Today’s episode tackles a popular article in The Atlantic which implies that, but for the machinations of one dude in the 1880s, corporations might not be “people,” today. Is it true? Listen and find out!
First, though, we continue to examine the legal genius of Stormy Daniels by answering some of the most common questions raised in response to our episode. This begins (sadly) with a brief “Andrew Was Wrong” clarification about the operative campaign disclosure requirements as well as an analysis of the arbitration order that came to light just after we went to press with Episode 154, and more!
In the main segment, Andrew takes a trip through the history of corporate personhood. After that, we answer a delightful question about hearsay from listener Dr. Jeff Otjen.
Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas (and David) Take the Bar Exam Question #66 about murderous political candidates appearing on an “Iron Chef” knockoff… look, you’ll just have to listen for yourself. Don’t forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
Recent Appearances
None! Have us on your show!
Show Notes & Links
- We first discussed the Stormy Daniels lawsuit (and linked her complaint) back in Episode 154. Since then, Susan Simpson has done some pretty top-notch investigative work as to where the Trump campaign may have hid the payoff to Stormy.
- The case referred to in the “A” segment is Amendariz v. Foundation Health, 6 P.3d 669 (Cal. 2000).
- Our main segment discusses Adam Winker’s article in The Atlantic, focusing on Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R.R. Co., 118 U.S. 394 (1886).
- Finally, the answer to Dr. Jeff’s question references two different provisions of the Federal Rules of Evidence: Rule 801 (defining hearsay) and Rule 803 (listing the exceptions).
Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law
Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/
Don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!
And email us at openarguments@gmail.com