[FoRK] My sentiments exactly...

Stephen Williams sdw at lig.net
Sat Jan 23 17:36:59 PST 2010


Jeff Bone wrote:
>
> Cf.  "So Much Good News"
>
>   http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/01/so-much-good-news.html
>
> In the US, Med Reform is dead and the Supreme Court upholds free 
> speechbig-time. ...
(Random link from a random mailing list, never noticed "Smirking Chimp" 
before...)

Interesting details against:
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/26282
> I would also like to quote Supreme Court Justice Byron White:
>
> "The 1st Amendment protects the right to speak, not the right to spend."
>
> "The Court is most vulnerable and comes nearest to illegitimacy when 
> it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little or no 
> cognizable roots in the language or design of the Constitution."

> After fighting a revolution
>
> After fighting a revolution to end the exploitation by English 
> corporations, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of 
> corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a 
> business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to 
> influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
>
> For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained 
> tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of 
> widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few 
> corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed 
> corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters 
> but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated 
> businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did 
> not specifically allow.
>
> Everything begins and ends with the 14th Amendment, which was written 
> to assure political rights for the newly-freed slaves. The hijacking 
> and re-interpretation of this amendment, is the loophole corporations 
> ultimately used to be granted the same rights as US citizens under the 
> Bill of Rights.
>
> The First Amendment wasn't extended to include corporations until 1936 
> (Grosjean v. American Press Co).
>
> I think such a massive change in the way we run our country, in the 
> way our "democracy" works, needs to atleast be very very clearly based 
> on the Constitution. But it's not.
>
> Corporate Personhood, the very core of this entire problem, is based 
> on reinterpretation of amendments, illegitimate precedence (Santa 
> Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad), loopholes and deals struck 
> by corporate lawyers (acting as both attorneys and judges).
>
> When such a massive and fundemental change of society is built on a 
> history of suspicious legislation and systematic redefinition of our 
> very constitution, is it not worthy of our scepticism?
>
> Our rights as citizens are being cancelled out by extending the same 
> rights to legally immortal superbeings, who can use their obvious 
> advantages to tweak the system as they see fit.
>
> That's not democracy. It's a perverse form of theocratic plutocracy, 
> where power is totally and completely removed from the people.
> _______
>
> Capitalism has destroyed our belief in any effective power but that of 
> self interest backed by force.
> ~George Bernard Shaw
>
> Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class.
> ~Al Capone
> Submitted by Alabastermaster on January 23, 2010 - 4:42pm.
> Why Santa Clara should scareya....
>
> ....or...technically...why its legal misinterpretation made law should 
> at least inconvenience you a little.
>
> Santa Clara was instrumental in giving corporations all the RIGHTS of 
> a (natural) person with none of the responsibilities listed in the 
> Constitution. E.g., despite corporations being state organizations 
> (chartered by states and granted the state privilege of issuing public 
> securities), a series of equally corrupt supreme corporate court 
> decisions ruled that corps did not have to observe freedom of speech, 
> due process, freedom of religion, etc. This why the government 
> observes due process when terminating an employee (just cause) while 
> corporations could fire you for refusing to give the CEO a blowjob. 
> Thanks to court cases and subsequent anti-discrimination laws 
> minimally limiting extreme at-will termination abuses, they now must 
> use a pretext before doing so.
>
> The post-Civil War empowering of corporations gave them exorbitant 
> privileges of citizenship and limited liability that shielded them 
> from government regulators and creditors, thanks to the legislators 
> and judges they bought. The stank hacks whoring on the Supreme Court 
> in the post-Civil War era were usually ex-corporate lawyers with a 
> vast repertoire of experience of whoring the legal profession for 
> Corporate. Not only were blatantly biased pro-business decisions such 
> as Santa Clara the product of these corporate flacks posing as 
> jurists, but so were racist decisions such as the infamous Plessy v 
> Ferguson, which was the prostituting of constitutional law that 
> subjected African Americans to a century of Jim Crow. The corporate 
> Supreme Court decisions from this period are among the worst ever 
> reached in history, containing some of the most embarrassing and 
> imbecilic legal reasoning ever put to court reporter paper. Santa 
> Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, the case where a coterie of 
> corporate baboons, with one notable exception (Justice Harlan), 
> awkwardly, ignorantly, ambiguously, and without legal precedent 
> awarded corporations personage status to frustrate government efforts 
> to regulate them, is Exhibit A.
>
> Until 1886 corporations were not considered persons. It was clear what 
> they were: artificial creations of their owners and the state 
> legislatures. They were regulated and taxed. They could sue and be 
> sued. Corporations did not need to be declared a “natural person” to 
> sue or be sued, otherwise there would not have been a Supreme Court 
> case called “Santa Clara” (because a party in that case, Southern 
> Pacific Railroad, was a corporation and was sued prior to the Supreme 
> Court hearing the case, (see Mr. Obvious)). They were subject to all 
> of the laws of the land as well as any restrictions placed in their 
> charters. But from 1819 until 1886 the wealthiest business people in 
> that land sought to use the Federal government, particularly the 
> courts, to get their corporations out from under the control of the 
> states and their citizens, exactly as was done in the Reagan/Bush era. 
> Those 19th Century corporate lackeys subjected African Americans to a 
> century of Jim Crow discrimination. They made corporations into a 
> vehicle for the wealthy elite to control the economy and the 
> government. They vastly increased the power of the Supreme Court 
> itself over elected government officials in order to increase and 
> protect the power of their corporate masters.
>
> So, “Santa Clara” is easy. All of the constitutional rights afforded 
> to actual persons, but none of the responsibilities for observance of 
> basic fundamental rights, and historians will argue which of the 
> corrupt Supreme Corporate Courts were the most corrupt: those whoring 
> from the bench in Robber Baron era, or those prostituting the 
> Constitution during the waning years of yet another failed attempt at 
> corporate empire. What a racket. Who was the idiot that said crime 
> doesn't pay?
> _______
>
> “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary 
> depends on his not understanding it.” -Upton Sinclair
>
> “Men of the same trade seldom meet but that it ends in a conspiracy 
> against the public.” -Adam Smith
> Submitted by SnoopDopeyDogg on January 23, 2010 - 3:43pm.

sdw
>
>
> jb





More information about the FoRK mailing list