly taking a long line of precedent and applying a particular characterization that will be binding on all future lower courts.

but rather an already established rule

No it was not.  Cleary the Court is *saying* that but it don't make it so.  The question is what do the cited cases actually say and what do they stand for.  If you go and read those cases they stand for a different proposition- namely that the fact that the speech emanates from a corporation does not mean it is not protected.  That is a different proposition from saying that IS automatically protected.

How can you be sure I am correct about this?

Because there was in fact "an already established rule" going to the exact question decided in Citizens United.  That was the rule the Court followed in Austin - namely that corporate political speech could be regulated.  The Court overruled Austin So it cannot be maintained there was an "already established rule" that "First Amendment protections applied to corporations" because most recent Supreme Court cases addressing the question in the very same context held the opposite. 

[LaCroix]

at work, so for now: not everything in an opinion is a holding, which you must know. SCOTUS was reiterating a rule, one established long before Citizens United. this rule is the First Amendment applied, in part, to corporations. SCOTUS merely expanded the already established rule with its holding later in the opinion

[chipwich]

Minsk: Do you actually believe that the New York Times has no speech/press rights since it's a corporation?

[LaCroix]

The Court overruled Austin So it cannot be maintained there was an "already established rule" that "First Amendment protections applied to corporations" because most recent Supreme Court cases addressing the question in the very same context held the opposite.

also, decided to check Austin. first section of Austin's analysis:

Certainly, the use of funds to support a political candidate is "speech"; independent campaign expenditures constitute "political expression 'at the core of our electoral process and of the First Amendment freedoms.'" The mere fact that the Chamber is a corporation does not remove its speech from the ambit of the First Amendment.

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652, 657 (1990)

the first paragraph of the whole opinion also discusses how corporations have rights

[grumbler]

Minsk: Do you actually believe that the New York Times has no speech/press rights since it's a corporation?

If it does have them, where did the rights come from?  Humans have innate rights by virtue of their being human; from whence come the rights of corporations?

[LaCroix]

from whence come the rights of corporations?

with the first amendment on december 15, 1791

[Berkut]

The First Amendment did not create a right, it already existed.

[The Minsky Moment]

also, decided to check Austin. first section of Austin's analysis:

Certainly, the use of funds to support a political candidate is "speech"; independent campaign expenditures constitute "political expression 'at the core of our electoral process and of the First Amendment freedoms.'" The mere fact that the Chamber is a corporation does not remove its speech from the ambit of the First Amendment.

Nothing in that statement is objectionable, and it is all consistent with both prior precedent and with Yi's formulation above. 

There is a big difference between "the mere fact that X is a corporation does not remove its speech from the ambit of the First Amendment" and "The First Amendment applies to corporations."

the first paragraph of the whole opinion also discusses how corporations have rights

The first Para is a summary; doesn't say anything about corporations having rights.
The Austin court doesn't hold that corporations have rights but it does quite correctly - explain that "state law grants corporations special advantages" and proceeds to enumerate what those "advantages" are.

[Berkut]

Minsk: Do you actually believe that the New York Times has no speech/press rights since it's a corporation?

I would turn this around - if the New York Times DOES have free speech rights because it is a corporation, why is there a need for a specific freedom of the press outside the already articulated freedom of speech?

ongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Seems like the bolded part is unnecessary if it is covered by "freedom of speech" generally.

[grumbler]

from whence come the rights of corporations?

with the first amendment on december 15, 1791

As Berkut notes, this is incorrect.  The First Amendment created no rights.

[The Minsky Moment]

Minsk: Do you actually believe that the New York Times has no speech/press rights since it's a corporation?

To say that the NYT Company has "press rights" is a sloppy form of expression.  If meant metaphorically or as a kind of mental shortcut, it isn't a big deal, but taken literally it can lead to serious error.

The First Amendment is a restriction on Congress from restraining the freedom of the press.  The implication of the Amendment is that it bars Congress from doing certain things that might in turn impact on the NYT Corporation.   But it isn't right to leap from that to say that the NYT corporation, qua corporation "has rights"

Despite its absolutist literal language, the First Amendment is in reality typically applied according to rules of reason, i.e. weighing the impact on speech and expression vs. the interest served by regulation in accordance with a standard.  The relevant impact is measured with respect to human beings not artificial entities.  Because it is possible that a restriction aimed at an artificial entity can materially impact natural persons, however, the Court quite rightly has held over the years the rule LaCroix quoted in Austin - the fact that "X" is a corporation does not mean that speech emanating from "X" is wholly outside the protection of the First Amendment.  Sometimes that complex formulation is reduced to shorthand of talking about "corporate freedom of expression.". That's not really the right way to talk about it, but as long as that was understood as merely convenient shorthand, no harm no foul.  But with Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, the Court tumbled down the slippery slope.

[LaCroix]

The Austin court doesn't hold that corporations have rights but it does quite correctly - explain that "state law grants corporations special advantages" and proceeds to enumerate what those "adva

i never said the austin court holds corporation has rights. you said "recent supreme court cases," referring to austin, have held corporations do not have rights. that is incorrect, which i showed. the austin court discusses at length the rights corporations have. a right can be limited. a right is not absolute. i do not have the right to scream fire in a movie theater. the language is in the opinions -  both austin and those 1970 SCOTUS cases listed on the second page show corporations have rights.

the first amendment does apply to corporations. do you honestly want me to go through more SCOTUS cases to show you?

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535, 45 S.Ct. 571, 573, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925), the court concluded that a corporation's First Amendment rights must derive from its property rights under the Fourteenth.

First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 778 (1978)

how about that? will that suffice? it even answers grumbler's question

i'm not sure why you continue to maintain corporations have no rights. it's flat out weird

[crazy canuck]

Lacroix, you know what is wierd?  Someone who thinks that a legal fiction created for the sole purpose of allowing shareholders to enjoy limited liablity has the same rights as real people.  That is some wierd stuff right there.

[LaCroix]

Lacroix, you know what is wierd?  Someone who thinks that a legal fiction created for the sole purpose of allowing shareholders to enjoy limited liablity has the same rights as real people.  That is some wierd stuff right there.

you could point to lots of things we take for granted and call it legal fiction, so i'm unpersuaded by that argument

[alfred russel]

Isn't the whole concept of natural rights granted by god / the creator confirmed in law just a legal fiction too?

People made up the concept of "rights". People made up the concept of allowing people to individually or collectively form legal entities that have limited liability. If people want to make up the concept of giving rights to corporations, I see no reason to consider that as the step crossing the threshold of wierdness.