Where are the Congressman and Senators that used to care about civil liberties and government encroachment?
Gov't of, by and for corporate interests has no concern about civic liberties, and are in favor of gov't encroachment as budding fascists would be. It's interesting to hear old-time pols shake their heads and say not just that lobbyists are more aggressive -- the politicos in the new Washington culture actually collar corp lobbyists, and ask, "Ok, what can I do for you and how much can you give me?".
It is vastly and completely corrupted.
One thread of history goes back to about Nov 22nd, 1963 and JFK's assassination, which coincidentally marked a sharp turning point gov't secrecy, military budgeting and relentless increase in central gov't power.
The larger picture goes back further to the 1886 Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific supreme court decision making corporations natural citizens for gov't purposes, and without obligations of natural citizens. This needs to be modified for full disclosure. Corporations are wonderful power-concentrating systems, where a few can control billions of public dollars in secret, and from there hundreds of billions in gov't policy decisions.
The only solution now is aggressive activism a la Paul Wellstone.
commondreams.org
"When the railroad suggested to the Supreme Court that the Fourteenth Amendment, which freed the slaves by guaranteeing all persons equal protection under the law regardless of race, had also freed corporations because they should be considered "persons" just like humans, the attorney for Santa Clara County, Delphin M. Delmas, fought back ferociously.
"The shield behind which [the Southern Pacific Railroad] attacks the Constitution and laws of California is the Fourteenth Amendment," said Delmas before the Supreme Court. "It argues that the Amendment guarantees to every person within the jurisdiction of the State the equal protection of the laws; that a corporation is a person; that, therefore, it must receive the same protection as that accorded to all other persons in like circumstances."
The entire idea was beyond the pale, Delmas said. "The whole history of the Fourteenth Amendment," he told the Court, "demonstrates beyond dispute that its whole scope and object was to establish equality between men - an attainable result - and not to establish equality between natural and artificial beings - an impossible result."
The purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, passed just after the Civil War, was clear, Delmas said. "Its mission was to raise the humble, the down-trodden, and the oppressed to the level of the most exalted upon the broad plane of humanity - to make man the equal of man; but not to make the creature of the State - the bodiless, soulless, and mystic creature called a corporation - the equal of the creature of God."
He summarized his pleadings before the Supreme Court by saying, "Therefore, I venture to repeat that the Fourteenth Amendment does not command equality between human beings and corporations; that the state need not subject corporations to the same laws which govern natural persons; that it may, without infringing the rule of equality, confer upon corporations rights, privileges, and immunities which are not enjoyed by natural persons; that it may, for the same reasons, impose burdens upon a corporation, in the shape of taxation or otherwise, which are not imposed upon natural persons."
Delmas had every reason to assume the Court would agree with him - it already had in several similar cases. In an 1873 decision, Justice Samuel F. Miller wrote in the majority opinion that the Fourteenth Amendment's "one pervading purpose was the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppression of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him."
And, in fact, the Court chose to stay with its previous precedent. It ruled on the tax aspects of the case, but explicitly avoided any decision on whether or not corporations were persons. "There will be no occasion to consider the grave questions of constitutional law" raised by the railroad, the Court ruled in its majority opinion. The case was about property taxes and not personhood, and, "As the judgment can be sustained upon this ground, it is not necessary to consider any other questions raised by the pleadings." |
