If you got it or can get it I would like to see it.
Your email pal,
Tom L.
Charles Brown wrote:
> _Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad Co._ 118 U.S. 394 (1886) held that corporations were "persons" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. This was part of the beginning of the doctrine of socalled Substantive Due Process This doctrine reversed an immediately previous trend in the Supreme Court by which states were permitted to regulate businesses without limitation based on the Police Powers ( Power of the states to protect the public health, safety and welfare).
>
> The Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment (applied to the states by the 14th) is " No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." Originally this was used to void the operation of statutes that were irregularly or arbitrarily applied, a PROCEDURAL question. Under "Substantive Due Process" , "liberty" was interpreted "economic liberty" or the "liberty to contract "or to strike a bargain in the free market; it became a SUBSTANTIVE rather than procedural right, barring social legislation aimed at protecting workers and consumers from riproaring capitalism.
>
> The Substantive Due Process doctrine died with the New Deal Court, though the legal fiction of the personhood of coroporations persists. So, the legal power of Private Property is not dependent upon this combination of Substantive Due Process and the personhood of the corp, for that power of Private Property still exists in spades, based on other legal principles - for example, the Fifth Amendment "Takings Clause" , which is right after the Due Process Clause.
>
> Charles Brown
>
> >>> Michael Perelman <michael at ecst.csuchico.edu> 05/18/99 12:17PM >>>
> I have my own 14 Amendment question: Louis Hacker said that the authors of
> the amendment were railroad attorneys who were intentionally lay the
> groundwork for the eventual interpretation of corporations as people.
> Does anyone have information on that subject?
>
> Tom Lehman wrote:
>
> > Has anyone ever seen a transcript of the majority opinion in the 1886
> > ruling Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad? I understand
> > their was no minority opinion and no transcript of the proceedings
> > before the Supreme Court.
> >
> > Three or four of the Justices had Ohio connections---and their is some
> > question of wether or not they were working in their own economic
> > interest.
> >
> > Your email pal,
> >
> > Tom L.
>
> --
>
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
> Chico, CA 95929
> 530-898-5321
> fax 530-898-5901