Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘corporate personhood’

The activist corporate conservative justices have reinterpreted the US Constitution over the decades giving corporations all the legal rights and none of the responsibilities of real people, and then giving corporations free speech rights, which has then been used to roll back 100 years of campaign finance spending laws.

These conservative justices are not and never have been original intent jurists, as they claim. If anybody tells you the US Constitution is not a legal contract that is open to reinterpretation in a manner inconsistent with the desires of the founding fathers, they are wrong, and all you need to do is point to the modern conservative justices who represent only one economic class in the United States, and it isn’t the 99 percent (currently Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy).

Since Neil Gorsuch made his way to a supreme court seat earlier this year, I’ve been waiting for all to see that the Republicans who control the US House of Representatives, the US Senate, and the United States presidency will not under any circumstances come up with legislation banning abortions. That would give their base a lot of hope such legislation could withstand a challenge in front of the conservatively loaded US Supreme Court.

In addition, the US Republican-dominated US Senate will never vote to end the filibuster on legislation so that the conservatives in the Senate can disappoint their grassroots base again. That won’t happen because doing so would raise the hopes of the Republican faithful that their dreams of saving tens of thousands of the unborn every year would be fulfilled, and this great wedge issue would be legally resolved. Perhaps then many of the faithful would begin to clamor for a more equitable distribution of income, wealth, and political power, and the leadership cannot have that.

Ergo, conservatism, as it is largely practiced in the Republican Party, is only about letting corporations and the rich legally run wild over everybody else while redistributing income and wealth from the 99 to the 1 percent. But the Republican Party is not the only representative body in the US government who performs this function on behalf of the wealthy.

So too are corporate Democrats, such as Hillary and Bill Clinton, Wall Street Senators Ron Wyden and Joe Biden and many others.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Anywhere in the world, a thing is a thing, a person is a person, and an idea is an idea, except in the United States, where an idea is a person with more constitutional rights and political power than citizens, thanks to the soundly corrupted legal logic of the Koch Brothers wing of the United States Supreme Court.

Anybody with half a brain can see that a business corporation is “an imaginary business model given the legal rules to exist and operate by legislative authorization under the legal fiction of being an “artificial person.”

Only in the good old USA can ideas own things like furniture, antiques, computers, I-phones, office buildings, and factories. Hell, ideas can also hire people, and use slave labor overseas, and it’s all because of something state legislatures created two hundred years ago called a corporate charter, which has been a hell of a good idea for a few organic persons such as shareholders, CEOs, politicians, rich investors, and most likely more than a few US supreme court justices along the way. Got that?

General Motor’s (GM) owns things, like factories, office buildings, and land, but GM is still only an idea, in this case “an imaginary business model given the legal rules to exist and operate by legislative authorization under the legal fiction of being an “artificial person.”

GM is a business model given the legal rules to exist and operate. It doesn’t actually do anything since it’s only an idea given legal sanction. The investors in GM vote for a brain to operate the company and this brain is called the board of directors, which is based on the “rules to exist and operate.”

Next, these people hire another brain called a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to actually make the decisions for General Motors, because GM is simply an idea without any parts, and without any tangible assets, until the CEO makes decisions on what to purchase, and what business strategies to follow, based on the “rules to exist and operate,” because the idea called GM can’t think for itself.

That’s how GM and Microsoft and Apple Inc. wind up owning tangible stuff. That could also be stated as, “That’s how intangible ideas wind up accumulating billions of dollars of tangible stuff, and distributing income and wealth to its investors and CEOs.”

Anyway, probably the closest thing you might be able to relate to this is a person born without a brain and without parents (Pretend they died an hour after birth). A court (board of directors) decides who is going to care for the baby (corporation that is an idea only so it doesn’t have a brain or a body), the caregivers (CEOs) are going to make decisions for the brain dead person (corporation) based on their judgments. They might buy the brain dead person stock in a corporation, but that brainless person is no more the stock in a corporation than a business corporation is the factory it owns. Got that?

So business corporations are still only ideas, not buildings or machines, and the wealth these ideas accumulate do not make them any different than when an organic person buys a new car. The new car is not the person that owns it, although this is something the corrupt supreme court hasn’t figured out yet, and given the corruption within the court, it isn’t likely to do so anytime soon.

That’s because there are trillions of dollars riding on the court’s decisions, and some of the justices are duck hunting buddies of the rich, or their wives earn hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from the rich that bring their cases to the court (like Citizen’s United), or the justices get to go on nice prepaid retreats and hobnob with the wealthy, etc…. You get the picture.

Okay, that’s not the only reason the Koch Brothers wing of the US court decides stuff the way they do. The primary job of the US Supreme Court is to rig the political and economic games for the 1 percent and against the 99 percent. That’s what the Citizen’s United decision was all about.

No where in the US constitution does it mention business corporations or ideas, but you know these original intent justices like to make stuff up whenever such stuff benefits their billionaire buddies.

Check out more below about why shareholders are not corporations and don’t deserve person hood rights.

the-easy-case-against-shareholders-being-corporations-and-deserving-corporate-personhood-part-3–Johnhively.wordpress.com

Read Full Post »

In 1886, the US Supreme court is thought to have ruled that publicly traded limited liability corporations were persons, and to have equal rights under the law with organic persons, based on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. This decision, of course, was based  on corruption within the court, rather than any legal perspective, because there was no other sense to it, especially from a legal point of view. But the decision still stands more than a century later.

A softball team is an association of people. A labor union is an association of people. Shareholders are the owners of publicly traded limited liability  corporations, therefore they are an association of people of a sort, but mostly never meet, and therefore, are not really an association of people, at least not in any real sense.

A corporation is a legislatively created “artificial person,” at least from a legislatively written perspective. A corporation is neither an association of people or a person, but rather, an imaginary business model given life and the legal mechanics to exist and operate by legislative fiat under the legal fiction of “artificial person.”

This brings up an interesting puzzle. If the shareholders are the owners of the “artificial persons” known as corporations, and the US Supreme Court says these artificial persons have the same rights as organic persons, then would not the ownership of corporations by the shareholders be in violation of the 13th amendment which bans the ownership of one person by another? And how can a corporation have such rights if it cannot function in such simple ways as envisioned by the founders as voting? No, corporations are not persons or associations since the associations of shareholders have been ruled as being distinct from corporations.

Besides, the US constitution grants only individual rights, not group rights.

Another point needs to be made; does anybody really think the founders thought you could legislatively create anything out of thin air, label it an artificial person, and then it could be considered a person with all the legal rights and responsibilities of human beings? I don’t think so.

Most likely, a corrupt politician devised the term “artificial person” knowing that a court corrupted by big money would rule such a thing to be equal to an organic person. That’s like creating an artificial person such as a robot, legally labeling it as such, and giving it constitutional rights. Do you really think a court would rule in the robot’s favor if it demanded full constitutional rights? Okay, it might happen if there was a big push by big money to do so, which is something the corporate wing of the US Supreme court seems to favor.

But what if politicians legislatively changed the labels of raccoons or rocks to “artificial persons.” Would the corporate wing of the US Supreme Court rule that artificial humans formerly known as raccoons and rocks have all the legal rights the US Constitution grants even if big money was behind it? I don’t think so.

This suggests the people of the 0.1 percent are the majority shareholders in the US Supreme Court, as well as other judicial markets.

Only rich people looking for a way to rip off the American public could have corrupted the legislative process and the court system to get their artificial person constitutional rights for only they have sufficient money to do so.

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

New York City Council to vote on ending corporate personhood

click here for the rest of the storyThe New York City Council is expected to vote Wednesday on a resolution asking Congress to pass an amendment overturning the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

The Supreme Court ruled that corporations had the same First Amendment rights as U.S. citizens and that political spending was free speech. The ruling allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections, so long as their actions were not directly coordinated with a candidate’s campaign.

Read Full Post »