3 ms·

> The 14th Amendment portion of Citizens United is not the part of the case that has relevancy to this discussion The Citizens United decision rests on Corpora

• dragonwriter 9y ago
  “Corporate personhood" is the whole point of the corporate form, and predates the US.
  • throwawayjava 9y ago
    As does "freedom of speech", I guess. But both of those things mean something more specific in the context of US constitutional law, of course. It's that more specific meaning to which I'm referring. Sorry for the lack of precision. Anyways, my only point was that Citizens United was not exactly a clear or obvious application of the First Amendment, and offering up the integral role of cases involving the Fourteenth Amendment as examples. I guess merely mentioning that the decision was 5-4 would've been enough and prevented this now rather long thread.
    • olfactory 9y ago
      > I guess merely mentioning that the decision was 5-4 would've been enough and prevented this now rather long thread. I enjoyed reading the back and forth, fwiw.
• slg 9y ago
  Citizens United was a case that addressed two issues. There was the 14th Amendment issue of corporate personhood and the 1st Amendment issue of whether money equals speech. Both of those had been applied separately before but this decision unified the two. You are focusing on the 14th Amendment portion while I was referencing the 1st Amendment portion, which is also likely the less controversial portion.