Thread: Constitution needs change to limit power of corporations

Constitution needs change to limit power of corporations


March 14, 2007


A constitutional amendment will end corporate influence on our government.

Glenn Beck of CNN accused corporations, such as GE, General Motors, Sony, etc., of influencing the president and his administration pertaining to the urgent implementation of the "NAFTA Superhighway Plan" from Canada to Mexico, with no security restrictions on the 100 Mexican trucking companies that want to participate.

To end this cancer of corporate influence, and return our country to the people, it is necessary to amend the Constitution and rescind the 1886 Supreme Court decision in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, which held that a private corporation is entitled to the same legal rights and protection under the Constitution as a person.

If Congress will not amend the Constitution, then we the people will need to challenge this 1886 decision, and take this case before the Supreme Court.

- Dennis R. Lockridge,

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs. ... /-1/LIFE04
~~~~~~~~
Comments being left after link too.

That's one of the most preposperous decisions I've seen yet! How can a corporation have the same legal rights as a living sentient being? The corporation is a creature of the Government, because the Government is responsible for allowing businesses to be. That is why according to our Constitution, corporations are one of the few entities that are obligated to taxation. They are a creation of the regulations and rules that the Local, State, and Federal Government uphold in the individual Constitutions of the Federal and Satae level Governments.

It should be overturned as pure nonsense, and corruption, as it is obvious that someone was on the take concerning that one.

Okay, there are numerous problems with the premise and the proposed remedy.

For starters, I can't imagine how you think that "people" will be able to "challenge" the decision and "take this case before the Supreme Court." First off, I can't imagine where the "people" would have standing to press such a case. Secondly, we cannot "challenge" a standing decision of the Supreme Court. Thirdly, you can't just "take" as case before the Supreme court. In the case of well-settled case law, the chance that the Court would even hear such a case is about nil.

Now, as for the idea of a corporation being a "person," that has always been the case under Roman Civil Law. It's less a matter of a corporation gaining a new status (personhood) than the average citizen being increasingly insulated from an understanding of the legal system/s. Many types of artificial entities are and have been considered persons in law. Here's the standard definition available from the law.com dictionary or any other legal dictionary:

person
n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages unless there is a statute authorizing the award of punitive damages.

The important thing to remember is that this case was referring to the rights (actually, privileges and immunities) arising from Amendment XIV, and is not referring to the Bill of Rights. This goes back to previous posts I have written relating to the difference between natural rights (the subject of the Bill of Rights) and civil rights (conferred under Roman Civil Law by Amendment XIV). The change in status arose from the change of our government in the wake of the Lincoln's tyranny. Seeking authority he did not have under our constitutional form of government, Lincoln sought and received apotheosis from the Church of Rome, which granted him power under the system of Roman Civil Law. The federal government has been operating under Roman Civil Law ever since.

The reason that Amendment XIV is significant is that it created a new citizenship status, which is that of "US citizen." Specifically:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.

It's easy to understand how the legalese of this amendment is misunderstood, but let's look at it carefully.

Prior to the unCivil War, We the People were citizens of our several states, and the states were joined under a union for certain purposes such as trade and mutual defense. There was no such thing as a US citizen. Eventually, there was recognized a distinction between citizens of the several states who were subject to state or local laws, and those inhabitants of the federal possessions and territories who were subject to federal governance in the jurisdiction of federal marshals. But Amendment XIV created a specific citizenship status that treated ANYONE claiming that status as a federal subject. In place of natural rights were conferred privileges and immunities (civil rights) defended by the federal legislative democracy.

Because I have covered most of this ground before, I won't go into the Slaughterhouse cases or the creeping change to an exclusively federal system, but the point is that it's not that the corporations have been elevated to your status, but rather that you have been lowered to the same status as other artificial persons by various declarations and agreements and by acceptance of inferior Amendment XIV citizenship. Those who retain their status as naturals of their state of birth retain their natural rights, which are superior to the immunities and privileges under which corporations and most Americans live.

CrocketsGhost,

I understand what you've stated, but it all sounds like double talk, concerning Ammendment XIV.

I swear, the people that paid for our Nations Independence must be turning in their graves at how it's ended up. I mean the XIVth Ammendment alone basically nullifies the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights in it's wording alone. Leaving those documents nothing more than ink on parchment. That's why TJ was very apprehensive about a Central Government. And to say those men couldn't fortell the futre, is absurd. They were lightyears ahead of their time, and ours.

It just gets infuriating. I'll take being a citizen of one of the several states any day, as unalienable rights (it gets under my skin when I hear inalienable rights) carry more water than priveliges, and immunities. The former are granted by your Creator. The latter are based on laws of men, and laws can change.

Originally Posted by Hylander_1314

CrocketsGhost,

I understand what you've stated, but it all sounds like double talk, concerning Ammendment XIV.

I swear, the people that paid for our Nations Independence must be turning in their graves at how it's ended up. I mean the XIVth Ammendment alone basically nullifies the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights in it's wording alone. Leaving those documents nothing more than ink on parchment. That's why TJ was very apprehensive about a Central Government. And to say those men couldn't fortell the futre, is absurd. They were lightyears ahead of their time, and ours.

It just gets infuriating. I'll take being a citizen of one of the several states any day, as unalienable rights (it gets under my skin when I hear inalienable rights) carry more water than priveliges, and immunities. The former are granted by your Creator. The latter are based on laws of men, and laws can change.

No, Amendment XIV simply creates a lesser class of citizen. It took our own stupidity to sign ourselves up for that inferior condition. Liberty still exists if you choose to assert your original status, and indentured servitude and other inferior status remained intact in the days of Jefferson and the other founders. Part of the burden of true liberty is having the wisdom to use it wisely. We retained our unlimited right to contract, including the right to act as surety for someone who may have not been wholly trustworthy, to indenture ourselves for payment of debt and all sorts of other things that most people may consider a bad idea but which we are nevertheless free to pursue.

And please don't presume to lecture me on the differences between Creator-endowed natural rights and manmade privileges and immunities. It doesn't matter which of the two you'll decide to "take," there are other actions that determine to which you are subjected. Do you have an SSN? Do you identify yourself as a "US citizen?" If so, then you have taken the federal promises over natural rights and the freedoms and responsibilities granted by God.

And why does it get under your skin when people use "inalienable?" It is the accepted spelling of the word. The D of I is not scripture, and our nation's founders were not immune to anachronisms or variant spellings. Try looking up "inalienable" in Webster's and you will see that it carries the exact meaning Jefferson sought to convey.