Challenge Conventional Wisdom

The recent US Supreme Court decision, Citizens United, has been called a "Pearl Harbor for American Democracy" by a coalition seeking "to overrule the decision and amend the Constitution to restore the power of people over corporations, beyond election law."

The coalition, Move to Amend, takes its name from the right that we have, but rarely use; we can move to amend our constitution. Recall these words you've probably heard or read. The Tenth Amendment states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

The people can call, or move, to amend the Constitution through their states:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,... [Article 5, US Constitution]

The active members of this coalition are not alone in their thinking, as is expressed in a blog post that questions the sanctity of the US Constitution. This thought-piece is a spring board to consider The Case Against Judicial Review, by David Cobb.

READ MORE - (Referral to full post @ GDAEman blog)

To Constitution Cheerleaders

I recently received an e-mail from someone touting Ron Paul's push for Americans to read their constitution. I used to think the US Constitution was sacred and should not be tinkered with. That was my dear father's advice and what we were all taught in school.

But, as my father has grown older and wiser, and more knowledgeable about the history of the Constitution, he no longer thinks of it as sacrosanct. True, one doesn't want to mess with it willy nilly, but... Here's my reply to the person who sent me the e-mail.

Yes, but of course the US Constitution allowed for African people to be property. Even when it became clear that slavery was wrong, the inertia in the political and economic system of the time perpetuated the ownership of humans. So did the US Supreme Court.

Various aspects of the Constitution were designed with the intent of maintaining the power of the small wealthy minority that crafted the Constitution. Call it a compromise... yes, the US Constitution was compromised. For example, the original Constitution had US Senators elected by State legislatures over which the wealthy minority had control. The Senate was, and still is, a check on the chamber of the humans (the House). Maybe with all the crazy Sarah Palin followers around that check is a good thing? That's what the aristocratic minority would want you to believe... oddly, if you follow the money behind some of the teabagger organizing groups, it leads you straight to some people in our modern day aristocracy.

Now it is becoming painfully clear that we need to consider the place of corporations in our less than perfect union. The concept of corporations, that are so integral to our culture and economy today, isn't even mentioned in the Constitution. Corporations were originally chartered to be a vessel of wealth accumulation for taking on challenging tasks. These charters also provide a shield on liability for those humans who take on the challenging tasks... good idea when limited to challenging tasks that were narrowly defined and had a finite time horizon, like building the Erie Canal. Unfortunately, those wealth accumulation creatures of man's legal creation accumulated so much wealth and power, they started changing the underlying rules of our democracy. Now corporate power has gotten out of control to the point that some humans claim we couldn't put the corporate genie back in the bottle even if we wanted to (a functional definition of "out of our control").

I'm sure in the 1820s humans who knew that the legal creation of slavery was wrong felt the same way (owning slaves was legal.. said so, indirectly, right in the US Constitution). They knew of the corrupting nature of slavery, but they understood the integral economic role that human property played in providing labor, which allowed the Country to be competitive in world trade. Slaves allowed wealth accumulation, without which, some of the most grand historic mansions that speckle our countryside would not exist. Many great achievements, including beautiful works of art funded by wealthy slave owners, simply would not have been possible without the means to accumulate wealth that was enabled by the legality of slavery... so it was argued... for decades.

Some day humans might look back at the corporate legal construct in wonder as we look back at slavery today. They will see all of the inequities, the environmental damage, the murders and other evils wrought by this legal creation, like the legal creation of slavery.

So, the US constitution was far from exceptional when written and remains so today. This was recently evidenced by the US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United Vs Federal Election Commission. It might take until 2050 to rid the world of the legality of corporations as we know them today, but the writing is on the wall and re-writing of the Constitution will be the path to that salvation.

CU v FEC: A Blessing in Disguise?

The US Supreme Court decision in CU v FEC might be a blessing in disguise... it is helping to educate and galvanize people to the real issue. That is, we need to replace bounds on corporate rights (corps. used to be very tightly controlled... for reasons that have become obvious as those controls have been loosened). The campaign finance reform movement is a tangible way to motivate progress on the multi-generational struggle to change our power relationship with corporations.

One challenge we face is that corporations are chartered by states not the fed... the Supreme Court found in Dartouth College (1819) that a corporate charter is a contract. Contracts, like property rights, are sacred cows (unless of course it's a contract with a labor union). So, controlling the scope of corporate charters is spread across states... the fed might be able to place bounds on state charters of corporations, but I'm not sure.

The folks at the Program on Corpoations, Law and Democracy would know (POCLAD.org).

Challenging the US Establishment on Hoduras Coup

International Crime Pays. I'm talking about coup-installed "President,"Arias of Honduras. US State Department spokesman Phillip Crowley calls him "President."

Sure, plenty of people are blogging on the US involvement in the coupe, and some of it is probably true. The US State Department is bestowing a dignity on the Honduras oligarchy by calling their illegally-installed man the "president."

Want to connect another dot? It sounds like the US State Department placing a finger on the scales in favor of the coup:

Spokesman Crowley (July 23): "[W]e think that what President Arias has put forward is a very good step towards resolving this peacefully and restoring democratic and constitutional order to Honduras. If you go through what President Arias has proposed, it would restore President Zelaya to power. It would form a government of national reconciliation. It would accelerate the schedule of presidential elections. It would cease any steps towards a constitutional referendum.

Imagine.... You are a duly elected president with a significant amount of time left in your term. Then one day you are illegally, physically forced out of your country (a coup). Then the coup leaders offer you the opportunity to come back for a shorter term, cutting off the people's opportunity to vote on whether or not to have a constitutional convention, and having to share power with the criminals who should be indicted and tried for their illegal coup plot.

This is blatant international establishment back-scratching. The question isn't "whether" the US is complicit; if the US wanted the rightful president of Honduras back in power, it could make it happen in a matter of a few days. No. The US is taking advantage of the situation, and in doing so, showing the establishment colors. This spectacle is an awareness raising opportunity.