-Caveat Lector- >From: "Paul Cienfuegos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <Recipient List Suppressed:;> >Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 11:36 PM >Subject: ** Three new articles by Richard Grossman regarding Nader, + >theongoing election Supreme Court battles > >Friends, > >The election is "over" supposedly, but there sure is alot of good >debating and discussing going on across this broken democracy of >ours. Perhaps all of those millions of democratic conversations >taking place nationwide will help to energize all of us to stay >active. I present below three new essays by Richard Grossman, >Co-director of the Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy >(POCLAD), a 12-member think-tank / affinity group based in >Massachusetts. Richard continues to be one of the most provocative >thinkers in the country today on the critical topic of democracy and >corporate rule. And his organization's analysis continues to be >instrumental in the work of my local non-profit, Democracy Unlimited >of Humboldt County (Arcata, CA). I encourage all of you to learn more >about POCLAD <http://www.poclad.org>. >Paul Cienfuegos > >PS. Look for one more large email from moi in the next few days re >the 2000 elections. > >PPS. OK...but first.....a few election tidbits..... >1. Did you know that Supreme Court Justice Scalia's son is an >attorney in one of the law firms representing Bush before the Supreme >Court today! And that Scalia recently stated that if Bush didn't win >the presidency, that he intended to resign from the court because he >would then have no chance of becoming the Chief Justice? Ahhh...thank >goodness for a non-partisan judiciary!!! > >2. Here are two archives of all the election irregularities reported >in Florida thus far: >http://www.knowthecandidates.org/ktc/ElectionIrregularities.htm >http://www.bushneverwonflorida.com/ > >----------------------------------- > >First, a piece he wrote for a series of Guest Editorials intended for >informal syndication in papers around the United States. >This piece addresses the response to the Nader campaign. You are >welcome to forward this article to local media as a Guest Editorial. > >Ralph Nader and the Apoplectics >Copyright 2000 >By Richard Grossman > >Richard Grossman is co-director of the Program on Corporations, Law & >Democracy (POCLAD). He can be reached at P.O. Box 246, South Yarmouth, >MA 02664. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (603) 473-8637. >Fax: (603) 473-8657. > >November 17, 2000 >1600 Words > >What's with all this apoplexy over Nader? What barbarous, >villainous, and depraved acts did he commit that labor leaders and heads >of national liberal groups denounce him as the enemy of minorities, the >poor, women, and the environment? That Senator Joseph Biden says that >Nader will not be welcome in Senate corridors? That James Carville vows >on TV to walk out of the room should Nader enter? That the First Lady >jokes about killing him? That NY Times Corporation editorial writers >label him "beyond the reach of reason," "a political narcissist"? > >For heaven's sakes, what did this man do? > >It appears that he and the Green Party gathered signatures to >qualify for the ballot in 43 states plus Washington, D.C. He encouraged >hundreds of Green Party candidates to run for local and state offices. >He barnstormed the nation, speaking in living rooms, village squares, >universities, and even huge sports arenas. Despite being kept out of >televised Bush-Gore dialogues, Nader and the Greens encouraged millions >to get involved in the gritty work of self-governance. Isn't that what >high school civics books teach is the life blood of democracy? > >But then an inconclusive election launched an extraordinary >national >educational experience. Just look what people are talking about now: > >* Machines vs. humans. > >* The electoral college, that left-over contrivance concocted by slave >state politicians to establish their domination (slave-holding >Virginians served as president for 32 out of the nation's first 36 years). > >* Local-state-federal jurisdictional struggles over who's in charge; >legislative, executive, and judicial branches crossing paths and swords: >It's U.S. Constitutional theory in action! > >* Hitherto obscure constitutional offices of state attorney general and >secretary of state. > >* The will of the people. > >Not a bad list. > >What if people were to pursue these topics? Let's explore the >"will of the people." > >As Nader and many others have been pointing out, U.S. law >regards basic decisions affecting jobs, wealth, communities, commerce, >life and death as beyond the will of the people. Democratic and >Republican free marketers do not exactly put it this way, but that's >what they mean. Over and over again, the courts have so affirmed. Joe >Lieberman echoed this on the campaign trail when he insisted that it is >the private sector - corporations - that We the People must depend upon >for jobs. > >So is anything else private? What else is beyond the authority >of the American people? > >* the money supply, which is set by one unelected man at the Federal >Reserve; > >* corporate decisions on investments in technology and production >processes, such as genetic engineering of foods, nuclear power, toxic >chemicals, siting of giant corporate chain stores, etc.; these decisions >are regarded as corporate "private property"; > >* laws which corporate officials demand federal judges to nullify, such >as a Massachusetts law limiting the state's contracting with >corporations which do business with Burmese dictators, a Vermont law >requiring the labeling of foods containing bovine growth hormone (rBGH); >laws banning transit of toxic waste through states; laws banning >corporate spending in state elections. . . and on and on; > >* judicial interpretations of the Constitution giving corporations First >Amendment free speech powers, 14th Amendment equal protection powers, >5th Amendment due process powers. . . and denying workers on corporate >property any Bill of Rights protections; > >* the economy as a whole, which is private, not public; it is not >democratic self-governance which rules, but "the market." The economy >runs society, not the other way around. > >As has happened time and again throughout U.S. history, public >discussions about men of property and their corporations squashing the >will of the people, about elected officials and judges siding with >corporations instead of with human persons, have been intensifying of >late. So have civic actions against corporation after corporation. Any >reporter or politician paying attention to the hundreds of teach-ins >which civic groups and academics have organized, who has glanced at the >thousands of books and newsletters civic groups have published, who has >talked with some of the tens of thousands of protesters in Seattle, >Philadelphia, Los Angeles. . . or visited any of the hundreds of >thousands engaged in community-based struggles against corporate >destruction of whole forests in the Northwest, against corporate >factory farms in South Dakota and Pennsylvania, against transit racism >in Los Angeles, against coal corporation mountaintop removal in West >Virginia, against toxic chemical production along the lower Mississippi >River, against incinerators in Ohio, against oil refineries around San >Francisco's East Bay, against corporate foreclosures of family farms, >against corporate genetic engineering of foods, against corporations >writing the rules for health care, energy, strip malls, banking, organic >foods, against corporations usurping We the People's fundamental human >and constitutional rights, would know that this is so. > >Why now? People are weary of the iron fist of the wealthy >enforced by their great global corporations and their government >officials. Despite intensive organizing on single issue after single >issue, people have not been able to reverse: the USA as number one arms >seller to the world; the USA's continuing bombing of Iraqi children; the >USA giving away the people's digital TV spectrum to global corporations >and forbidding communities to ban microwave cell phone towers; NAFTA >selling out the people's sovereign power to global corporations; the USA >spending over a billion dollars to train the Columbian military in the >tradition of aid to Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile, Peru, Nicaragua, >Afghanistan, Angola, ad nauseum, and to spew poisons upon Columbian >forests and people; corporate and governmental policies destroying >family farms and farming communities; the expansion of NATO into central >and eastern Europe; the bloated and still growing US military budget; >Congress and state legislatures freeing corporations to bring us >electricity shortages, escalating prices, and no solar transition, state >legislators giving hundreds of billions of taxpayer and ratepayer money >to energy corporations to compensate for their stupid investments and >accelerate global warming; real wages still low for most people who must >work; vast and growing gaps between the top few percent who own wealth >and everyone else; the USA as jailer of the Berrigans, Leonard Peltier >and hundreds of others working to repair sordid idiocies in our midst; >the nation's ongoing institutionalized discrimination against gays, >lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals, Native Americans and other peoples of >color; the USA's Immigration and Naturalization Service budget shooting >way up to pay for more and more armed troops and electronic hardware, >while denying its human targets Bill of Rights protections like free >speech, due process and equal protection of the laws; quickening >commodification and privatization of public treasures like water, seeds, >and medicines; the USA government's undermining of people's struggles >for freedom and justice around the world by supporting dictators and >tyrants; police and prison violence against people here at home; the >nation's idiotic, racist, anti-human drug laws; the filling of prisons; >the corporatization of our schools. . . > >These realities are all regarded as legal. And this is a >nation of laws! > >Gore, Bush and the corporate press ignored such matters. For >Nader, they were central. > >Nader sometimes lapsed into shorthand. But overall he spoke >clearly about ending corporate dominance over people supposed to be >sovereign, alleged to be the source of all political authority. In >lengthy speeches he discussed history, power, law, current events, the >constitution. Like all candidates, he had his good days and his not so >good days. He didn't eat so well. But during five months on the road, in >50 states, to audiences large and small, he talked with people about >their yearnings for democracy, about what was happening in their >communities, and about the hope out there that the USA could still >evolve from the elite-driven, violent, nuclear bomb building, >anti-working people, ecologically arrogant commercial corporate >global empire. . . > >That apocalyptic apoplectic, Thomas L. Friedman, summed it up >for the New York Times Corporation (10 November): Ralph Nader is ". . . >anti-markets, anti-globalization, anti-multinationals." > >That "egomaniacal narcissist" enraged the people and >institutions accustomed to controlling public debate and education. > >So that's the story behind all this apoplexy. Ralph Nader and >the Greens nurtured people who will continue to think, talk, and act >towards liberating the will of the people. > >So while Bush and Gore go on about democracy (and they do go >on!), they, their parties, their lawyers, their advisers. . . along with >the owners of radio, television, newspaper and information corporations, >state attorneys general and secretaries of state, Supreme Court >justices, university presidents, and most very important people all >agree that > >* the Federal Reserve is beyond the will of the American people; > >* corporate decisions are private, beyond the will of the American people; > >* judges can respond to corporate complaints by nullifying laws passed >by the people's elected representatives; > >* judges may give Bill of Rights powers to corporations to enable them >to overturn the will of the people; > >* defining the economy is beyond the will of the American people. > >Alas, self-governance is beyond the will of the American people. >Self-governance is beyond the authority of the American people. That is >the law of the land. > >What the people who run the United States and their attendants >fear most about this election mess -- even as they blather about the will >of the people -- is that too many Americans may conclude that democracy >has not yet come to the US of A; that too many people will stop >swallowing corporate and politician's crap, understanding with Bertolt >Brecht that: > >"Those who lead the country into the abyss >Call ruling too difficult >For ordinary men." > >Thanks, Ralph. Watch out for Hillary. > >----------------------------------------------------- > >Will of the People? Consent of the Governed? Rule of Law? > >by Richard L. Grossman (1) > >On November 8, the presidential election campaign moved into its surprise >educational phase. Local, state and federal authorities have been duking >it >out ever since. Legislative, judicial and executive branches have been at >sixes and sevens. Even obscure state constitutional offices like attorney >general and secretary of state have been forced into the spotlight. > >Phrases such as: will of the people, consent of the governed, rule of law >are rippling off the lips of candidates, newscasters and experts galore. >Now that people are actually reading state and federal constitutions, and >paying attention to basic governance matters, growing numbers of people >are >wondering if our great national ideals match reality. > >A little history wouldn't hurt. > >When the Constitution was ratified, the landed minority kept the majority >of people from voting and holding office. These Federalist founders >defined >great numbers of human persons as property, without human rights. They >believed that decisions about economic and foreign policy were only for >the >wealthy landowners and commercial class. So they concentrated authority >in >a powerful central government designed to restrict the will of the people. >They gave the final say about governing to an appointed Supreme Court. > >Called upon to resolve disputes between two parties, Supreme Court >justices >regularly rewrite the Constitution. For example, they have bestowed upon >property, organized in corporate form, the rights of legal persons: First >amendment free speech, Fifth amendment due process, Fourteenth amendment >equal protection. They authorized corporations to overpower the will >of the people. > >Despite plain language of the First Amendment, judges have sent people to >jail for opposing legalized segregation and war; for resisting legalized >corporate assaults upon public health and the environment; for exercising >labor and human rights. At the same time legislative, judicial and >executive branches have entitled corporate managers to deny workers First >Amendment rights of free speech and free assembly. > >Legislators and judges have decreed that the economy is beyond the will of >the people, that is, beyond the consent of the governed. So, no one should >be surprised that the nation's money supply is set by one unelected man at >the Federal Reserve Bank or that corporate decisions on investment, >technology and production - such as genetic engineering of foods, >production >and use of toxic chemicals, siting of giant chain stores, building of >nuclear >power plants - are regarded under law as "private property" of >corporations. > >Thanks to the people who wrote the Constitution and those privileged to >interpret it, law defines food, public health, and the atmosphere as the >private preserves of today's great corporations. And as Senator Joseph >Lieberman made it clear on the campaign trail, we the people must depend >on >the "private sector," that is, corporations, for jobs. > >Corporate aggregations of patents and subsidiaries not only run our >economy. They also run our society - including foreign and military >policy. >(Think about the lobbying, PR and "jobs" clout of the two remaining >intergalactic military contracting corporations.) > >Judges nullify laws that corporate operatives do not like, such as >Massachusetts' selective purchasing law with Burma, Vermont's bovine >growth >hormone (rBGH) labeling law, New Jersey's ban on toxic wastes from other >states, Massachusetts' ban of corporate spending on state referenda. > >This is what is taught in law schools, economics schools, most schools as >efficient, inevitable, irreversible, efficient, just. This is what is >drummed into our heads in a zillion different ways. > >So much for consent of the governed and the will of the people. > >What about the rule of law? Last week, Professor Paul Kahn of Yale Law >School warned that "Like every faith, our national myth of law's rule can >stand only so much public scrutiny. So our national civics lesson may be >teaching us too much about ourselves." (2) > >If the rule of law is a myth, it has sure been a formidable one. The rule >of law has led to the USA's bombing of other lands. It has made this >country the number one arms dealer to the world. It has given away the >people's airwaves to global corporations and forbidden communities to ban >microwave phone towers. Via trade agreements like NAFTA, it has sold out >the people's sovereign authority to global corporations. It has directed >billions of taxpayer dollars to train the Colombian military to attack the >Colombian people and forests. > >The rule of law enables the CIA and other spy agencies to do what they >want, including topple elected governments. It empowers corporations to >destroy family farms, bring us electricity shortages, escalating prices, >no >solar energy, and global warming. > >The rule of law results in poverty wages and in vast gaps between the top >few percent who own most wealth and everyone else. It militarizes the >Immigration and Naturalization Service while denying its human targets >basic Constitutional rights. It privatizes public treasures like water, >air, seeds, and medicines. It helps corporations run the nation's disease >care systems, banking systems, forest systems, information systems, >transportation systems, ad nauseam. > >And so we come to the bottom line: Is the education coming out of the >presidential election too much of a burden? > >Are we the people afraid of too much truth? > >Or has our appetite been whetted for a rule of law determined, at last, by >consent of the governed? >### > >1. Co-director, Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy (POCLAD), >P O Box 246, South Yarmouth, MA 02664; Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Phone: 508.398.1023; Fax: 508.398.1146 > >2. Akron Beacon Journal, 11.27.00 > >----------------------------------------------------- > >So, Who Makes the Law? > >by Richard L Grossman (1) > >Signs outside the Florida Supreme Court at its first post-election ruling >on the manual ballot recount declared: "Supreme Court: Interpret Law, >Don't >Make Law,'' and: "Supreme Court: Butt Out!" In his comments on the >decision, George W. Bush said that the court had used legal language to >conceal that it was writing law, not simply interpreting it. > >With local, state and federal courts now in the national spotlight, people >may find it helpful to know that judges (mostly appointed, not elected) >have been making law for generations and generations. > >But judicial supremacy did not come from God or Mother Nature. Consider >that the Articles of Confederation had no provision for a Supreme Court. >And when debate broke out over the replacement constitution drafted in >Philadelphia, the idea of judicial supremacy provoked intense opposition. > >Robert Yates of New York noted, "The opinions of the supreme court, >whatever they may be, will have the force of law; because there is not >power provided in the constitution, that can correct their errors, or >control their adjudications." (2) John De Witt of Massachusetts observed: >"There are no well-defined limits of the Judiciary Powers, they seem to be >left as a boundless ocean..." (3) > >The US and state supreme courts were created by men of property to protect >themselves from democracy. And so today when judges confirm laws that >establish special privilege; nullify laws that challenge special >privilege; >and amend state and federal constitutions to deny people's fundamental >rights, they are doing what the antidemocratic Federalist Founders >intended. > > >From thousands of rulings, here are a few samples of judges validating >laws, nullifying laws, and amending constitutions. > >US Supreme Court > >* Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Corp., 1886: decreed >without hearing argument or offering an explanation that a corporation is >a >person for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. > >* Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Minnesota, 1890: voided a >Minnesota law enabling state elected officials to set railroad rates, >declaring that all rates decided by elected officials are subject to >judicial authority. > >* In Re Debs, 1895: upheld judge-made labor injunctions banning strikers >from >picketing, holding meetings, conferring with union officers, publishing >articles or in any way seeking public support. It also sent Debs and three >other leaders of the National Railway Union to jail for violating >such an injunction. > >* Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co., 1895: nullified Congress' income >tax law of 1894, which had imposed a 2% tax on incomes over $4,000. > >* Charles Smith v. Mississippi, 1896: affirmed the authority of lower >courts >to exclude African Americans from juries. > >* Schenck v. US, 1918: sent Schenck to jail because, in the words of >Justice >Holmes rewriting the First Amendment, "When a nation is at war, many >things >that might be said in times of peace are such a hindrance to its effort >that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no >court could regard them as protected by any constitutional rights." > >* Lochner v. NY, 1905: nullified a New York law setting 10 hours as >maximum >labor per day for bakers. > >* Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens' Consumer Council >Inc., 1976: >protected corporate commercial speech under the First Amendment. > >* First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 1976: nullified a >Massachusetts law banning corporate spending in referenda and initiatives >which corporations had an interest. > >* NJ v. City of Philadelphia, 1976: nullified a New Jersey law banning >toxic >wastes from other states. > >Federal judges in general: > >* Gasaway v. Borderland Coal Corporation, 1921: upheld a lower court >injunction against the United Mine Workers in West Virginia forbidding >union speeches, union publishing, appeals to unemployed men to join the >union, the use of union funds for unionizing non-union mines. > >* United States v. Anthony, 1873: US Circuit Court found that the Fifth >Amendment did not allow women the right to vote. It directed a jury to >find >Susan B. Anthony guilty of illegal voting. > >State supreme courts: > >* Pierce v. Stablemen's Union, 1909: the California Supreme Court >affirmed a >court injunction against strikers picketing peacefully. > >* Commonwealth v. Perry, 1891: the Massachusetts Supreme Court nullified >state law prohibiting an employer from fining an employee or withholding >wages. > >* Frorer v. People, 1892: the Illinois Supreme Court nullified a state >law >prohibiting corporations from paying wages in goods or merchandise instead >of money. > >Neither Gore nor Bush talked about reversing this sad history of judicial >usurpation. So while we may not know the winner of the presidential >election, we can harbor no doubts about the loser: democracy. * > >* (You can read all about this judicial usurpation. Here are some >resources: >Lawless Judges, by Louis P. Goldberg and Eleanore Levenson, NY: The Rand >School Press, 1935; The Supreme Court and the National Will, by Dean >Alfange, Garden City: Doubleday, Doran & Co., 1937; Conservative Crisis >and >the Rule of Law: Attitudes of Bar and Bench, 1887-1985, by Arnold Paul, >Gloucester: Peter Smith, 1976; Lawyers and the Constitution: How Laissez >Faire Came to the Supreme Court, by Benjamin Twiss, Princeton: 1942.) >### > >1. Co-director, Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy (POCLAD), >P O Box 246, S. Yarmouth, MA 02664; Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Phone: 508.398.1023; Fax: 508.398.1146 > >2. Cecelia M. Kenyon, editor, The Anti-federalists, Indianapolis. >Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1996, page 335 > >3. Ibid., pp. 104-5 <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
