America, The Incorporated

Even more ridiculous than the idea that a fertilized human egg is a human being, is that large, amorphous agglomerations of people can form a person. A company, a corporation, an interest group... that these clusters of people, brought together by similarity of thought or by economic necessity, are artificial creations, a form of human breccia, which cannot be construed as having a homogeneous mind and singular being. They are aggregated together from disparate portions of society, and are entities whose existence is totally dependent on human law for definition. They did not arise spontaneously from a primordial ooze, nor were they birthed by some titanic polyglot mother.

This is an important distinction, in that such groups of people in their various forms, believe that somehow their mere existence provides them the same access to rights and privileges that a natural-born person enjoys, namely in the area of freedom of speech, and under that, the ability to influence elections based on their desire for certain outcomes. The absurdity of this notion is lost upon corporate boards and self-important leaders, alike; their belief in the rightness of their cause or business is such that it blinds them to fact.

What Justice Comes From Silence

Last week, we were forced by circumstance to engage the help of a lawyer in righting a wrong -- my son being unable to join his peers in their 8th Grade graduation ceremony, even though he had finally passed. It had been a rough year, and it looked like he might be held back, but through the good graces of some of his teachers, he was able to make up the necessary work to obtain the grades necessary to go to high school. Even so, the administration believed it would not be in his his best interests to allow him in the ceremony, saying it would "set a bad example." We thought just the opposite -- he had shown that their faith in him was not misplaced, and that when he put his nose to the grindstone, he could do the work.

After the school administration and the school district superintendent not only minimized out outrage over the snub, but were condescending about it, we hired legal counsel. Our lawyer, acting swiftly, as there was only hours until the ceremony at this point, was quickly able to determine that the district had violated its own rules regarding the situation, and was in breach. Fear of a potential lawsuit forced their hand, and we won. We got to see him graduate and mark a milestone in his life we both wanted to see.

The legal code of our nation, and the system of justice provided for therein, was a carefully crafted work, intended to provide the average citizen with legal protections from unreasonable government mandates and actions, to ensure that no person was made guilty before they could receive a fair hearing, and to allow even the most heinous criminal the privilege of a day in court. The system of jurisprudence that we have, flawed though it may be in some areas, still affords the vast majority of Americans the protection of their inalienable rights and the right to be heard where they stand accused.

We The People, Incorporated

The Supreme Court of the United States is the last line of defense against laws which may violate the sovereignty of the country and infringe on the rights of its citizens. Though certainly not perfect, it remains the backstop, against which the misses of the Legislative and Executive branches must come to rest. It has a very narrow set of rules to work from -- the Constitution of the United States. It's only job is to ensure that no local, state, or Federal law violates those rules.

Now, the rules are subject to interpretation. The Founding Fathers worded each Amendment carefully, so as to make the intent of them clear, but leave room for subjectivity. They also ensured that the Constitution was amendable, where clarification or expansion was required. They made a clear hierarchy in the system of checks and balances, upon which the whole framework of American government was supposed to rest; the Legislative branch makes the laws, the Executive branch enables the laws, and the Supreme Court rejects those laws that violate the Constitution.

It has always been assumed that the Justices of the Supreme Court were impartial enough to look at the law for its essence and its legality, not for its political potential. Of course, where the business of humanity is concerned, to expect any individual to be completely impartial is to ask too much. Upbringing, education, happenstance, personal belief, religion -- all these things will have subtle influences on any person, and while a person can claim impartiality, they are betrayed by their humanity. Still, where codes and laws are concerned, the wisdom of Solomon is not required to hear the evidence and distill the essence of it and compare it to the law, and then determine if it is a violation of the Constitution.

Therefore, it is a bit perplexing that the Supreme Court decided in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, to imbue corporations with the same rights to free speech as actual, living, breathing American citizens. In essence, the court has give the OK to corporations, both domestic and foreign, to meddle in the election of public officials. Though it stops short of giving them an actual vote, the decision means that a corporation is free to spend any amount of money attempting to support an incumbent politician or a rival to an incumbent, in order to tip the balance in Congress in favor of their corporate interests. A Sword of Damocles can now be hung over legislators, who cannot possibly raise enough money to oppose the concerted efforts of their corporate foes, forcing them to either toe the line, or resign.

One wonders just what predisposed the majority Justices to vote the way they did. Could they be so weak-kneed, as to feel the pull of corporate greed? Could they be so contemptuous of the average American citizen, that they feel that it is necessary to allow corporations to their thinking for them? Are they unaware that by granting these rights, they leave the door open to foreign entities that have majority stakes in American corporations? Were they oblivious to the havoc that several major corporations caused, with their poor business practices, which plunged this nation (and the world) into a global financial crisis?

The Founding Fathers certainly did not anticipate the extent to which companies would expand to become global corporations, with influence far beyond their borders. They most assuredly did not intend for companies to gain the rights of American citizens -- to have freedom of speech or even to vote. Companies and corporations are ephemeral entities, composed of many individuals, with no separate existence of their own. They were not the product of love, borne into the world via the pain of birth, to be nurtured by caring parents. Their function is to provide products or services for the consumption of the citizenry, to generate profits for their owners and/or shareholders.

It is obvious, given this decision, that there are two facts that cannot be in dispute: 1) the Supreme Court of the United States no longer functions as intended by the Founders, and 2) corporations have gained too much power over the government of the United States. This decision means that Congress will have a hard time passing meaningful campaign finance reform, if the Supreme Court will simply dismiss it as restricting freedom of speech for anyone, which leaves Congress paralyzed. Given the lifetime appointments of Supreme Court Justices, it is possible that such gridlock on campaign finance reform may remain for decades, until the majority justices from this decision have been replaced.

So it is becoming increasingly clear, that just as our ancestors felt the need to throw off the yoke of British oppression, we must rise up and throw off the yolk of corporate oppression. This is not a thing that can be accomplished using the current system; it will require that we, the citizens of America, use our Constitutionally guaranteed power, and call a Constitutional Convention, to alter the playing field, redefining the rights of citizens as belonging to citizens only, and to tackle the inertia represented on the Supreme Court by imposing limits on the tenure of Justices. Only by doing so, can we short-circuit the undue influence of business in politics, and ensure that the Justices of the Supreme Court have a clearer vision of modern society, rather than dragging along the influences of the past.