Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:32:02 -0500
From: Sanford Lewis <gnproject@no.address>
Unfortunately, I believe later Supreme Court cases codified the fiction
from the original headnote. So it is a harder fight - we basically need a
sympathetic Supreme Court... in our lifetimes?
An immediate, probably smaller, test of this issue will come in Nike v.
Kasky, which will determine the scope of Nike's so called first amendment
rights. While some may argue that Nike has NO first amendment right since
its not a person, the inside argument is likely to be about whether or not
those socalled rights include the right to lie to the public saying that it
does not make sneakers in sweatshops....
Sanford Lewis, Attorney
Strategic Counsel on
Corporate Accountability
PO Box 79225
Waverly, MA 02479
781 894-0709
419 735-8935 fax
on 2/18/03 6:07 PM, Gary Liss at gary@no.address wrote:
>
>> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:51:55 -0500
>> From: "Pete Pasterz" <ppasterz@no.address>
>>
>> This was originally posted to a local sustainability list...it elaborates
>> on a reference that Amy Bann mentionned in her response. If Hartmann is
>> correct in his analysis, then the whole mythology of corporate personhood
>> is invalid...he asserts that the justices NEVER made this ruling, it has
>> just been perpetuated through the mischief of a pro-corporate court
>> reporter including the idea in his summary of the ruling, but is not
>> explicitly stated in its body.
>>
>> Questions which come to mind: If true, how has this myth been
>> perpetuated? [what other laws have been "tampered" and not
>> challenged?] When is the next" legal window" to challenge its
>> application? [maybe the challenge to McCain-Feingold, a law which would
>> be largely irrelevant if corporations were not given the rights of
>> personhood?] Would it be wise to challenge the legality of this position
>> now, or does it make sense to build grassroots political support
>> first? [Will a more conservative, pro-corporate Supreme Court be
>> installed which will leave a legacy of longer than the 8-12 years
posed...]?