Parabéns, eu acho que você teve muito a manha de mandar esse artigo... acho que ele se insere muito bem nessa nossa discussão de direitos... agora eu confesso que deu um certo nó na minha cabeça... porque sei lá, não sei se eu concordo, porque eu acho razoável restringir, pelo menos a certa distância da eleição, certas peças publicitárias... quer dizer como equilibrar a força dos grupos de interesse com seu poder de atuação midiática? Outra coisa, também fazendo o link com a discussão, os verdadeiros direitos são individuais e não de grupos de interesse, de forma que opiniões individuais devem ser aceitas, e as de organizações não. Mas aí como fazer com os jornais, eles não podem tomar posições? e mesmo o indivíduo como garantir que ele não seja contratado, por de baixo dos panos, para emitir opiniões? Agora por trás disso tudo, para mim o que mais interessa é ter um eleitorado mais educado, capaz de discernir e não ser só massa de manobra desses meios... a verdade é que a coisa agora virou um imbróglio danado... ótimo texto, talvez não tanto pelo texto em si, mas pelo timing...
lhdiniz
"Uma verdade por dia... Um mundo por sensação... Estou triste. A tarde está fria. Amanhã, sol e razão." (Fernando Pessoa)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
contribuinte:
Pois é, mandei ele justamente porque revela como é complexo essa questão de se regular e respeitar os direitos, como diz um ditado inglês mais ou menos assim (acho que é inglês...): "Muitos acham que questões complexas tem respostas fáceis. Na verdade, tem respostas complexas mesmo."
Em relação aos EUA, uma conseqüência imediata da guerra de secessão de 1860 foi o fim da escravidão nos Estados Unidos, abolida por Lincoln ainda durante a guerra e oficializada através da 13 emenda à Constituição. A guerra civil deixou o caminho livre para que os capitalistas do norte se expandissem por todo o território.
A 14 emenda (logo depois) conferia aos negros cidadania, proibindo a qualquer estado “tirar a vida, a liberdade ou a propriedade a qualquer pessoa, sem o devido processo judicial.” Em 1886, o Supremo Tribunal estendeu esta idéia às pessoas jurídicas, o que deu grandes poderes às companhias privadas.
Abaixo um texto da querida wikipédia sobre essa parte grafada que foi uma extensão da décima quarta emenda. Sublinhei umas partes mais interessantes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with taxation of railroad properties. The case is most notable for the obiter dictum statement that corporations are entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.[1]
History and legal dispute
At the California Constitutional Convention of 1878-79, the state legislature drew up a new constitution that denied railroads "the right to deduct the amount of their debts [i.e., mortgages] from the taxable value of their property, a right which was given to individuals." [2] Southern Pacific Railroad Company refused to pay taxes under these new changes. The taxpaying railroads challenged this law, based on a conflicting federal statute of 1866 which gave them privileges inconsistent with state taxation (14 Stat. 292, §§ 1, 2, 3, 11, 18).
San Mateo County, along with neighboring counties, filed suit against the railroads to recoup the massive losses in tax revenue stemming from Southern Pacific's refusal to pay. After hearing arguments in San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the California Supreme Court sided with the county. Using the Jurisdiction and Removal Act of 1875, a law created so black litigants could bypass hostile southern state courts if they were denied justice, Southern Pacific was able to appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.[3]
[edit] A passing remark
The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in U.S. v. Detroit Timber and Lumber (1905), headnotes are defined as "not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."[4]
The court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:
"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."[5]
In other words, corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons.[6] However, this issue is absent from the court's opinion itself.
Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:
Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.[7]
Waite replied:
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.[8]
C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison C. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports...had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases."[9]
Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself.
Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.[10]
[edit] Decision
The court's actual decision was uncontroversial. A unanimous decision, written by Justice Harlan, ruled on the matter of fences, holding that the state of California illegally included the fences running beside the tracks in its assessment of the total value of the railroad's property. As a result, the county could not collect taxes from Southern Pacific that it was not allowed to collect in the first place.[11]
The Supreme Court never reached the equal protection claims. Nonetheless, this case is sometimes incorrectly cited as holding that corporations, as juristic persons, are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.[12]
[edit] Significance
Not being part of the court's opinion, the "person" observation did not technically—in the view of most legal historians—have any legal precedential value.[13] However, the Supreme Court is not required by Constitution or even precedent to limit its rulings to written statements.[citation needed]
Justice Hugo Black wrote "in 1886, this Court in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, decided for the first time that the word 'person' in the amendment did in some instances include corporations...The history of the amendment proves that the people were told that its purpose was to protect weak and helpless human beings and were not told that it was intended to remove corporations in any fashion from the control of state governments...The language of the amendment itself does not support the theory that it was passed for the benefit of corporations."[14]
Justice William O. Douglas wrote in 1949, "the Santa Clara case becomes one of the most momentous of all our decisions.. Corporations were now armed with constitutional prerogatives."[15]
[edit] See also
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pac (não é o mesmo do lula, é um pseudônimo):
Otimo texto mesmo....Pois eh, por isso que os direitos sao fundamentais, no sentindo de virem primeiro mesmo....Acho que ele expoe os riscos de se limitar a liberdade de expressao e os desdobramentos que restrissoes a essa liberdade podem gerar, mesmo que sejam desdobramentos nao propositais....
lhdiniz
"Uma verdade por dia... Um mundo por sensação... Estou triste. A tarde está fria. Amanhã, sol e razão." (Fernando Pessoa)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
contribuinte:
Pois é, mandei ele justamente porque revela como é complexo essa questão de se regular e respeitar os direitos, como diz um ditado inglês mais ou menos assim (acho que é inglês...): "Muitos acham que questões complexas tem respostas fáceis. Na verdade, tem respostas complexas mesmo."
Em relação aos EUA, uma conseqüência imediata da guerra de secessão de 1860 foi o fim da escravidão nos Estados Unidos, abolida por Lincoln ainda durante a guerra e oficializada através da 13 emenda à Constituição. A guerra civil deixou o caminho livre para que os capitalistas do norte se expandissem por todo o território.
A 14 emenda (logo depois) conferia aos negros cidadania, proibindo a qualquer estado “tirar a vida, a liberdade ou a propriedade a qualquer pessoa, sem o devido processo judicial.” Em 1886, o Supremo Tribunal estendeu esta idéia às pessoas jurídicas, o que deu grandes poderes às companhias privadas.
Abaixo um texto da querida wikipédia sobre essa parte grafada que foi uma extensão da décima quarta emenda. Sublinhei umas partes mais interessantes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with taxation of railroad properties. The case is most notable for the obiter dictum statement that corporations are entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.[1]
History and legal dispute
At the California Constitutional Convention of 1878-79, the state legislature drew up a new constitution that denied railroads "the right to deduct the amount of their debts [i.e., mortgages] from the taxable value of their property, a right which was given to individuals." [2] Southern Pacific Railroad Company refused to pay taxes under these new changes. The taxpaying railroads challenged this law, based on a conflicting federal statute of 1866 which gave them privileges inconsistent with state taxation (14 Stat. 292, §§ 1, 2, 3, 11, 18).
San Mateo County, along with neighboring counties, filed suit against the railroads to recoup the massive losses in tax revenue stemming from Southern Pacific's refusal to pay. After hearing arguments in San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the California Supreme Court sided with the county. Using the Jurisdiction and Removal Act of 1875, a law created so black litigants could bypass hostile southern state courts if they were denied justice, Southern Pacific was able to appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.[3]
[edit] A passing remark
The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in U.S. v. Detroit Timber and Lumber (1905), headnotes are defined as "not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."[4]
The court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:
"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."[5]
In other words, corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons.[6] However, this issue is absent from the court's opinion itself.
Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:
Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.[7]
Waite replied:
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.[8]
C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison C. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports...had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases."[9]
Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself.
Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.[10]
[edit] Decision
The court's actual decision was uncontroversial. A unanimous decision, written by Justice Harlan, ruled on the matter of fences, holding that the state of California illegally included the fences running beside the tracks in its assessment of the total value of the railroad's property. As a result, the county could not collect taxes from Southern Pacific that it was not allowed to collect in the first place.[11]
The Supreme Court never reached the equal protection claims. Nonetheless, this case is sometimes incorrectly cited as holding that corporations, as juristic persons, are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.[12]
[edit] Significance
Not being part of the court's opinion, the "person" observation did not technically—in the view of most legal historians—have any legal precedential value.[13] However, the Supreme Court is not required by Constitution or even precedent to limit its rulings to written statements.[citation needed]
Justice Hugo Black wrote "in 1886, this Court in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, decided for the first time that the word 'person' in the amendment did in some instances include corporations...The history of the amendment proves that the people were told that its purpose was to protect weak and helpless human beings and were not told that it was intended to remove corporations in any fashion from the control of state governments...The language of the amendment itself does not support the theory that it was passed for the benefit of corporations."[14]
Justice William O. Douglas wrote in 1949, "the Santa Clara case becomes one of the most momentous of all our decisions.. Corporations were now armed with constitutional prerogatives."[15]
[edit] See also
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pac (não é o mesmo do lula, é um pseudônimo):
Otimo texto mesmo....Pois eh, por isso que os direitos sao fundamentais, no sentindo de virem primeiro mesmo....Acho que ele expoe os riscos de se limitar a liberdade de expressao e os desdobramentos que restrissoes a essa liberdade podem gerar, mesmo que sejam desdobramentos nao propositais....
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário