Moral Low Ground

Economy

Vermont Introduces Resolution to Amend US Constitution, Ban Corporate Personhood

It’s been one year since the US Supreme Court decided that corporations are people and money is free speech. The disastrous Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling destroyed over a century of restrictions on corporate influence of our nation’s electoral process, accelerating the already alarming corporate takeover of American politics. The consequences of Citizens United were almost immediately felt in the form of a $290,000,000 special interest spending orgy in the 2010 midterm elections. Much of this money represented foreign corporate interests, and it played a significant role in the conservative resurgence that saw Republicans re-gain control of the House of Representatives.

Justice John Paul Stevens’ stirring dissenting opinion argued that “the Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation. It will undoubtedly cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress, and the states to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process.” Stevens also wrote: “Corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their ‘personhood’ often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of ‘We the People’ by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.”

In that spirit, Vermont state senator Virginia Lyons has introduced an anti-corporate personhood resolution in the state legislature. JRS 11 is a “joint resolution urging the United States Congress to propose an amendment to the United States Constitution for the states’ consideration which provides that corporations are not persons under the laws of the United States or any of its jurisdictional subdivisions.” The resolution continues:

“Whereas, free and fair elections are essential to American democracy and effective self-governance, and

Whereas, individual persons are rightfully recognized as the human beings who actually vote in elections, and

Whereas, corporations are legal entities that governments create and can exist in perpetuity and simultaneously in many nations, and

Whereas, they do not vote in elections and should not be categorized as persons for purposes related to elections for public office, and

Whereas, corporations are not mentioned in the United States Constitution as adopted, nor have Congress and the states recognized corporations as legal persons in any subsequent federal constitutional amendment…

Whereas, the Court in Citizens United has created a new and unequal playing field between human beings and corporations with respect to campaign financing, negating over a century of precedent prohibiting corporate contributions to federal election campaigns dating to the Tillman Act of 1907, and

Whereas, the Citizens United decision has forced candidates for political office to divert attention from the interests and needs of their human constituents in order to raise sufficient campaign funds for election, and

Whereas, corporations are not and have never been human beings and therefore are rightfully subservient to human beings and the governments that are their creators, and

Whereas, the profits and institutional survival of large corporations are often in direct conflict with the essential needs and rights of human beings, and

Whereas, large corporations have used their so-called rights to successfully seek the judicial reversal of democratically enacted laws passed at the municipal, state, and federal levels aimed at curbing corporate abuse, and

Whereas, these judicial decisions have rendered democratically elected governments ineffective in protecting their citizens against corporate harm to the environment, health, workers, independent business, and local and regional economies, and

Whereas, large corporations own most of America’s mass media and employ those media to loudly express the corporate political agenda and to convince Americans that the primary role of human beings is that of consumers rather than sovereign citizens with democratic rights and responsibilities, and

Whereas, the only way to reverse this intolerable societal reality is to amend the United States Constitution to define persons as human beings and not corporations, now therefore be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives that the General Assembly urges Congress to propose an amendment to the United States Constitution for the states’ consideration which provides that corporations are not persons under the laws of the United States or any of its jurisdictional subdivisions…”

Constitutional lawyer and 2004 Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb helped draft the Vermont resolution. “This is the first state to introduce at the legislative level a statement of principles that corporations are not persons and do not have constitutional rights,” he told AlterNet. “This is how a movement gets started. It’s the beginning of a revolutionary action completely and totally within the legal framework.”

JRS 11 has a pretty decent chance of passing. Vermont is known for its progressive politics. The nation’s only openly socialist US Senator, Bernie Sanders, hails from here. The Green Mountain State was the first to abolish slavery, and the first to legalize same-sex marriage via legislation, not litigation. The Vermont state senate also voted to impeach George W. Bush and to shut down a nuclear power plant. “We have a citizen legislature in the state,” newly-elected governor Peter Shumlin, a Democrat, told Democracy Now! “We are not beholden to the special interests. We fight for our constituents in their best interest.”

The citizens of Vermont certainly know that the Citizens United ruling is definitely not in their best interests. And instead of sitting around and just bitching about the corporate takeover of America, they’re actually doing something about it. By declaring war on corporate personhood, they’re setting a fine example for the rest of the nation. What is your state doing?

To get involved, or for more information, contact:

Move to Amend- http://movetoamend.org/

Free Speech for People- http://freespeechforpeople.org/

Fix Congress First- http://www.fixcongressfirst.org/

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related Posts

57 Comments

  1. Judith WatkinsJanuary 24, 2011 at 12:15 pmReply

    Great news! Having a “house party” in Texas Wednesday to discuss this very thing.

    • Moral Low GroundJanuary 24, 2011 at 1:37 pmReplyAuthor

      Wow… what interesting house parties you have!

    • GinaDecember 31, 2011 at 12:20 amReply

      If you want something done right: http://goo.gl/YcBpI

  2. Marshall MarcusJanuary 25, 2011 at 4:17 pmReply

    I support this U.S. constitutional amendment, and will give financial support if asked.

    • BrayanDecember 30, 2011 at 1:58 pmReply

      This statement is a little ironic since getting money out of politics a goal of ending corporate personhood but I agree.

      • ShelDecember 31, 2011 at 3:56 amReply

        Generally, we just want to get corporate money out of politics — public funding for elections is hardly new. The problem comes when corporations are people!

        • Brett WilkinsDecember 31, 2011 at 8:33 amReplyAuthor

          Exactly.

    • PaulDecember 31, 2011 at 8:16 amReply

      Interesting, but silly. That case was not based on the personhood of a company but on freedom of speech. The amendment will do nothing but state the obvious. Corporations aren’t people under the law, but are treated as a legal person for litigation purposes so that to sue a corporation, you would not have to sue 1 million or more individual shareholders. The case also involved the right of assembly. Don’t people have the right to speak collectively by pooling their money? Isn’t the issue a shareholder issue where shareholders have the right to influence where money is contributed? The ONLY was to stop corporate money is politics is for SHAREHOLDERS to BAN the practice in an annual meeting or at least require shareholder approval for politic spending.

      • -Fred OvereemDecember 31, 2011 at 10:17 amReply

        Actually articles of incorporation protect the investors. In a lawsuit, the claims are limited to the value of the business. Corporations have limited liability. In Canada and other countries the word, “Limited (Ltd.),” is used to indicate this.

      • LeslieFebruary 27, 2012 at 9:04 amReply

        Not silly. The ruling said that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibited the government from restricting political expenditures by corporations and unions. The basis for this decision was the idea that the First Amendment must protect corporations and individuals in the same way. That is why defining what corporate personhood actually means (how far does it extend?) matters.

  3. Jack IngersollJanuary 30, 2011 at 6:38 pmReply

    I took the Vermont JRS 11resolution and changed the end so that the resolution would address our congress people and senators from Wisconsin.
    I took it to our rural Wisconsin county (Vernon County)Democratic party meeting tonight. It was passed as unanimous.
    It probably will go to the Wisconsin 3rd district party meeting this spring and become part of our democratic platform Who knows maybe Wisconsin Democratic party will eventually have this resolution on its party platform.

    Sincerely
    Jack Ingersoll
    ingkj@mwt.net

    • Moral Low GroundJanuary 31, 2011 at 8:13 amReplyAuthor

      Excellent! Good luck with your resolution. People always think of California as the front line of progressive politics, but Wisconsin has a long and proud tradition of standing up for what is good and right. If only the national Democratic leadership was so responsive to the needs of people and not corporations.

  4. K SawyerDecember 29, 2011 at 4:02 pmReply

    Down with evil corporations…..who employ millions, whose stocks are in your retirement plans, who make the laptop you’re using, the cell phone you can’t live without, provide innovations that save lives and improve quality of life, and make it possible to enjoy the best standard of living in the history of the world…….idiots….

    • Brett WilkinsDecember 29, 2011 at 5:27 pmReplyAuthor

      Before you call people “idiots,” you would do well to understand the difference between opposing corporations and opposing corporate excess. Few people are against corporations, whose products and services we all need, as you pointed out. There is much ground between opposing an unnatural state of affairs in which corporations are considered people, endowed with Constitutional rights without any responsibility or accountability, and opposing all corporations. This blog wouldn’t exist without corporations. Heck, WE couldn’t exist without them. But they are NOT people and corporate money is NOT protected free speech.

    • Tim NadeauDecember 29, 2011 at 10:35 pmReply

      Thanks, Brett, for your reply. Nicely said.

      It should also be noted that this proposed amendment (which we shouldn’t even need if the USSC had not erred in their decision) cites that corporations can be multi-national. Um, would you want a Saudi or Chilean or Canadian influencing any election at any level of government? That is what corporate personhood amounts to, in this framework.

      Additionally, the issue of responsibility and accountability is paramount. Is personhood limited in effect only as to campaign finance? What happens when a corporation breaks the law? Say, for example, a corporation’s action cause the death of humans in Texas. How do you determine whether it was premeditated? If you can do that, then is it just the Board you execute? Or, is it all the officers, department heads, stockholders, etc….

      Where does personhood begin or end? No, this needs to be corrected NOW! I haven’t been too vocal on this, but that is to change.

      As a side note, it’s generally not a good idea to insult non-corporate persons by calling them idiots. It just makes the finger-pointing person look more the idiot. I suggest learning something about civility. It’s part of the underlying social contract stated in the Declaration of Independence and thoroughly imbued in the US Constitution. Good reading — I highly recommend them both.

      And it should be noted that I have been directly involved in creating, acquiring, selling, and merging non-person corporations for decades across state and national lines in a variety of sectors. I’ve also been involved in the prominent IPOs of two companies on the Nasdaq and specialized in organizational development, process and operations, largely for NYC based national and international companies.

      Corporations are NOT corporeal human beings. They are tools created by humans through the governments that are created by humans. Both are run by humans to SERVE humans.

      If things continue in the way they’ve been going, I expect the USSC may rule in favor of the personhood of SkyNet. ["I'll be back."]

      Thanks all!

      • Brett WilkinsDecember 30, 2011 at 2:23 amReplyAuthor

        Thanks for reminding me about the foreign influence angle that I’d forgotten about. That was one of the main criticisms of the Citizens United ruling in the beginning, that foreign governments or corporations would be able to influence the outcome of our elections. You’d think that would strike a nerve across ideological lines and that conservatives would wake up and realize that the system we’ve got is actually the opposite of the free market capitalism they lionize.

        • Ro NinDecember 31, 2011 at 7:16 amReply

          Honestly, I find that this issue has found its way accross political lines. While more democrats seem concerned, or at least motivated, by this ruling, I think that the frustration felt by people with their government transcends all political boundries.

    • Eli CabellyDecember 30, 2011 at 6:45 pmReply

      Corporations are great. I’ve worked for several. However, a corporation isn’t a person. Since a corporation isn’t a person, or a member of the homo sapiens species, a corporation doesn’t have the ability to speak the same way that we do. A corporation isn’t human. The constitution protects citizens of the USA, and their property. To be a citizen of the USA you have to be human. A corporation is property that belongs to people. A corporation is not a person.

      Only an idiot wouldn’t be able to see that a corporation is property owned by persons, and not a person itself.

      • CameronDecember 31, 2011 at 2:52 pmReply

        Get out your high school biology book and look up the definition of a life form. Metabolizes, reproduces, irritability… about a dozen attributes, and the largest transnational corporations have all of them. And if human being had a personality like BP’s or Honeywell’s (makes cluster bombs to look like children’s toys) he’d be diagnosed sociopath. It’s time for a fresh look at what these damn things really are.

  5. steve wheelerDecember 29, 2011 at 7:18 pmReply

    Hi, I wish we could do it here too. More power to you. We’ll follow suit someday.
    Regards and admiration,
    Steve

  6. Richard HollerDecember 30, 2011 at 5:16 amReply

    We aren’t a Democracy. We’re a Republic. There’s a difference. That isn’t to say that Corporations should be held liable as people are (certainly they weren’t) but to make sure that we know that Mob rule isn’t the rule of law in a Republic, but the greater good is!

    That having been said: Corporations, like people, have to be held liable! Limiting or even eradicating their influence and affluence on politics today is an important feat! I would be careful with the wording! Especially in the hands of a would be progressive/socialist! They do more harm than good if you ask me! Vermont, though progressive isn’t doing all that well and is plus or minus, a Police State for taxation, and freedom!

    Socialism doesn’t work and truly has proven itself as disaster as in the form of the attempt of the Obama administration to attempt create a Government healthcare system! It failed and now things are worse having had his Socialistic influence hands all over the bill! We are less free and have nothing to show for it! Higher taxes for the wealthy mean the continuation of the nationalization of money! We need to abolish taxes! We need a revolution in this country! It’s the Government that’s broken and not held liable, not corporations as they only are a part of the problem! Thank you- Rich

    • Brett WilkinsDecember 30, 2011 at 9:47 amReplyAuthor

      If socialism doesn’t work, then why does every Western European country that has adopted it have a higher per capita income, shorter work week, universal health care, affordable education, a higher life expectancy and overall higher levels of life satisfaction and quality of life?

    • markDecember 30, 2011 at 10:57 amReply

      Excuse me, but the capitalists have HAD their chance at the healthcare industry, and have turned it into a cartel, which should be painfully obvious to even the least observant person.
      Taxes are necessary for a functioning society. You may be independently wealthy and be able to afford your own Fire Department, Police, street and sidewalk construction crews, etc etc but most are not.
      You are only correct in saying that a revolution is needed, but one that removes money from politics and corporations from personhood.
      Nice try at propaganda, though, although you fool no one.

      mark

      • DanDecember 30, 2011 at 2:14 pmReply

        While I agree with your cartel comparison, I do not agree with the statement that ‘capitalists had their chance’. Capitalists have not been involved for quite some time. What you are seeing today is the effect of ‘corporatism’, there is a huge difference. The disregard for both the rule of law and the lack of enforcement of said laws has created an environment where true capitalism cannot thrive. If capitalism were alive an well, companies like Goldman Sachs would be history by now, with other banks that took a more conservative assessment of risk filling the vacuum. I think the Vermont legislation ultimately helps capitalism to recover.

        • Brett WilkinsDecember 30, 2011 at 3:56 pmReplyAuthor

          Differentiating between capitalism and corporatism is indeed of the highest importance. The U.S. today is a corporatist nation, not a capitalist one. There is no such thing as the “free market” anymore.

    • Eli CabellyDecember 30, 2011 at 6:57 pmReply

      How can you hold a corporation liable? If you break up a corporation the people behind it walk free. Corporations don’t have the power of decision, people do. Corporations are property, and as such are not punishable the same way people are. Anyone who thinks that a corporation is actually a person needs to have their head examined.

    • Ro NinDecember 31, 2011 at 7:34 amReply

      “Socialism doesn’t work and truly has proven itself as disaster as in the form of the attempt of the Obama administration to attempt create a Government healthcare system”

      I find this line spouted more and more, and often people who are using it are simply oblivious to either what socialism is, or are oblivious to the difference between what was tried to pass, and what finally made it through. I am going to, for the sake of space, assume that you do know what socialism is. if not, you can research it yourself.

      What Obama TRIED to pass was a law which PROVIDED healthcare for those who did not have it, at an affordable level, with only the most minimum federal requirements covered. This is different from the medicare/medicaid system in that it requires the individual to pay for it. What resulted due in large part (but not fully by) the republican party was simply a law requiring an individual to have health care with no true assistance from the government to help those who couldn’t afford it. I am no fan of obama, but in this day, with the fights we have inherited, we need to focus on TRUTH, not blame.
      Your suggestion to abolish taxes implies that you are very uninformed on how your government works. Taxes are an essential tool for keeping your government working. without taxes, our government itself would have to choose between working for corporations, or becoming a corporation itself.
      If by ‘his socialist hands’ you mean his repeated behavior indicating his desire for laws that benifit every one, you would be absolutely right. But that is the essence of our government, that the laws passed are for the benefit of the majority. A great example of a regime with no socialistic tendencies would be mubaraks. He used his own personal ability to climb as high as he could, and then used his own power to acquire what he could. unfortunately for the citizens of his country, they had no way to progress because he was using his power to further himself. A country is a unification of people, and thus must consider the people. All successlful countries are socialist to some degree.
      As for revolution, all i can say is that the armed forces are sworn to do one thing above all, to defend the constitution against all enemies; foriegn and domestic. We can only hope that they remember that….

      • Brett WilkinsDecember 31, 2011 at 8:37 amReplyAuthor

        Dunno. I don’t think Obama has really done much to try to help anyone but corporations and the U.S. empire. His feeble attempt at health care reform was one of the biggest disappointments of his sorry administration. But you’re too right about people not knowing what socialism is.

        • KathrynJanuary 4, 2012 at 1:22 amReply

          Obama’s plan never had the chance to make it through. Anything that he ever tried to do was fought tooth and nail, and then filibustered as a last resort. How did a health plan fail that was never brought to fruition in the first place? It irks me when people spread crap that’s not true to convince others of their views.

  7. Ed GuiderDecember 30, 2011 at 8:52 amReply

    I like the house party idea and the thought of getting your local Democratic committee to adopt it. This could be the galvanizing theme for the occupy movements. Yeah, Vermont !! Let’ s really make this movement!

  8. JohnDecember 30, 2011 at 2:13 pmReply

    “Much of this money represented foreign corporate interests, and it played a significant role in the conservative resurgence that saw Republicans re-gain control of the House of Representatives.”

    What? This person doesn’t know anything. Republicans taking over the House was a referendum on Obama, Pelosi and Reed and was driven by the Tea Party. Stay tuned…more to come.

  9. JohnDecember 30, 2011 at 2:15 pmReply

    Oh, let’s not mention Obama’s sponsors…you know…..corps like GE, GM, and all the unions.

    • Brett WilkinsDecember 30, 2011 at 3:56 pmReplyAuthor

      Absolutely… cronyism under Obama is as rife as it has ever been.

    • John HDecember 31, 2011 at 1:14 amReply

      Unions are not like corporations. Corporations give profits generated by the people working for them involuntarily regardless if they like it or not. The funds unions give to politicians are voluntarily given to the unions by the people they represent. Laws prevent union dues to be used as political money.

  10. Eli CabellyDecember 30, 2011 at 6:54 pmReply

    Let’s see, an amendment to tell everyone that a corporation isn’t a person? We actually need an amendment to tell people that they can’t invite the Hewlett-Packard Corporation over to their house for a game of bridge? We actually need an amendment to inform people that corporations are property that is owned by people, that those corporations aren’t actually people? Wow. We all deserve to be on the special bus.

    Next thing you know we’ll need an amendment to tell everyone that cigarettes are bad for your health.

    • Brett WilkinsDecember 30, 2011 at 6:58 pmReplyAuthor

      An amendment is, at this point, the only way to overcome the power of the corporations and stop them from completely taking over the world. I am not exaggerating one bit; that’s exactly what they’re doing and we all ought to be scared shitless.

      • Marna EhrechDecember 31, 2011 at 2:35 amReply

        Brett, appreciating your comments. You’re spot on. On that note, have you read “Daemon” and it’s sequel, “Freedom(TM)” by Daniel Suarez? It’s a brilliantly crafted story of just the situation you describe, and plays it out to the very end. Juicy food for thought in just this theme. I just finished re-reading them; a must-read for everyone, IMHO. Thanks for posting,, enjoying the thread. (a Vermonter)

        • Brett WilkinsDecember 31, 2011 at 8:33 amReplyAuthor

          Thanks for reading! Speaking of reading, I haven’t heard of the books you mentioned, but if I ever have time to read for pleasure (everything I read pretty much has to do with running this site these days) those books will be on my list!

      • PaulDecember 31, 2011 at 8:22 amReply

        It does not matter. Vermont has VERY few corporations of size. Most are incorporated out of Deleware, what Vermont says does not matter. Corporations already cannot contribute to political campaigns. Only real people can. Citizens United was NOT a corporation. It was a political PAC. PACs, by definition are associations, not corporations, though they can incorporation for other legal reasons. PACs can ONLY take money from individuals. Corporate OFFICERS and wealthy individuals don’t have a limit. You cannot outlaw them.

        Vermont needs to hire lawyers to explain the law.

  11. Tommy AllegoodDecember 31, 2011 at 1:35 amReply

    It’s truly sad when we must have an amendment to state that a corporation is not a person. Last I checked in order to be considered a person, you had to be a human being.

    Capitalism has not failed, it has been pushed aside to make way for corporatism. Corporatism is the bane of capitalism, liberty, and the greater good. That is why we are dealing with a massive economic downturn, uninhibited government spending, and a dying middle class. Poverty has skyrocketed and now a man making $16 an hour can’t afford even to pay the rent and utilities.

    Unless this message is reinforced from all states within the Union and corporatism is dethroned, we will continue to see our country decline and die as the corporations suck the last bit of life out of us.

  12. John DoeDecember 31, 2011 at 6:23 amReply

    Funny, liberals were not complaining about all the money The Incompetent O raised during his presidential candidacy. All that illegally funneled money suited them just fine. And then when only unions could give unlimited amounts, that fit with their agenda. Now, anybody can give and suddenly that is why they are losing elections. Yes, the people of America are all sheeple who can’t think for themselves, except for the 19% or so who are liberals. Liberals are legends in their own minds.

    • Brett WilkinsDecember 31, 2011 at 8:35 amReplyAuthor

      Obama is just as much a part of the problem as any politician, perhaps more so since he campaigned promising to eliminate the horrid excesses of money in politics but yet spent so much on his own campaign and has proven such a reliable friend to lobbyists and corporate interests. And for the record, this “liberal” sees nothing liberal about Obama. His is nothing less than a third Bush administration, if you ask me.

  13. PaulDecember 31, 2011 at 8:24 amReply

    Fnally, Citizens United ONLY effects FEDERAL LAW. NO LAW PASSED IN VERMONT EFFECTS FEDERAL ELECTIONS LAW. This is a waste of money for Vermont. Its a political stunt. I am certain she knows that it will make no difference.

    • Brett WilkinsDecember 31, 2011 at 8:39 amReplyAuthor

      Not so sure about that. I see it as an expression of Vermonters’ laudable rejection of our democracy becoming a corporatocracy. Folks up there have been refreshingly progressive for as long as I can remember.

  14. NullificationDecember 31, 2011 at 1:19 pmReply

    Why amend the constitution? Just nullify the Federal Government’s B.S.

    Did California amend the constitution to make marijuana legal? No, they wrote a new law to nullify the federal governments law.

    Vermont only needs to do the same. Much easier to do, much higher chance of success.

  15. RIchard HollerDecember 31, 2011 at 3:43 pmReply

    I just don’t think you people in the press have it right at all! We’re not a Democracy, we’re a Republic. That’s not to say that we need to end Corporate Personhood, but we need to make sure it’s done in the Spirit of Free trade and that we’re not trusting a “progressive-socialist” to create law from already flawed, Police State Like, and Bloated Government philosophy! We’re a country already divided and it’s socialism that’s ruining it! This proposed bill really needs to be carefully written and certainly not disastrously put together like the so called failed socialized medicine bill that Obama clogged both houses of Government with!
    We need to end Federal Income Taxes and Nafta, that’s the only way this country will get out from the strain it’s under! It’s not that difficult when you have a corporation that monopolizes our money and has devalued our gold! It’s time for real change, not election time pyrotecknics!

    • Brett WilkinsDecember 31, 2011 at 5:22 pmReplyAuthor

      Democracy and Republic are not two different forms of government. The United States is indeed a federal republic, and it is also a democracy. Not a direct democracy, because of the electoral college, but a democracy nonetheless. Canada is a democracy but not a republic. Ditto Britain, New Zealand and Australia. Germany is a federal republic as well as a democracy, France is also a democratic republic. China is a republic but not a democracy, as is Iran.

  16. phil kruegerJanuary 1, 2012 at 3:10 pmReply

    and just to beat a dead horse bring back the unions.

    • R.NickloffJanuary 3, 2012 at 7:18 pmReply

      I’ll second that!

  17. phil kruegerJanuary 1, 2012 at 3:15 pmReply

    I have said it for years. stop advertising all together and just have public forms and debates on pbs during the twilight hours. its a win win – pbs wont be doing any more pledge drives since the forms will be paid for and your tv wont get spamed with lies twice a year.

  18. phil kruegerJanuary 1, 2012 at 3:20 pmReply

    also make the politicians sign a there own death sentence-to be carried out if and when they brake a campaign promise we the people can tar and feather them and pour molten gold down there throat.

  19. Eric darlingJanuary 2, 2012 at 3:04 pmReply

    My grand father always said ;don’t believe anything you hear or read,and half of what you see.
    My question to you is,
    what justices ruled for,who appointed them, and further more what role did unions have in electing our current president ?

  20. William Burgess LeavenworthJanuary 2, 2012 at 5:04 pmReply

    I believe that originally, in order to receive permission to incorporate, a corporate wannabe had to prove to the state legislature that its incorporation would be for the good of the general public. Of course, a parvenu cowbird like Scalia wouldn’t know that.

  21. w.c. feildsJanuary 5, 2012 at 10:42 amReply

    Right, well
    I think, you think and hopefully more will think. God bless this country where we are all allowed our opinions and discussions, no matter how one sided, abstract, cruel, or innovative. I’ve got to get back to my dictionary.
    Cheers!

  22. Alfonso CapozziApril 7, 2012 at 4:17 pmReply

    I don’t understand the people who can support citizens united and also support voter ID laws. One law requires ID the other allows ID’s to be hidden.

    • Brett WilkinsApril 7, 2012 at 4:55 pmReplyAuthor

      Good point. I never considered that paradox.

  23. LiterateDecember 11, 2012 at 6:48 pmReply

    My God, what a nation of imbeciles. The root word “corpus”, from which “corporation” stems, means “body”. The word itself literally is imbued with the meaning that a corporation is to be treated as a person. Don’t believe me?

    Corporation \Cor`po*ra”tion\ (k[^o]r`p[-o]*r[=a]“sh[u^]n), n. [L. corporatio incarnation: cf. F. corporation corporation.] A body politic or corporate, formed and authorized by law to act as a single person, and endowed by law with the capacity of succession; a society having the capacity of transacting business as an individual. [1913 Webster]

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Douche Du Jour
  • Brunei’s Islamic Penal Code Now Punishes Gays, Adulterers with Death by Stoning
  • Mohammad Arif, Pakistani Cannibal, Ate Dead Newborn Baby
  • Fundamentalist French Catholic Priest Arrested for Torture, Rape During ‘Exorcisms’
  • Italian Diplomat Daniele Bosio Arrested in Philippines for Alleged Child Sex Trafficking
  • Miami Woman Sara Zamora Accused of Starring In Animal ‘Crush’ Porn Videos
Archives