reply to post by soficrow
While it is good that we can both find agreement in the undeniable truth that corporatism and the rise of the multinational corporation is a major
problem and can act as a major obstruction to justice and freedom, it is also why I labor so hard to challenge the assertions you've made outside of
this one we do agree upon. Corporations, and for the United States particularly those multinational corporations that obtained charters from outside
the U.S., have for many, many, years influenced the legislative process, zealously advocating and ensuring local, state and federal governments
created "licensing laws" to do business, regulatory agencies to ensure these businesses abide by the terms of their license or charter, if you will.
Corporations love regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration who demand a rigorous testing method before approving any product,
which makes certain products to cost prohibitive for smaller competitors, allowing only the elite to play in the markets of these particular products.
Indeed, there has been a great and ceaseless push by major pharmaceutical companies who lobby, unabashedly so, for stricter regulations on vitamins,
herbs and minerals...
even water! A discussion of that topic can be read in this very
site ATS in a thread
here.
Compare the above article and thread to an article on the web by
www.cbsnews.com... and you get a
glimmer of how influential corporatism is and just how hard they are working at gaining complete control of the world markets, which include the
political theaters across the world. This rise of multinational corporatism has been an ongoing problem for a number of years and existed long before
the SCOTUS made their ruling on Citizens United.
Your outlandish claim that this SCOTUS ruling is the "endgame" to some sort of corporate strategy to usurp national, even state and local, politics,
would require that the, at the very least, five Supreme Court Justices who held that Section 441b of the BPCFR was unconstitutional and struck it
down, did so in order to fulfill some nefarious corporate strategy. In fact, so disrespectful to, not just the five Supreme Court Justices who held
this matter, but to the rule of law, is this argument that it demands a proper challenge.
You have taken the one argument I was willing to concede had validity and worth consideration that you have made, that being the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and declared it irrelevant. In your own
words you state:
"Marbury and Marshall's rulings are irrelevant - there is no relevant US legislation to strike down OR uphold."
What is anyone who knows what the Citizens United ruling held, supposed to make of that claim. Are you suggesting the Sections of the Bi Partisan
Campaign Finance Reform Act, struck down as unconstitutional, had no relevance to the Case brought before the Supreme Court? Just what precisely do
you mean there is no relevant U.S. legislation to strike down or uphold? Have you actually read the ruling? Do you even know what was
held?
Reading Case Law is not nearly as difficult as one might imagine and can very often be quite illuminating and some of the best sources of legal
education one could hope for. Understanding Case Law requires tenacity and a willingness to do the necessary research. Understanding any particular
Case means necessarily reading that Case as any opinions held about the Citizens United Case by those who couldn't be bothered to actually read the
Case, are not informed opinions.
Understanding any case law requires the modicum of understanding a certain amount of legalese. Simple words like
dicta and
holding, can become
misunderstood and lead to misinterpretations of law and mistakes of fact. When I made the distinction between Dicta and holding in regards to the
Santa Clara County Case, I was referring to an off hand remark the Justice delivering the opinion made regarding the so called "personhood" of
corporations. While he made clear that the Court was making no such ruling, Chief Justice Morrison Waite opined that he and the other Justices were
inclined to view corporations as a person.
This passing remark by Chief Justice Waite, this
obiter dictum, if you will, was picked
up on by a court reporter, one J.C. Bankcroft Davis, who wrote the following as part of his headnotes:
"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."
The above quote can found within the ruling of Santa Clara County, but it is not what was held and is merely obiter dictum. That it was reported the
way it was in a headnote by a court reporter is generally viewed as the source to all the confusion on what the Courts have held in regards to
corporate personhood. Indeed, subsequent courts have relied upon that dictum as if it were holding, thus; long before the recent SCOTUS ruling of
Citizens United, the courts were all ready viewing corporations as "persons" and affording them equal protection under the law.
The disrespect to the Justices who ruled on Citizens United and even the disrespect for the rule of law becomes evident when not only what was held is
ignored in favor of histrionics, but also what gets ignored is the First Amendment and its clear text and meaning. The Citizens United Court did
strike down as unconstitutional Section 441b of the BPCFR and they did so by relying heavily upon the language of the First Amendment to do so.
In fact, so reliant upon that First Amendment were they, the dissent made a point to acknowledge the great pains by which the five who ruled took to
express as authority the First Amendment, and in doing so bordered on complaining of those great pains made. The Language of the First Amendment is
clear, and it seems to me that we both agree that the First Amendment is not granting any rights to anyone, and since it is not granting rights it
makes no effort at all at distinguishing who or what gets those rights. What is made clear is that Congress is prohibited from making any laws that
abrogate or derogate the rights listed in the First Amendment.
In striking contrast to legislation that would grant persons a certain privilege, The First Amendment is not an Act of legislation granting anything
at all, but instead it is an Act of Prohibition, and it is Congress who has been restrained by this Amendment. Congress ignored those restraints
when they legislated parts of the BPCFR that endeavored to "chill speech". The SCOTUS relied upon their power of judicial review to strike down
this legislation as abhorrent to the First Amendment and it was legislation abhorrent to the First Amendment. Congress is the one who lacked
jurisdiction when they legislated Section 441b of the BPCFR and it became the Courts job to point that out and strike down what was illegal to begin
with.
That is and has been since the ruling was delivered, the fact of the matter regarding the recent SCOTUS ruling. No rights were granted to anyone or
anything because of this ruling, and the whole granting of rights thing is a favorite meme of certain politicos they love to keep out in the peoples
consciousness.
