RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Did Citizens United make overturning Roe possible? - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Did Citizens United make overturning Roe possible? Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is online   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,041
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 18 May 2019 - 03:12 PM

Is it possible that a BAD decision (Roe v. Wade, 1973) can now be overturned because of a WORSE decision (Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, 2010) ???

And it's fair to ask: What does one possibly have to to with the other, except for the fact that I think they BOTH stink? After all, one is about abortion, the other is about campaign finance.

The connection is, they BOTH delve into the concept of "person-hood". Roe v. Wade actually contained the seeds of it's own demise:

"... The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on re-argument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on re-argument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[no case, that is, until Citizens United opened the door for it.]


The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3;in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

- Justice Blackmun, for the majority, Roe v Wade 1973, pp. 156-157


It's TRUE that the constitution itself does not define "person". However Federal Law DOES, in 1 USC 1:


1 U.S. Code § 1. Words denoting number, gender, and so forth


In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—

words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things;

words importing the plural include the singular;

words importing the masculine gender include the feminine as well;

words used in the present tense include the future as well as the present;

the words “insane” and “insane person” shall include every idiot, insane person, and person non compos mentis;

the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

“officer” includes any person authorized by law to perform the duties of the office;

“signature” or “subscription” includes a mark when the person making the same intended it as such;

“oath” includes affirmation, and “sworn” includes affirmed;

“writing” includes printing and typewriting and reproductions of visual symbols by photographing, multigraphing, mimeographing, manifolding, or otherwise.

(July 30, 1947, ch. 388, 61 Stat. 633; June 25, 1948, ch. 645, § 6, 62 Stat. 859; Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 655, § 1, 65 Stat. 710; Pub. L. 112–231, § 2(a), Dec. 28, 2012, 126 Stat. 1619.)


1 USC 1 had, of course, been cited in any number of federal cases prior to Citizens. But the core concept of "Corporations-as-persons" for the purpose of "Constitutional Rights" had NEVER been directly tested as rigorously as it was in Citizens United. The whole point of Citizens United was in deciding if "Corporations" do, in fact, because of 1 USC 1 have "constitutional rights" as persons. In this case 1A "free speech" rights regarding political expenditures.

This is relevant for TWO reasons:

#1 - The phrase "...as well as individuals." DIRECTLY rebuts Justice Blackmun's assertion in Roe v. Wade that ONLY post-Natal individuals can be considered "persons" under the law.

#2 - It is important to realize that Corporations, though recognized as 'persons' at the Federal level as affirmed by Citizens United, are not created at the Federal level, they are created at the state level, via Articles of Incorporation filed in the state. Each state sets it's own rules on who can or cannot be a corporation in their state. That is to say, each STATE has role in defining what entities can reach the level of "Person" as defined by 1 USC 1. (Y'all see where i'm going with this?)

The logic of it being...

IF corporations are "persons" AND states have a role in defining corporations THEN, ipso facto, states have a role in defining "persons". Which is what the GA/AL/OH/MO cases are likely to revolve around.

The beauty of it is... Guess who wrote the Majority opinion in Citizens United? John Roberts. He may be 'squishy' but he's not likely to go against his very own reasoning from Citizen's United.

Heck, let ME argue it; I could WIN. LOL (In reality, no. Still working my way in bits in pieces towards a JM, not even close to JD territory, not to even mention qualified to argue in front of SCOTUS. But I'd sure like to be part of the behind the scenes "Strategy" team. And being semi-retired, I can spare the time. Heck, I'll volunteer the time.)

This post has been edited by Dean Adam Smithee: 18 May 2019 - 03:20 PM

0

#2 User is offline   usapatriot 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 369
  • Joined: 16-August 17

Posted 19 May 2019 - 12:45 PM

This is a very logical approach to the definition of "person" and thus, make sense. Did you come to this conclusion on your own or have others written similar articles? The reason why I ask is two-fold. First, if no one else is discussing this approach, then somehow this idea needs to get to the right people to use in justifying pro-life laws because it is brilliant. Second, if you thought of this on your own, you are brilliant and I think you could hold your own in front of the SCOTUS. Nice work!
0

#3 User is offline   Joe the Pagan 

  • I'm a Whovian not a Dweeb
  • View blog
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 6,843
  • Joined: 02-November 03

Posted 19 May 2019 - 05:10 PM

If it did then I will reverse my opinion on Citizens United. I always thought it was the wrong ruling. I would have preferred if the court had said corporation are not people, but neither are non-profits, unions, etc.....
0

#4 User is online   gravelrash 

  • I wish they all were punk rock girls
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 15,303
  • Joined: 24-June 03

Posted 19 May 2019 - 07:11 PM

Roe v. Wade is based on the lie that "Jane Roe" was raped. She never appeared before the Supreme Court. Those facts call into question the purpose of the Supreme Court other than that it has been perverted to supplant laws relegated to the States by Amendment Ten.
0

#5 User is offline   Rock N' Roll Right Winger 

  • Pissing off all of the right people
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 30,973
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 19 May 2019 - 08:57 PM

View Postgravelrash, on 19 May 2019 - 07:11 PM, said:

Roe v. Wade is based on the lie that "Jane Roe" was raped. She never appeared before the Supreme Court. Those facts call into question the purpose of the Supreme Court other than that it has been perverted to supplant laws relegated to the States by Amendment Ten.

:exactly:

A completely false premise turned into an unconstitutional "law" by the SCOTUS, much like how Hugo Black made up a lie that he had spun from Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation" and violated the constitution by ordering the removal of all references of religion from the government.
0

#6 User is online   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,041
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 20 May 2019 - 05:41 AM

View Postusapatriot, on 19 May 2019 - 12:45 PM, said:

This is a very logical approach to the definition of "person" and thus, make sense. Did you come to this conclusion on your own or have others written similar articles? The reason why I ask is two-fold. First, if no one else is discussing this approach, then somehow this idea needs to get to the right people to use in justifying pro-life laws because it is brilliant. Second, if you thought of this on your own, you are brilliant and I think you could hold your own in front of the SCOTUS. Nice work!


I came to it on my own, though it wouldn't surprise me if others are thinking along those lines. I HOPE they are.

I HATED the Citizens United ruling. I also disagree with 1 USC 1 making corporations "persons". I DO believe that the producers of the Citizens United film "Hillary" had an ABSOLUTE 1A right to produce, distribute, and show the film. But that 1A right vested in all the individuals involved in the production on behalf of Citizens United rather than the corporation itself.

I dislike calling corporations "persons" in the context of "constitutional" rights, because where does it lead? If a corporation is a person for the sake of 1A rights, how about, say, voting rights? As head of the Smithee Organization, do I get one vote for myself and one for the "person" of the organization? This is problematic. Heck, suppose I split-up SmitheeOrg in a AT&T sort of way so now that it is the entities in SmitheeOrg0..SmitheeOrg9. Do I now have 10 votes? This is implausible on it's face.

THAT SAID, if this is what it takes to get Roe stuck down, I can live with it. AFTERWARDS, I'll file for a voter registration card for the Smithee Organization. ;)
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users