Clearly the USSC interpretations evolve over time based upon the court’s makeup and era in which the decisions are rendered. Arguing if decision
A, B, or C constitutes evolution of constitutional interpretation misses the much bigger point. You chose a bad or good example , in the eye of a beholder, to support the point is pretty much irrelevant.
It evolves both in amendments and interpretation, which over time has been shown.
Also, a Corporation is not a “group of individuals.”
It’s a legal entity. A corporation needn’t have more than one shareholder, board member, or executive, and even in that case, that person isn’t the corporation.
The corporation is a legal entity distinct from its shareholders, executives, board members etc.
It is, as I said, an “artificial” person. Partnerships, trusts, estates, professional associations, charities, etc. could also be thought of as artificial persons. All of them have constitutional rights, whether you want to acknowledge those rights or not.
And no, constitutional rights aren’t determined by either a) biological organic existence, or b) voting or ballot access. Non-citizens and minors have constitutional rights, as do corporations.
First of all, JohnnyCougar brought up Citizens United as a bogus example of “evolution,” not yours truly. I simply pointed out the reality that that isn’t “evolution,” but rather, a decision in accordance with longstanding precedent. Had it been decided the OTHER way…well…that wouldn’t have been mere “evolution,”…that would have been a straight up NEW SPECIATION event!!!
Quote: As to why people don’t like Citizens United one reason may be the fact that an “artificial person” can’t shed blood, life, or limb on the battlefield.
Response: So? Neither can a huge chunk of the population. Military service is a privilege, not a right, and anyone can be rationally and reasonably be denied that privilege for a wide variety of reasons.
A large chunk of the population isn’t eligible for military service, and can never/will never be able to shed blood, limb, or life on the battlefield. That doesn’t mean that they don’t have the same rights that military or military-qualified persons would. That has nothing to do with anything.
Are you saying that only military, or military-qualified persons have rights?
Nonsense.
The reason the Left doesn’t like Citizens United is because the Left is somehow afraid that if the political free speech rights of Corporations are protected, then it might somehow create or influence political outcomes they don’t like.
But why?
Doesn’t Citizens United say, in effect, that a Corporation owned by George Soros can give as much as it wants to any left-wing political cause or campaign that it wants?
Of course it does.
Doesn’t Citizens United allow a Labor Union to give as much money as it wants to any pro-Union left wing politician it wants?
As I said, the USSC already held way back in 1819 (Dartmouth College v. Woodward) that Corporations have Constitutional rights, just as you and I do.
It’s not that the USSC has found a way to rule that.
It’s that the USSC ALREADY HAS ruled that, and HAs BEEN ruling that…for more than TWO HUNDRED years.
Based on that, has our Republic been “dead” for two centuries, following your logic?
As I said, JohnnyCougar’s view of how Citizens United should be decided would be a novelty or “evolution,” had the case been decided that way, not the other way around.
That’s a rather bold statement to make, that’s in error. Case in point, I don’t like it because an “artificial person” is just that, not a person.
Again, just ignore the one case of Citizens United. This is not discussion about that case. The question for you, is does evolutionary interpretation of the constitution happen by USSC ?
It’s a simple “Yes” or “No” answer. Sorry if I missed your response in the long divergent tangent if
case X was an supporting example or not.
I feel like this is pretty basic civics, and really shouldn’t be up for debate.
The Constitution evolves via amendments, and how the Constitution is interpreted and applied evolves via the courts, either via the upholding of precedence or the creation of a new precedent.
Citizens United will be looked back upon in the same vein as Plessy and Dredd Scott. Sure they were legally fine rulings. Nothing super radical about them for their day. But terrible for society and the costs that go with it.
Constitutional interpretation should look at the text of the Constitution, and its writers’ intent, then precedent, in that order, and that’s it. Where precedent conflicts with either text or original intent, it may be overturned.
If the text isn’t there, and Constitution’s writers never imagined that it would be interpreted that way, then that interpretation cannot stand.
Unfortunately on the Left, there was a lot of so-called “interpretation” that resulted in the creation a lot of so called “rights” which are not in the Constitution’s text, and which would not have been within the reasonable contemplation of anyone that wrote the Constitution.
The Left might describe that as an “evolving” Constitution. It’s not. It’s simply judicial overreach.
To hold that corporations don’t have Constitutional rights would amount to overturning literally CENTURIES of USSC precedent to the contrary.
It’s not happening.
And to be honest, I’m glad it isn’t.
I want for Unions, and George Soros owned corporations to have the freedom be able to give to the candidates and causes of their choice. Hell, what about Planned Parenthood? Thanks to Citizens United, they too can give to the candidates of their choice without restriction.
It’s called FREEDOM.
Being anti-Citizens United……is……to some extent, anti-freedom.
Nope no one should be allowed to outright buy elections, and that’s what that is. It is nothing short of corruption and bribery in nicer clothes. It’s an investment opportunity for the moneyed interests, they don’t do it for freedom. Anyone who believes otherwise subscribes to libertarians naive idea that humans can operate with near total freedom. Which is no less naive than the college student trucking a Che’ t-shirt telling me how a centrally planned economy works for everyone. Both vastly underestimate how easily pulled off the path humans are. Powerful entities need powerful leashes otherwise the people are crushed.
Correct it happens; whether you , I, or anyone else
agrees the evolving interpretation will simply be if
an individual agrees with it or not. If we don’t agree with it, we create labels to express our horror of horrors. What terms do the Conservatives use today …judicial activism, judicial overreach, etc.
What is your take on USSC respecting precedents in regards to vaccine mandates ? On one hand it seems to go against the 1916 decision of Jacobson v Massachusetts . On the other hand it supported the mandate in health care workers, which seems strange to me to have that divide. What fine needle did they thread here ? Please explain , from my non legal POV
I have trouble understanding it.
