ARE WE AMERICANS SO APATHETIC, THAT WE WILL GIVE UP OUR GREAT NATION WITHOUT A FIGHT?

Starting with an 1886 Supreme Court "screw-up", our democracy is currently headed down a frightening and dangerous path.

...The US Supreme Court. This is the government building that holds the most powerful branch of the US Government.

I have written more than once about how devastating the decision was of the current US Supreme Court and their recent final decision on Citizens-United v. Federal Election Commission.

For those that still have their heads-in-the-sand, this is the court-case where the highest court in the land took-on a minor and a very narrow case that was supposed to be for deciding whether a made-for-TV political video could legally be paid for with a corporation´s treasury funds.

The current activist and highly conservative Supreme Court´s Chief Justice, then decided to expand the case well beyond its original focus. This expansion and its final decision has now stated that the corporate funding of independent political TV or radio broadcasts in future elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. (Actually, the case was so modified and expanded, that the original specific question in the Citizens-United case was never decided.)

In other words, it was decided that since a corporation is now considered as a real "person", but does not have an actual mouth with which to speak. And since a prior US Supreme Court decision mistakenly allowed corporations to have the same rights as "real living persons". The court has now decided that a corporation´s unlimited treasury funds can be spent and used as the corporation´s "First Amendment free speech tool" for "expressing the corporation´s positions".

In fact, the country is now awakening and this expanded decision is being considered as the most important, and potentially destructive US Supreme Court decision in decades. This ill-advised decision also challenges the basic foundation of America´s democracy as did the devastating 1886 case of Santa Clara County v. the Southern Pacific Railroad. In this previous 100+ year old Supreme Court case, the court reporter, Mr. J.C. Bancroft Davis, had mistakenly written the following as part of the case´s summary "headnote":

"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 [the Supreme Court] are all of the opinion that it does."

In this one 1886 statement, Mr. Davis´ headnote basically says that "corporations have the same equal protection as every living person".

In actuality, the 1886 Supreme Court´s decision never came to the claim of equal protection for corporations. Nonetheless, as with most court cases, the "headnotes" or summaries are what are usually used and cited as the final ruling of the court. This case has been incorrectly cited for years by holding that corporations, as juristic persons, are "protected by the Fourteenth Amendment".

When one reviews the details of the actual decision of the Santa Clara County case, it is true that the court did not decide or say that corporations had the same protection as real living persons.

So why did the court reporter´s comment stand as the final decision and why did Mr. Davis start his "headnote" with this statement?

The reality is that it was all just a "big tragic stupid mistake". But from its inception, this has been the position that corporations have taken and that particular "headnote" has been cited by corporate lawyers and has been upheld since that very mistaken decision was handed down.

Now, the Citizens-United case is a very different story, but with a similar conclusion.

This situation was not a case of a mistaken "headnote" summary. In this latest case, the current Roberts court has five justices that usually vote in lock-step with whatever position is held by the highly conservative, Chief Justice John Roberts.

In Citizens-United, the chief justice purposely took this minor case and expanded it so that a positive decision in support of the GOP and for corporations being considered "real living persons" could be made. And of course, this could now all be accomplished with the help of his four conservative associate justice cronies. And Roberts still did all of this, even though both he and his crony Judge, Antonin Scalia, had been recorded stating under oath to the US Congress that "they would not become activist judges, if they were approved as Supreme Court justices".

Yes, it´s true that with them making these statements under oath, they could both be impeached for their activist court actions. However, no Supreme Court justice has ever been successfully impeached, and it probably wouldn´t happen this time either.

BUT THERE IS HOPE!

Fortunately, this issue is not just being swept under the rug by the American public.

It is obvious that with these two inappropriate cases, the concept of corporations as "persons" is diametrically opposed to the concept of a true American democracy.

How can a corporation, with unlimited funds be considered as "equal" to a single working American citizen……? Can most individual Americans afford to spend millions on TV and radio ads for promoting individuals or propositions that might be coming up for a vote? Can enough revenue be assembled by groups of average Americans, in a timely fashion, in order to compete with multi-billion dollar corporations? I think not.

So what can actually be done?

The reality is that it will take a Constitutional Amendment in order to set things right that corporations are not "persons". And that is exactly what is being proposed.

Today, there is a grass-roots group called: Move-To-Amend that is proposing an amendment to the US constitution that would say that only real, human beings are "living persons" and not corporations. The motion that anyone can also support and sign-on for can be found at: http://movetoamend.org/ .

Here is what they are proposing as the possible language of the amendment:

We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:



>>> Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.

>>> Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.

>>> Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments



Just as it took constitutional amendments to deal with the removal of slavery, the supporting of Civil Rights, a woman´s right to vote, Prohibition and the subsequent removal of Prohibition, it will take a similar amendment to insure that we do not become a true Corporatist or Oligarchy nation. These are the government descriptions of those countries today that are totally run by the wealthy, top 1% of all its citizens and/or their multi-billion dollar corporations. America is almost at that disturbing position today. And if we don´t once again take charge of our nation´s destiny, and do it soon, it may become too late for saving what we have left in our freedoms and for having real control of our country.

"Apathy regarding this issue is no longer an option."

Copyright: G.Ater 2010

Follow me on Twitter: gater01