Baltimore IMC : http://www.baltimoreimc.org
Commentary :: Miscellaneous
No Call Registry: The People v. US Supreme Court
The No Call Registry court cases are likely to go to the Supreme Court. This is just the latest in a string of cases in which the Supreme Court has conveyed rights to corporations at the expense of the power of the people. A simple law is proposed to unravel this 150 year legacy, and reassert the sovereignty of the governed.
The constitutional challenges to the no-call registry might strike many Americans as “another failure of government.” Unfortunately, it is a legacy of the people's failure to challenge the growth of corporate power granted by the US Supreme Court. Over many generations, the people have failed to assert their sovereignty over a long string of US Supreme Court decisions, which have shifted the balance of power away from ordinary people to “persons” that take the corporate form. Has anybody noticed?
The appellants, being commercial corporations that are creations of the state, should have no legal standing to challenge the democratically-enacted laws of the United States. Unfortunately, in general, they do have standing as a result of the Darmouth College v. Woodward Supreme Court decision, which first gave corporations standing under the US Constitution through the contracts clause.
Perhaps we should remind the nine people in Black Robes for whom they make their decisions. They do not stand as judges at the pleasure of corporations. They stand as judges at the pleasure of “the governed.” This seems rather obvious to anyone who takes high school civics to heart, yet you wouldn't know it by reading the 150 year history of Supreme Court decisions that favor corporations at the expense of the people.
To justify their decisions, the US Supreme Court has actively given constitutional rights to corporations. One of the more celebrated cases should be a household name, like Roe v. Wade. That case is Santa Clara. In the 1886 Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad case, the Robber Baron era US Supreme Court recognized corporations under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, originally intended to convey citizenship to black males. In doing so, it is said that the Court gave state-charted corporations the right of “personhood” under the Constitution.
A new being was born: Created by legal transaction with a state government, or more likely a Carribean nation these days; Endowed with immortality; Graced with the ability to be represented and active in many places around the globe at one time; Fortunate to have vast financial and human resources such as lawyers, investigators, researchers, and representatives; Unconcerned about clean air to breath or water to drink; Freed from concern that the chartering state might look into their books, records and papers, without first getting permission, to ascertain whether they have obeyed or are defying the laws of their creators (4th Amendment, Hale v. Henkel, 1920); Protected against discrimination (14th Amendment, Ligget Co. v. Lee, 1933); Welcomed to freely raise their voice in our democratic electoral process in the form of money (1st Amendment, Buckley v. Valeo, 1976); Welcomed to join in our democratic referrenda process through their generous monetary contributions (1st Amendment, First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 1977); Freed from the concern of surprise worker safety inspections (4th Amendment, Marshall v. Barlow, 1978); and gaining the protected right not to speak in the Court's rejection of a Vermont law seeking the labeling of all products containing bovine growth hormones (1st Amendment, International Dairy Foods Association v. Amestoy, 1996).
And after years of allowing the Court act in this way, Americans now wonder why humans cannot seem to enact a simple self-governing law that says, “Our state-chartered, for-profit corporations may not use telemarketing techniques for any humans that sign a list saying they do not want to receive such calls.” There's an old tale that says, if you try to toss a frog in a hot pot of water, the frog is likely to hop out. But if you set that same frog in a cool pot of water, set the pot on the stove and slowly heat it up, the frog will sit in the pot until it is gradually cooked. It appears that humans are gradually being cooked by Supreme Court decisions that favor corporations over the people.
The Supreme Court cannot be relishing the time when they must contradict their long string of corporate-leaning precedents, and try to figure out a clever way to tell corporations, “Sorry, you do not have free speech when it comes to telemarketing.” The Court's alternative is to face over fifty million members of that unruly group known as “the governed.” Not likely, while the people are actually paying attention.
It appears that the people have spoken, and the ideal of democracy is likely to work in favor of the governed in this narrow case, as common sense and posterity demand. Fascinating, how a fairly simple law, which allows people to sign up for something, is likely to create a positive change at the constitutional level. This suggests the idea for another fairly simple law. Pass a law allowing 50 million people to sign up requesting that the US Constitution be amended to assert that corporations do not have “rights” under the Constitution. This does not preclude enacting corporate “privileges” under state law, much in the way we agree confer upon each other the “privilege” to hold a valid driver's license, or revoke it. If enough people sign up, then the a commission of the governed would draft the Constitutional amendment, and funds would be made available by the US Congress to fund the state ratification processes. Why not? Would that be too democratic?
Copy Right 2003, James George.
The appellants, being commercial corporations that are creations of the state, should have no legal standing to challenge the democratically-enacted laws of the United States. Unfortunately, in general, they do have standing as a result of the Darmouth College v. Woodward Supreme Court decision, which first gave corporations standing under the US Constitution through the contracts clause.
Perhaps we should remind the nine people in Black Robes for whom they make their decisions. They do not stand as judges at the pleasure of corporations. They stand as judges at the pleasure of “the governed.” This seems rather obvious to anyone who takes high school civics to heart, yet you wouldn't know it by reading the 150 year history of Supreme Court decisions that favor corporations at the expense of the people.
To justify their decisions, the US Supreme Court has actively given constitutional rights to corporations. One of the more celebrated cases should be a household name, like Roe v. Wade. That case is Santa Clara. In the 1886 Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad case, the Robber Baron era US Supreme Court recognized corporations under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, originally intended to convey citizenship to black males. In doing so, it is said that the Court gave state-charted corporations the right of “personhood” under the Constitution.
A new being was born: Created by legal transaction with a state government, or more likely a Carribean nation these days; Endowed with immortality; Graced with the ability to be represented and active in many places around the globe at one time; Fortunate to have vast financial and human resources such as lawyers, investigators, researchers, and representatives; Unconcerned about clean air to breath or water to drink; Freed from concern that the chartering state might look into their books, records and papers, without first getting permission, to ascertain whether they have obeyed or are defying the laws of their creators (4th Amendment, Hale v. Henkel, 1920); Protected against discrimination (14th Amendment, Ligget Co. v. Lee, 1933); Welcomed to freely raise their voice in our democratic electoral process in the form of money (1st Amendment, Buckley v. Valeo, 1976); Welcomed to join in our democratic referrenda process through their generous monetary contributions (1st Amendment, First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 1977); Freed from the concern of surprise worker safety inspections (4th Amendment, Marshall v. Barlow, 1978); and gaining the protected right not to speak in the Court's rejection of a Vermont law seeking the labeling of all products containing bovine growth hormones (1st Amendment, International Dairy Foods Association v. Amestoy, 1996).
And after years of allowing the Court act in this way, Americans now wonder why humans cannot seem to enact a simple self-governing law that says, “Our state-chartered, for-profit corporations may not use telemarketing techniques for any humans that sign a list saying they do not want to receive such calls.” There's an old tale that says, if you try to toss a frog in a hot pot of water, the frog is likely to hop out. But if you set that same frog in a cool pot of water, set the pot on the stove and slowly heat it up, the frog will sit in the pot until it is gradually cooked. It appears that humans are gradually being cooked by Supreme Court decisions that favor corporations over the people.
The Supreme Court cannot be relishing the time when they must contradict their long string of corporate-leaning precedents, and try to figure out a clever way to tell corporations, “Sorry, you do not have free speech when it comes to telemarketing.” The Court's alternative is to face over fifty million members of that unruly group known as “the governed.” Not likely, while the people are actually paying attention.
It appears that the people have spoken, and the ideal of democracy is likely to work in favor of the governed in this narrow case, as common sense and posterity demand. Fascinating, how a fairly simple law, which allows people to sign up for something, is likely to create a positive change at the constitutional level. This suggests the idea for another fairly simple law. Pass a law allowing 50 million people to sign up requesting that the US Constitution be amended to assert that corporations do not have “rights” under the Constitution. This does not preclude enacting corporate “privileges” under state law, much in the way we agree confer upon each other the “privilege” to hold a valid driver's license, or revoke it. If enough people sign up, then the a commission of the governed would draft the Constitutional amendment, and funds would be made available by the US Congress to fund the state ratification processes. Why not? Would that be too democratic?
Copy Right 2003, James George.
Views
Information
Search
This site made manifest by dadaIMC software