Corporate Personhood Unbound?

Thom Hartmann has a piece over at Common Dreams that I always want to know more about. Corporate personhood. I became interested a few years ago and I decided that I was generally against the concept that a corporation has the same standing under the law  as person. As I understood it at the time, corporations and people had the same rights and responsibilities as a person except there was difference in accountability. You might have guessed that corporations do not go to jail and have no sense of shame, guilt, honor, or any other trait that may bind a person to an honorable, moral,  and ethical way of life. Whatever honor or ethics may be involved in corporations  is due to the traits of the management team: change the team , change the ethics and the morality.  

Wikipedia  describes  corporate personhood this way :

The corporate personhood debate refers to the controversy (primarily in the United States) over the question of what subset of rights afforded under the law to natural persons should also be afforded to corporations as legal persons.

Thom Hartmann’s piece talks about upcoming Supreme Court cases that may permit corporations to enter into political campaigning the same as as any person would do. Mr. Hartmann provides a good background of legal cases that touched upon this concept and gives us some insight into the Supreme Court thinking on this issue. It is not good for ordinary people like you and I.

I oppose the concept of corporate personhood and would like to see the privileges,  not rights, of corporations identified clearly under the law. Corporations have no constitutional rights by my thinking.

The Declaration of Independence begins “When in the course of human events….”  

The Constitution of the United States begins with “We, the people of the United States, …”

This is enough to convince me that corporations were never intended to have any federal standing whatsoever. Corporations are never mentioned in the Constitution and have been within the jurisdiction of the States to charter since America was born. They are not federally established nor controlled.

Read Thom Hartmann’s piece  as well as the Wikipedia entry to become more familiar with the idea and,  hopefully, you will agree  that corporations should not  have all the ‘rights’ of a person.

I am upset, Mr. President

President Obama,

I object. I object to your use of signing statements like President Bush.

You , sir, like your predecessor, do not have the authority to disregard the laws passed by Congress. The President is subject to the Constitution of the United States of America and you may select among three choices when confronted with legislation: 1) You may sign it into law, 2)  you may veto the legislation with objections and give Congress the ability to correct its errors, or 3) you may do nothing in which case a  “pocket veto” is recorded.  You condemned the use of signing statements by your predecessor and you are now excercising the very same unconstitutional power.

You are a constitutional lawyer and yet you exercise power that is  not granted to you. I can only assume that you have no integrity because you are now doing what you once condemned, and that you have no backbone to actually reject a  law that blatantly infringes upon the powers granted to the Executive Branch, and that  you do not have the moral courage to ask the Supreme Court to resolve a constitutional problem between the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch. 

You  have failed to uphold your oath to preserve, protect, and defend  the Constitution of the United States of America.

I am a reasonable citizen and I ask now what you intend to do to correct your failure. The oath to the Constitution of the United States demands that you prevent future Presidents from breaching the Constitution in this same manner.    

At this time, Mr. President, I am issuing you a Citizen’s  Nonconformance Report for failing to uphold your Oath of Office. My expectation  is that you will develop a Corrective and Preventive  Action plan, establish an estimated completion date, and return it to me for approval.  The CAPA plan is not accepted without my approval. I cite my authority under the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution.  Furthermore, if  the Citizen’s Nonconformance Report is contested or ignored, ReasonableCitizen may invoke his First Amendment rights to petition and to seek redress before the Supreme Court of the United States in accordance with its Constititutional authority under Section III of the US Constitution.  Because no lower court may decide a case involving the failure of the President to uphold his oath and because the US Congress does not have the authority to compel the Executive Branch to fulfill a citizen’s requirement for correction in the instance of a  breach of a constitutional oath,  I claim that only the Supreme Court can hold jurisdiction in this matter.

Mr. President, you will find the Citizen’s NonConformance Report below the fold.

You have thirty days to reply to this  nonconformance.

(signed) ReasonableCitizen

This is a bad idea: FBI and CIA

 Obama’s proposal of combo teams of CIA and FBI cannot possibly be real.

The task force charged with fleshing out President Obama’s ban on torture in interrogations is likely to recommend the creation of small, mixed-agency teams for interviewing the most important terrorist targets. Representing an implicit demotion of the CIA, which currently has responsibility for interrogating high-level terrorists, the teams would report jointly to the attorney general and the director of national intelligence, according to officials familiar with the proposal.

The teams are the brainchild of three members of the Intelligence Science Board, a panel that reports to the director of national intelligence: forensic psychologist Robert Fein, former Deputy Attorney General Philip Heymann and former CIA official John MacGaffin. About five years ago, the three security experts began researching the available social science literature concerning interrogations in a variety of nations, including the United States, France, the United Kingdom and Japan, in order to inform a humane and effective interrogation regimen.

As I said before teaching the police to torture is not a good idea. And if I did not say it before , then let me say it now.

Look,  torture should not be a systematized, trained, and studied process by any government for any reason. A country may need to use torture in some backroom in Morocco, however,  that should remain a clandestine, whispered event and not the foundation for  joint work teams of police and intelligence. This is  the stuff of secret police networks and totalitarianism.

I hope this goes nowhere.

Book Burning in Milwaukee

Oh, just great. Here I thought that I was living in an enlightened state and then I get hit three times in a couple of  weeks with troglodyte news.

First, it was the ban on public smoking in Wisconsin.

Second, was the privatization of Milwaukee water system

And now, third, a book burning. (hat tip to Caffeinated Politics)

  Milwaukee-area citizen Robert C. Braun of the Christian Civil Liberties Union (CCLU) distributed at the meeting copies of a claim for damages he and three other plaintiffs filed April 28 with the city; the complainants seek the right to publicly burn or destroy by another means the library’s copy of Baby Be-Bop. The claim also demands $120,000 in compensatory damages ($30,000 per plaintiff) for being exposed to the book in a library display, and the resignation of West Bend Mayor Kristine Deiss for “allow[ing] this book to be viewed by the public.”

I must say that Indianapolis and its “Homeland Security joint operations with local police”  and “Marines and Indianapolis  invasion”  might be less threatening than Wisconsin right now.

I know that my regular readers are laughing about the CCLU. Just for fun, tell me what the Un-Christian Civil Liberties are.

A thought on the crappy healthcare plan

The Kennedy Healthcare Plan is just crap.  Why?

1. You are required to buy a health insurance plan. Screw that, I say. Don’t Tread On Me.

2. Employers will be required to offer insurance to their employees. Screw that, I say. Don’t Tread On Me.

3.  If you don’t have a plan,  you have to pay a tax. Screw that, I say. Don’t Tread On Me.

4. Group Health Plans with less than  250 members would be prohibited. Screw that, I say. Don’t Tread on Me.

5. Federal Government mandates State gateways to offer healthcare plans. Screw that, I say. Don’t Tread On Me.

6. Mandated Federal electronic health care records to dossier your medical conditions.  Screw that, I say. Don’t Tread on Me.

Here is what I want in healthcare reform :

1. I want the option to choose an employer plan that remains with the company, a federal  government plan that I can take with me wherever I go and whatever what I do, and the freedom to purchase insurance ala carte from any  insurance provider nationwide.

2.  I want  government-paid diagnosis and insurance-paid treatment plans.

3. I want government -paid wellness clinics for a healthier lifestyle.

4. I want a rider that covers international health expenses for three months of time  within a period of five years.

5. I want to choose my doctor, my hospital, and my treatment options.

6. I want my medical privacy protected.

7.  I want risky behavior premiums.

8.  I want to opt out of any private or company insurance program and yet  have catastrophic insurance provided by the federal government. 

9. I want my federal taxes reduced two times  the amount of  the annual federal  insurance program cost to me  and allow me to pay for my own insurance as I see fit.

10. I want federal insurance only for citizens of the United States while  the States may have sovereignty over insurance for aliens as they see fit.

It is not healthcare reform to change the name on your insurance forms. 

Give me freedom or leave me alone.

ReasonableCitizen

My questions for Judge Sotomayor

These are my questions for Judge Sotomayor. I sent them to Sen. Feingold today because he is asking for input before the Senate confirmation hearings begin.

1. Please explain your views on these current state laws vis a vis the Second Amendment:  DC handgun law, Wisconsin Open Carry Law, and Montana’s law to exempt Montana citizens from  federal gun registration, background checks, and dealer licensing if the gun is from a Montana manufacturer and is not transported across state lines. I am not asking how you would rule but rather what do you believe are the pertinent items to be considered.
2. Explain your views on search and seizure and a citizen’s right to be secure in their possessions as it relates to the electronic capture and storage of a citizen’s effects. Do you consider the internet to be a medium for the citizen’s personal effects much like a suitcase that carries a persons effects between two points?  In your view does the Fifth Amendment apply to the internet and a citizen’s use of it? If not, how does this differ from 1803 when a person’s luggage was protected from government examination on a highway even when the citizen was not traveling with it?
3. Does corporate personhood qualify for the same rights as a citizen and are corporations constitutionally protected? Please explain which of the Bill of Rights does not apply to corporations. Do these corporation rights also extend to political and religious corporations?

Dear Reader, do you have any questions for the Judge?

S.1100 and HR 2346 Sec 1305: Cover Your Butt Legislation

S.1100
Title: A bill to provide that certain photographic records relating to the treatment of any individual engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside the United States shall not be subject to disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information Act).
Sponsor: Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] (introduced 5/20/2009)

There you have it. The official “let’s make it a law so we don’t have to deal with it anymore” and the “pass-the-freakin’ -buck-approach” to withholding the detainee abuse photos.

This is a huge secrecy bill designed to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act as well as to protect people from criminal prosecution for  their roles during the Bus, Cheney, and Yoo Torture Years.

This is  a heinous piece of legislation designed to thwart the release of detainee torture pictures.

I know what you are thinking. You are thinking ”Hey RC, didn’t you just support the President when he refused to release the photos of detainee abuse?” 

Yes, I certainly did. But  there is a huge difference between a tactical delay of a few days , weeks, months , and even years and of crafting a law that will: 1. Make it against the law to release the photos, and 2. Prevent citizens from suing in court to have them released.

To prevent you from knowing the truth, the evil-doers are  removing evidence of possible war crimes and/or malfeasance by US government personnel. This is a cover-your-butt attempt to prevent possible criminal prosecution before you know what evil was committed.

I was once ambivalent about congressional hearings on torture but this has  just changed my mind. I want them now that I know somebody wants to keep things secret.

I hope this piece of legislation is just Lieberman being Lieberman. I would not want to hear that the Executive Branch put him up to this.

Personal Choices about Medical Care

Take a look at this.

The Constitution Party of America in Minnesota released a statement that supports the rights of the parent over the rights of the State related to medical treatment.

The issue at stake is government intrusion into the private lives of its citizens, and infringing on their religious beliefs in violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution. The court ruling against the family bases its authority on the assumption that children are property of the state, not the parents, when in reality it is the parents, not the state, that will stand before God to be accountable for how they raised their children.

As Thomas Jefferson predicted, the central government has been quietly encroaching into our lives for generations (under both major parties), picking off our freedoms one by one, mostly unnoticed by the populace, and replacing those freedoms with government “benefits” that soften us for the next level of intrusion. If the New Ulm court ruling stands, this now includes how we raise our children.

This appears at The Independent Political Report. One would think that there would be some fiery statements, debates,  and challenges by the  readers, however, there appears to be an acceptance of the government’s role to intervene with children. Oh, there is some wailing and gnashing of teeth but there are  no challenges to the authority of any government official in this case that exceeded the ‘natural ‘ authority of their roles.

So how did Daniel Hauser and his mother end up at the center of this controversy? Who took them to court? Who reported them to the ‘authorities’? The answer to that may tell us how the ’system’ works to put the state in control of  medical choices for your children.

Who has  more right to determine the treatment that is chosen for you, you or the government? Who has more right to say ’No’ to all treatments, you or the government? If you are not old enough to be considered an adult and therefore not free to choose the risks in your life, who is responsible for you?

Once you have the answers to those questions, perhaps the next question is:  How far does  the responsiblity for minors extend to the person that is responsible for you? Does it only entail medical care? Does it include education, behavior,  discipline, and  values?  And are those responsibilities shared with others? Is it some split between State and  families ( or extended families)  or is it simply the State and the parent?

I fear that an examination of who has which responsiblities for minors would result in horrible legislation by politicians. I also fear  that the failure to examine this question will result in a continued erosion of the authority of the parent (or the extended family)  to make these choices.

If we move forward and examine who has the responsibility for minors, where do you stand on:

1. Authority to choose treatment or lack of treatment for minors?

2. Authority to teach children and the content of that teaching?

3. Authority to discipline minors and the type and duration of that discipline?

Finally, should parents only have authority and responsiblity over minors when their choices do not conflict with government agencies?

Will we end up as a parental nation where you can do whatever you want as long as ”Father Government” does not learn of it?  

With rights come responsibilities and with responsibilities come rights. Who is responsible and what rights do they have?

Everybody will look like a perp soon

Oh, Yes. The Great State of Virginia has banned smiling in DMV photos so they can process your face for facial recognition software.  (Big Brother has a sissy name, eh, Virginia?)

Just go read it  at Gun Toting Liberal.  

Why must we help them tag us like a cow?

Free Bernie Kerik!

This says that he will be charged for lying to the White House when being vetted for Homeland Security.

NEW YORK – Former New York City police Commissioner Bernard Kerik has been indicted on charges of making false statements to White House officials vetting him for the position of Department of Homeland Security secretary.

I say “Free Bernie Kerik!”.

It should not be against the law to lie to the government in a vetting process  if you do not benefit from that lie.

The entire purpose of vetting is to uncover what you do not want made public.  It is expected that you are not telling the whole truth but shaping it to your advantage and the vetting is to discover the whole truth. But if you benefit from that lie  by receiving a benefit, then you may be liable for misrepresentation and making fraudulent claims.

Give this guy a break and don’t punish him for lying during the vetting process. Prosecute him for accepting bribes or prosecute him for tax evasion but do not dishonor the political system and the vetting process by prosecuting him for lying.

This is a ridiculous charge and I hope that this gets thrown out.  I don’t like him, but that is not a reason to charge him with lying. For goodness sake, lying to the government is almost a citizen’s duty as long as you do not make money, or are not a government official in the performance of your duties, or personally benefit from it,  or it is not a criminal trial. Evidence? The entire Republican and Democrat Parties are examples of lying to the  government and to the people. Who charges them? 

  As an American, Bernie Kerik has the freedom to lie in the vetting process and I support him.