Saturday, January 23, 2010

George W. Bush's Activist Supreme Court Rules For Fascism

I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country ~ Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States (3/4/1801 to 3/4/1809), in a letter to George Logan (11/12/1816)

On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule (From the "Motion to Amend" website).

In an email dated 1/21/2010, author and political commentator David Sirota writes...

DS: By now I'm sure you've heard that the Supreme Court today not only reaffirmed that corporations are people, but that corporations may spend an unlimited amount of money to tilt election campaigns. This is a radical ruling that threatens the most basic fundamentals of American democracy.

That's why I'm asking you to sign this petition for a Constitutional amendment that would declare that corporations are NOT people. Sign the petition [here], and then send this [link] on to as many people as you know.

We are living in a nation that, as I said in my first book, is the victim of a hostile takeover by Big Money interests. This Supreme Court ruling today will complete that hostile takeover and shred the last remnants of democracy. In short, we will become a complete corporatocracy.

Corporations are not people - they live forever and they can commit crime and cannot be put in jail. Moreover, the rights of personhood are not merely being extended to American corporations - this ruling means that foreign multinational corporations that operate in the United States will have more power over our election system than American citizens themselves.

So again, I implore you to sign this petition and forward it on to as many people as you can. These are dark times - but we cannot give up. Rock the boat.

From the Move to Amend website...

We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to...
  • Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
  • Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our vote and participation count.
  • Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.

In my strong opinion the SCOTUS Citizens United ruling is straight up facism. The Right says it is against activist judges and in favor of original intent. These are both lies. Chief Justice John Roberts, a member of the fascist Federalist Society, has argued in favor of corporate personhood his entire career.

This is the reason Preznit bush appointed him. Specifically he chose John Roberts to reward him for his help in stealing the 2000 election.

Further Reading
[1] Right-wing media absurdly declare Obama admin acted in "illegal" and "unconstitutional" manner by "forcing" BP to create escrow account 1/23/2010.
[2] Supreme Court ruling denounced as disastrous, shameful, a mockery, by Steven C. Day. Buzz Flash 1/22/2010.
[3] Useful Idiots of the Coup, by Madeleine Lee. United for Peace 1/22/2010.
[4] Citizens United decision is Terrifying, by Jason Linkins. The Huffington Post 1/21/2010.
[5] With no limits on campaign financing, corporations will take over the government: A special comment (Transcript), Countdown with Keith Olbermann 1/21/2010.

SWTD #38


  1. Let's check the actual Constitution, shall we?

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    I guess the Founding Fathers were all fascists for saying this, right?

    Note that the limitation is on what Congress can do in regards to who is speaking or "publishing" the press. The protected group includes individuals, organizations, and even foreigners.


    I do commend you for the amendment effort, since it is completely obvious that such censorship as desired contradicts the Constitution. The only proper way to censor is to alter the Constitution.

    However, there is still a big problem with the amendment, if your goal is to censor organizations. Even after it is passed, individual people with Constitutional rights still have free speech rights. And that includes individuals (such as ad copy writers) who are paid by organizations.

    It is also worthwhile to point out that, if this amendment were passed, and the results were as intended (silencing expression of ideas by members of organizations), then the government could at will control the content of the New York Times. The New York Times, is, of course, a corporation.

  2. And let's look at the actual bullets of the amendment, shall we?

    "* Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights."

    Under this, organizations would still be completely free to advertise. As they would be directly speaking, as opposed to paying others to.

    "* Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count."

    The right to vote is already protected. But any legal scholar with half a brain would reject the "participation" wording, since it can refer to anything (and therefore, nothing).

    "* Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments."

    Rather clumsy and vague wording here. Most apparent here is a strong "states rights" element. Neo-confederates would love this. So would right-wing militia types wanting the US to have nothing to do with the UN. This could be used for all kinds of tax rebellions. In other words, this clumsily worded bullet is more open to abuse from the far-right than from anyone. It's a blank check for the no-tax, isolationist, states-rights crowd.

    It also can be used to let localities exempt themselves from global warming initiatives. Which is ironic, considering the global warming activists who signed it. I'm guessing that they did not even bother to read it.

  3. dmarks said... Let's check the actual Constitution, shall we?

    You're quoting from the Bill of Rights which protects individual rights. "Individual rights" refers to the rights of individuals, not group rights. The press is also covered by the first amendment -- because this group is specifically mentioned. No other group (like corporations) is covered.

    So, to answer your question: NO, the Founding Fathers were not fascists, because the Bill of Rights applies only to individuals, not groups. Read the quote I opened my post with -- does it sound like Founding Father Thomas Jefferson would have approved of giving corporations free speech rights?

    As for the petition to amend the Constitution I linked to -- it is only necessary due to the series of extreme right-wing SCOTUS rulings extending "personhood" to corporations -- a concept which is entirely contrary to what the founding fathers envisioned when authoring the Bill of Rights.

  4. I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.


  5. Freedom of speech goes to whoever can pay the most for it now.

    Nice post WD.

  6. Good dispatch and this fill someone in on helped me alot in my college assignement. Gratefulness you seeking your information.


Comment moderation has temporarily been suspended. Although I may be forced to reinstate it if the trolls take advantage.