Somehow...

Somehow I don't think the Supreme Court responds to petitions.

Quote :

Dear MoveOn member,

I'm Norm Conrad, a MoveOn member in Seattle, Washington, and I started a petition to the Supreme Court of the United States, which says:

The Constitution of the United States of America and its amendments were written by and for living, breathing human beings. The birthrights of the people may not be handed out to corporations like payment for bribes. Overturn the Santa Clara railroad case and subsequent cases in which the court has fantasized that corporations, which are nothing more than pieces of paper called charters, are somehow entitled to the same rights as human beings.

Sign Norm's petition

Over the first 110 years of American history, corporations had no claim to the birthrights of human beings. They operated profitably and thrived. However, 127 years ago an unelected Supreme Court declared them equally entitled to the rights intended for real, natural persons.


As a result, corporations have abused the privileges their charters grant them, and year after year have claimed more human rights. And year after year, this body of politicians in black robes has restricted our ability to claim those same rights for ourselves.


Corporations and other artificial entities created by law have no rights. They have only those privileges we choose to give them so they may fulfill their purposes and meet their responsibilities to the people. We need to tell the Supreme Court to overturn the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company decision and acknowledge that corporations are not people.


Click here to add your name to this petition, and then pass it along to your friends.

Thanks!

–Norm Conrad

This petition was created on MoveOn's online petition site, where anyone can start their own online petitions. Norm Conrad didn't pay us to send this email—we never rent or sell the MoveOn.org list.

Want to support our work? MoveOn Civic Action is entirely funded by our 8 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.

If there's enough money stuffed into the envelope with the petition, you may get a favorable response.

Corporations were once widely viewed as antithetical to both democracy and capitalism. In the early years of the country. there were very few corporations, and corporate charters were granted by the federal government.  The corporations were essentially ad hoc entities. They were created to perform a specific function and were allowed to do nothing else. If the venture in which they were involved terminated for any reason, the corporation itself was dissolved.

I think that the old way was far better than today's widespread abuse of the corporate status. Simply removing the human rights status of corporations is insufficient. All corporations should be changed to partnerships, with no special rights at all.

Robert Reich thinks simply taxing corporate profits, through the percentage of ownership to the stockholders, would be sufficient. I tend to agree.

Robert Reich is a brilliant man, and I seldom disagree with him, but in this case, I do.

Just two small points (among many):

• The corporate shield against personal liability needs to be removed. Actual people would be required to pay fines and spend time in prison. What a concept! What an incentive.
  

• The incestuous inter-corporate board stuffing and back scratching would be eliminated, as all management would be employees of the company; there would be no board of directors.
  

Additionally, the anti-monopoly laws need to be strengthened and enforced. You know: free-market stuff.

No argument from me. Who's going to bell the cat?

Before any real change can be made in the country's economic system, major changes in the electoral system and in the rules of governance will be required.

I'm not sure that we haven't passed the time when such matters could be resolved peaceably.

I fear that there are not enough intelligent people in the country to accomplish any major changes at all through the ballot box.

One galvanizing candidate could awaken the slumbering Silent Majority. Like the article said, just because the Republican Party is run by a bunch of stammering yo-yos right now, that is not to say that even liberal Democrats wouldn't like to see lower deficits, economic prosperity and more efficient government.

But...

A galvanizing candidate would have reason to fear for her life. The grassy knoll awaits anyone who tries to buck the system.

It's going to take more than one galvanizing candidate; we just saw the closest we've come to that this century in 2008.

The Constitution gives the houses of Congress the right to make their own rules. Well, you can't have the patients running the asylum. That has to change. I hear politicians and pundits on the boob tube speaking of the filibuster as it were  enshrined in the Constitution, when in fact it came about by accident. John Boehner won't allow a bill to be brought up for a vote unless it can pass without any votes from the Democrats. Shit like these two examples (and hundreds more rules) have to be corrected. The Congress must be run by adults in a manner which is beneficial for the great mass of people in the country, but it will take an amendment to the Constitution for that to happen.

The two-party system has to be killed. Parties can't be allowed to make their own rules regarding the conduct of primary and general elections; federal law is required to ensure fair elections - no fucking state laws. Even the concept of  permanent political parties was considered a very bad idea early in the existence of the republic, and - I feel - remains a bad idea.

There are basic systemic problems with the American political and economic systems that cannot be corrected by any one politician, no matter how popular and capable he or she may be.

The other night wife & I were discussing this. We agreed somebody with beaucoup money (to be incorruptible) with high morals and already popular would have to be the catalyst. The only candidate we could think of was Oprah.

Well, you lost my vote.
I hope you were just kidding about Oprah. She was a talk show host. Hardly the experience that gives me any warm fuzzy feelings about her as president.
Unless, of course, she's going to give us all new cars (but it better not be a god damn Pontiac).

You mentioned money, morals and popularity. What about intelligence, ability and balls?

Candidate doesn't need intelligence, ability and balls.  The whole point is, an insider can't rebuild the skeleton from within.  It has to be an outsider.  

Somebody who understands money, somebody who understands how to remain popular, somebody who has an iron will and is used to getting her way.  Somebody the public would rally around when she encounters resistance from the status quo.

Ergo, I wasn't kidding.

Oprah for president?
Sorry, I think it's a silly idea.
It doesn't matter how popular any one person is, the game is rigged against her. Congress is stocked with a bunch of narcissistic egomaniacs, bought and paid for by a bunch of narcissistic sociopaths. That is what has to be changed; nothing else means squat until that is corrected.