[ Article crossposted from
alt.privacy,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.libert
arian ]
[ Author was James Daugherty ]
[ Posted on Fri, 3 Mar 1995 05:28:11 -0500 ]
Since the courts have and are being used as a means to legislate
without the benefit of elected officials, the ability to research the
Supreme Court's decisions and read the text of their decisions, may well
give us clues as to where the gov. is headed and what they have in mind for
our future. To that end, I am forwarding the following information:
Alijandra
The full text of Supreme Court decisions is archived at the ftp site
ftp.cwru.edu in several formats (filtered ascii, original ascii, and
WordPerfect).
You can also access the decisions using the LII's gopher server at
gopher.law.cornell.edu, or through our World Wide Web server at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/.
If you don't have access to a gopher or WWW client, you can access one via
telnet. Telnet to telnet.law.cornell.edu and log in as www.
Finally, if you have only email access to the internet, you can retrieve
these documents by sending a mail message to
liideliver@fatty.law.cornell.edu. Put your document requests in the body of
the message like:
request 93-1525
You can request several decisions at once by putting them on separate
lines. Request court decisions using the docket number as it appears with
the syllabus.
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
AN E-BULLETIN
LEGAL INFORMATION INSTITUTE -- CORNELL LAW SCHOOL
lii@lii.law.cornell.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following Supreme Court decisions just arrived on the ftp site ftp.cwru.edu.
THESE ARE THE FIRST DECISIONS FROM THE COURT SINCE JAN. 23 AND THEREFORE
THIS THE FIRST liibulletin SINCE THAT DATE.
These are not the decisions themselves nor excerpts from them, but
summaries (syllabi) prepared by the Court's Reporter of Decisions.
Instructions for accessing or ordering the full text of any of these
decisions are provided at the end of this bulletin.
======================================================
========== LEBRON v.
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION Docket 93-1525 -- Decided February
21, 1995
======================================================
==========
Petitioner Lebron, who creates billboard displays that comment on public
issues, filed suit claiming, inter alia, that respondent National Railroad
Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) had violated his First Amendment rights by
rejecting a display for an Amtrak billboard because of its political
nature. The District Court ruled that Amtrak, because of its close ties to
the Federal Government, was a Government actor for First Amendment
purposes, and that its rejection of the display was unconstitutional. The
Court of Appeals reversed, noting that Amtrak was, by the terms of the
legislation that created it, not a Government entity, and concluding that
the Government was not so involved with Amtrak that the latter's decisions
could be considered federal action.
Held:
Where, as here, the Government creates a corporation by special law, for
the furtherance of governmental objectives, and retains for itself
permanent authority to appoint a majority of that corporation's directors,
the corporation is part of the Government for purposes of the First
Amendment. Pp. 3-26.
(a) It is proper for this Court to consider the argument that Amtrak is
part of the Government, even though Lebron disavowed it in both lower
courts and did not explicitly raise it until his brief on the merits here.
It is not a new claim, but a new argument to support his First Amendment
claim, see, e.g., Yee v. Escondido, 503 U.S. ___, ___; it was passed upon
below, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. ___, ___; and it was
fairly embraced within both the question presented and the argument set
forth in the petition. Pp. 3-8.
(b) Amtrak was created by the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 (RPSA) to
avert the threatened extinction of passenger trains in the interest of "the
public convenience and necessity." The legislation establishes detailed
goals for Amtrak, sets forth its structure and powers, and assigns the
appointment of a majority of its board of directors to the President. Pp.
9-12.
(c) There is a long history of corporations created and participated in by
the United States for the achievement of governmental objectives. Like some
other Government corporations, Amtrak's authorizing statute provides that
it "will not be an agency or establishment of the United States
Government," 84 Stat., at 1330; see also 45 U.S.C. 541. Pp. 12- 17.
(d) Although 541 is assuredly dispositive of Amtrak's governmental status
for purposes of matters within Congress's controle.g., whether it is
subject to statutes like the Administrative Procedure Act-and can even
suffice to deprive it of all those inherent governmental powers and
immunities that Congress has the power to eliminate-e.g., sovereign
immunity from suit-it is not for Congress to make the final determination
of Amtrak's status as a government entity for purposes of determining the
constitutional rights of citizens affected by its actions. The Constitution
constrains governmental action by whatever instruments or in whatever modes
that action may be taken, Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 346-347, and
under whatever congressional label, Cherry Cotton Mills, Inc. v. United
States, 327 U.S. 536, 539. National Railroad Passenger Corporation v.
Boston & Maine Corp., 503 U.S. ___,___, and National Railroad Passenger
Corporation v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 470 U.S. 451, 470,
distinguished. Pp. 18-20.
(e) Amtrak is an agency or instrumentality of the United States for the
purpose of individual rights guaranteed against the Government by the
Constitution. This conclusion accords with the public, judicial, and
congressional understanding over the years that Government-created and
-controlled corporations are part of the Government itself. See, e.g.,
Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. J.G. Menihan Corp., 312 U.S. 81, 83;
Government Corporation Control Act, 304(a), 59 Stat., at 602. A contrary
holding would allow government to evade its most solemn constitutional
obligations by simply resorting to the corporate form, cf. Pennsylvania v.
Board of Directors of City Trusts of Philadelphia, 353 U.S. 230, 231. Bank
of United States v. Planters' Bank of Georgia, 9 Wheat. 904, 907, 908, and
Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U.S. 102, 152, distinguished.
Pp. 20-26.
12 F.3d 388, reversed and remanded.
Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J.,
and Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined.
O'Connor, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
posted courtesy of:
\\\\\<jhdaugh@a-albionic.com>\\\\\\\*////////<info@a-albionic.com///////////
James Daugherty, volunteer Postmaster for A-albionic Research (POB 20273,
Ferndale, MI 48220), a ruling class/conspiracy research resource for the
entire political-ideological spectrum. Quarterly journal, book sales,
rare/out-of-print searches, New Paradigms Discussion List, Weekly Up-date
Lists & E-text Archive of research, intelligence, catalogs, & resources.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\*///////////////////////////////////////
**E-Mail Update/Discussion/Archive**|*******World Wide Web/Gopher/FTP*******
e-mail: majordomo@mail.msen.com | <http://gopher.a-albionic.com:9006/>
message: info prj | <ftp://ftp.a-albionic.com/>
get prj gopher/keytogopher | <gopher.a-albionic.com 9006>
////////////////////////////////////*\\\\\\\\\\\<ftp.a-albionic.com>\\\\\\\\
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Original file name: SUPREME.CRT
This file was converted with TextToHTML - (c) Logic n.v.