Supreme Court decision a shame and travesty
by Leigh Pomeroy
Published in the Mankato Free Press
MANKATO — In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (1886), the concept of corporate personhood was accidentally and benignly (at that time) inserted into the U.S. Supreme Court canon of judicial decisions. No less than a Frankenstein’s monster has evolved from that seemingly minor insertion.
It is quite clear that the 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission even further establishes levels of “free speech”, allocating more power to the few individuals who control corporations and labor unions and, by consequence, allowing less to everyone else, especially employees and stockholders of corporations and members of labor unions who may disagree with the political stance of those corporate and union leaders.
Under the false guise of judicial conservatism, the court has in fact acted just the opposite. Nowhere do the words “corporation” or “labor union” or any phrase or words approximating them appear in the Constitution. And yet, now five members of the current sitting Supreme Court have decided that these institutions “de jure” have the same rights as individuals while “de facto” it is no secret they will have more.
It is a shame and travesty to the intentions of our Founding Fathers.
Published in the Mankato Free Press
MANKATO — In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (1886), the concept of corporate personhood was accidentally and benignly (at that time) inserted into the U.S. Supreme Court canon of judicial decisions. No less than a Frankenstein’s monster has evolved from that seemingly minor insertion.
It is quite clear that the 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission even further establishes levels of “free speech”, allocating more power to the few individuals who control corporations and labor unions and, by consequence, allowing less to everyone else, especially employees and stockholders of corporations and members of labor unions who may disagree with the political stance of those corporate and union leaders.
Under the false guise of judicial conservatism, the court has in fact acted just the opposite. Nowhere do the words “corporation” or “labor union” or any phrase or words approximating them appear in the Constitution. And yet, now five members of the current sitting Supreme Court have decided that these institutions “de jure” have the same rights as individuals while “de facto” it is no secret they will have more.
It is a shame and travesty to the intentions of our Founding Fathers.
Labels: Citizens United, Supreme Court
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
Is it really a shame and travesty to the intention of the Founding Fathers?
I might remind the author that the word 'private' or any of its derivatives also do not appear in the Constitution yet the Constitutionality of privacy has been ruled on several occastions.
The Articles of Confederation had no provisions for corporations to register with the national government. Madison sought to change this - twice - during the Consitutional Convention when he argued preciently to confer on Congress the power "to grant charters of corporations in cases where the public good may require them, and the authority of a single state may be incompetent". Even though incorporation authority was not given to Congress in the Constitution, the several states - led by North Carolina - offered charters of incorporation to anyone who desired it, freely and on equal terms. So much so that the freedom to incorporate would become one of our fundamental political institutions. How could incorporation not be afforded the same provisions provided individuals by the Constitution? Even Madison, as the primary author of the Constitution, certainly did not believe that corporations should be denied the provisions of the Constitution.
I might ask the author if a single individual who is also a corporation is eligible to the provisions of the Constiution whether he acts in the interests of himself or in the interests of his corporation?
If a corporation was not to be afforded the same Constitutional protections as individuals, I happen to think Congress would have acted at that time to prevent corporations the same provisions. They didn't because of the Madison arguement about incorporation.
Post a Comment
<< Home