This is problem, reaction, solution and I think a lot of you are advocating the controlled reaction without realizing it. I'm not knocking anybody,
all of the posts so far have heart in the right place. On top of that, it is not very obvious. Not obvious but obviously effective.
Who here believes that the supreme court granted corporate person-hood? If you believe this, you are incorrect.
In citizens united, the supreme court ruled that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that restricted expenditures by corporations and unions violated
the First Amendment's protection of free speech. Why?
First we need a basic understanding of the roles of the 3 branches of government. Foremost being that the supreme court does not write legislation or
Then we need to understand why corporations have first amendment rights. The supreme court did not give any rights to corporations. They upheld first
amendment rights that the legislature and executive had themselves granted.
The mainstream media will tell you that the supreme court is bad, or that the constitution is bad, or that free speech is bad and we must change it.
What they will not tell you is that the legislative and executive branches wrote and passed the law into US CODE that gives corporations 14th
amendment rights of equal protection, and thus 1st amendment rights.
U.S. Code Title 1, Chapter 1, Subsection 1
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— the words "person" and “whoever”
include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals
So how does that grant corporate person-hood and first amendment rights?
Amendment 14 to the United States Constitution: Section 1.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
All that has to be done is to remove united states code Title 1, Chap 1, SS 1. But this has not been the focus of the debate, has it? The focus has
been to denounce the supreme court for not setting the precedent beyond their constitutional power by revoking free speech rights that the congress
and the executive signed into law. Americans need to be weary of that kind of precedent.
All that has to be done to do away with this silliness is a presidential signature to nullify the code. It is that simple. Obama could get rid of
corporate person-hood in the time it would take him to place his signature on a piece of paper.
That being said, has the debate actually been about renouncing corporate person-hood? Nope. It has been about weakening the very foundation of free
speech and attacking the first amendment. The next play in this insipid game is to amend the first amendment in order to attack YOUR free speech.
This is actually a brilliant strategy. The legislature and the executive gave corporations 14th amendment rights using united states code knowing the
people would eventually disapprove. Then they write and pass the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in conflict with the corporate personhood that they
have already granted. When BCRA is challenged in the court, the debate is steered towards weakening the Constitution (which grants actual rights) and
not united states code that grants color of law rights to corporations.
This is problem, reaction, solution. People's will is deliberately being steered down an increasingly narrowing road so that they might agree to their
own destruction. Don't fall for it.
edit on 12-2-2013 by METACOMET because: (no reason given)