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

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

California

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Trains

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Citizens United decision

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)[reply]

Bogosity meter tripped

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)[reply]

Roadrunner, your "Bogosity meter" was accurate. The article was almost completely false. The case did NOT create the doctrine of corporate personhood, nor has any court misunderstood it to mean that. The case DID apply the Fourteenth Amendment to "juristic persons." This is NOT a mistaken reading, that's what the case did. I don't know where the original writer got information on the private discussion between Supreme Court justices and their clerks. I've tried to clean it up some--Bibliophylax 23:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Bogosity meter" failed; zero "bogosity" found

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)[reply]

Revert

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)[reply]

Disputed?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In regards to recent 'debate'

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)[reply]

Ralph Nader

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)[reply]

Smoke signals?

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)[reply]

A needed major change?

Sorry, this was entered in error. Is it possible to delete it?