COMMENTS: 20
Courts Endow Corporations with Unalienable Rights
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Economy headlines via email.
While those judges were defying common sense and decency by denying legal personhood to living human beings, an appeals court in Boston has been reviewing an April 2007 decision by Federal Judge Paul Barbadoro that engaged in a different form of judicial activism -- granting human rights to corporations.
Barbadoro struck down a New Hampshire law that prevented pharmaceutical corporations from learning exactly what drugs doctors prescribe and how much they prescribe. The law aims to protect doctors and, indirectly, their patients, from drug companies pressuring doctors to choose their products.
The judge's grounds? He claims corporations, as legal persons, have "free speech rights" that would be infringed by such a measure.
The real issue in these cases (Maine recently passed a similar law) isn't free speech at all; it's manipulation and control. The drug salespeople only will decide what to say after poking into the doctors' prescription records. Under the guise of protecting speech, Judge Barbadoro denied both legitimate privacy rights of doctors and key protections to ensure patients are prescribed drugs based on their medical situation, not pressure applied to their physician.
Taken together, these two rulings are a perplexing and dangerous development. The founding principle of our country is right in the Declaration of Independence: all people are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." It is not for judges to decide who is and who is not a human being.
Nor should the courts play Creator by endowing legal constructs like corporations with human rights. Our constitutional rights exist to prevent large, powerful institutions -- whether governments, corporations, or other entities -- from oppressing us humans.
For too long a strange dichotomy has persisted between principled people on the political left and right wings. The left wing often warns against the growing power of business corporations. The right wing complains the left ignores the overweening power of the government and is "anti-business."
But many people on both sides have been seeing only part of the same elephant. What's happening is a merger of corporations and state.
Already there are corporate "black holes" for human rights that rival government affronts like Guantanamo. Under the Bush administration's legal framework for Iraq during its occupation, the Iraqi government wields no authority over Blackwater corporation's security guards.
And it's not clear the U.S. government does either. As a result, we may never see anyone punished for Blackwater's wanton killing of Iraqi civilians in Baghdad last September.
Then there's the case of Jamie Leigh Jones, an American employee of Halliburton/KBR in Iraq who claimed she was gang raped by co-workers in 2005. U.S. officials reportedly handed the evidence to KBR, whereupon the evidence apparently disappeared. Nobody in Congress, Democrat or Republican, has been able to persuade the Bush administration to reveal what it has done about the case since then.
Halliburton/KBR, like Blackwater, apparently enjoys the rights of a person, but not the responsibilities.
The danger of "corporate personhood" is a bit like global warming; people have warned us of the threat for decades only to go unheeded because the dire consequences seemed far-fetched.
But look at what's happened to the First Amendment. Corporations use it to strike down laws clearly designed to protect citizens, even while courts deny prisoners the right to know what evidence the government is using against them. It's time for alarm.
We should take offense whenever we hear the dangerous notion of "corporate citizenship" promoted. Soon, the only citizens with real power in the United States may be the corporate kind.
Editor's note: shortly after completing this article, we learned of this shocking story: Judge Allows Halliburton to Force Sexual Assault Case Out of Court
© 2007 ReclaimDemocracy.org
Stay up to date with the latest Economy headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Feb 13, 2008 12:51 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Horseshit!
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: You told me
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Corporations are Composed of Individual Persons
Posted by: chicano2nd
» RE: Let the insults fly when it comes to the Boogyman that is the Corporation
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Corporations are Composed of Individual Persons
Posted by: StrayCat
» RE: How do individuals get their voices heard?
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Corporations are Composed of Individual Persons
Posted by: HillbillyBob
» RE: Read the site much?
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gonetcm on Feb 14, 2008 8:14 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I won't disagree with you on Doctor Patient Confidentiality
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: gonetcm
Posted by: StrayCat
» RE: gonetcm
Posted by: Doubtom
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LouisFallert on Feb 14, 2008 3:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FREE THE CORPORATIONS!
No longer should corporations bear the onus of being mere property.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Corporations are Property BUT...
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Doubtom on Feb 14, 2008 8:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IMPEACH THE BASTARDS!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thekidde on Feb 15, 2008 10:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Koondog on Feb 15, 2008 9:20 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: scootenat65 on Feb 18, 2008 12:38 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: luckypuck on Feb 19, 2008 7:25 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When corporations claim that regulating campaign contributions and other bakshish is trampling their freedom of speech, they're playing fast and loose with the facts. Here's why: On every bill (and I'm copying this off one right now) is the statement, "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." Legal tender means you tender or offer it in exchange for something, a commodity, a service, easy access, it's all a debt.
So, money is a medium of exchange; that's not the same as speech. Not even close. When corporate heads give money to our representatives they are doing what the money says it does, making an exchange.
So, what, pray tell, do our representatives have to exchange? Their holy presence? No. Their scintillating conversation? No. Their good looks? No. What possible commodity do they have to exchange? Here it is, folks: Only their VOTES. Exchanging money for votes is graft, payola, bribery and it's corruption and it's illegal, it's a felony, it's bad, they're not supposed to do it.
Well, but you know, when they've "exchanged" a representative or two or ten, their lawyers can pretty much say the law says what they want it to say and the "exchanged" representatives vote "YES!" Probably, "Hell, YES!"
But, surely our fair and impartial judicial system will knock them back, right? Not to worry, they just aim their special and exclusive form of free speech at the judicial system and, in exchange, it, too, gives their conglomerate that which was supposedly reserved, as it specifically says in the Constitution, to individual citizens. Wow! What a great system, no? Well, no. Not for us guys, us individual citizens.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Feb 13, 2008 12:51 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Horseshit!
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: You told me
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Corporations are Composed of Individual Persons
Posted by: chicano2nd
» RE: Let the insults fly when it comes to the Boogyman that is the Corporation
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Corporations are Composed of Individual Persons
Posted by: StrayCat
» RE: How do individuals get their voices heard?
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Corporations are Composed of Individual Persons
Posted by: HillbillyBob
» RE: Read the site much?
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gonetcm on Feb 14, 2008 8:14 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I won't disagree with you on Doctor Patient Confidentiality
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: gonetcm
Posted by: StrayCat
» RE: gonetcm
Posted by: Doubtom
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LouisFallert on Feb 14, 2008 3:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FREE THE CORPORATIONS!
No longer should corporations bear the onus of being mere property.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Corporations are Property BUT...
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Doubtom on Feb 14, 2008 8:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IMPEACH THE BASTARDS!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thekidde on Feb 15, 2008 10:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Koondog on Feb 15, 2008 9:20 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: scootenat65 on Feb 18, 2008 12:38 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: luckypuck on Feb 19, 2008 7:25 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When corporations claim that regulating campaign contributions and other bakshish is trampling their freedom of speech, they're playing fast and loose with the facts. Here's why: On every bill (and I'm copying this off one right now) is the statement, "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." Legal tender means you tender or offer it in exchange for something, a commodity, a service, easy access, it's all a debt.
So, money is a medium of exchange; that's not the same as speech. Not even close. When corporate heads give money to our representatives they are doing what the money says it does, making an exchange.
So, what, pray tell, do our representatives have to exchange? Their holy presence? No. Their scintillating conversation? No. Their good looks? No. What possible commodity do they have to exchange? Here it is, folks: Only their VOTES. Exchanging money for votes is graft, payola, bribery and it's corruption and it's illegal, it's a felony, it's bad, they're not supposed to do it.
Well, but you know, when they've "exchanged" a representative or two or ten, their lawyers can pretty much say the law says what they want it to say and the "exchanged" representatives vote "YES!" Probably, "Hell, YES!"
But, surely our fair and impartial judicial system will knock them back, right? Not to worry, they just aim their special and exclusive form of free speech at the judicial system and, in exchange, it, too, gives their conglomerate that which was supposedly reserved, as it specifically says in the Constitution, to individual citizens. Wow! What a great system, no? Well, no. Not for us guys, us individual citizens.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Tax the Corporations and the Rich or Take Draconian Cuts -- the Decision Is Ours
Fury at Wall St. Banks Fuels Public Action for Move Your Money Campaign
Why Congress Wants You to Shun Your Local Bookstore and Shop at Amazon Instead




