[Winona Online Democracy] Bryon (I'm assuming and adding a friendly reminder to sign all posts!):
Thanks for sharing this to clarify. I had a sense that Bob and David were on different wavelengths, but couldn't put my finger on it! Now I see that the decision David referred to was the supreme court's--not a local decision by our county or city officials. This is an excellent example of how what happens on the national level is significant to us locally! If I'm understanding correctly, this historic decision seems to have been pivotal to the development of more corporate power in America? I imagine the arguments for and against this decision are as numerous as those for and against Wal-Mart coming to Winona. It seems as though Wal-Mart couldn't exist and the Enron tragedy couldn't have happened without that pivotal decision and others that followed. I can also argue that we wouldn't even be able to have an online discussion forum without it--the technology would never have been deveoped without the corporate environment. It still leaves us with the question of what our community wants and what vision guides the decisions of elected officials. In a sense, it comes down to the "reactive vs. proactive dichotomy"--or do we as a comminity jump at the chance of a big box coming to town because one expresses interest or are we consciously courting this kind of commerce because it is what we want? Can any one answer the question of whether this was the intention of the city when levying the tax for the dredging? Was it a "Field of Dreams" (i.e., If you build it, big boxes will come") kind of thing or was more of trying to create the opportunity for options where none existed previously? I think those intentions make a significant difference and I don't really know the answer--plus it's difficult to know what is true and what is conjecture. Maybe Jerome or some of the other media folks who have followed this more closely can enlighten us with facts? Kathy Seifert ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 9:11 AM Subject: Re: FW: [Winona] Wal-Mart > [Winona Online Democracy] > > > > Wal-Mart is not an individual; therefore, it should not claim the > > "right" of equality. > > Individuals that interact with the corporation such as officers, > > employees, or contractors do and should have rights. > > > > Unfortunately, this is not the case and serves to highlight the > > irrational status Corporate person-hood has catapulted itself to over > > the last hundred years. A court clerk, without prior debate thought > > otherwise and essentially gave corporations person-hood. Over time, the > > precedent has been repeatedly exploited by corporate lawyers, yet the > > precedent has never been debated. It is time to end what was started by > > the actions of a court clerk. > > > > Wal-Mart is not an individual; therefore, it should not claim the > > "right" of equality. Individuals that interact with the corporation > such as officers, > > employees, or contractors do and should have rights. > > I really think this is a fascinating issue. Below is a short excerpt > from a good discussion available here: > > http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/28/usa.html > > > > Then came a legal event that would not be understood for decades (and > remains baffling even today), an event that would change the course of > American history. In Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, a > dispute over a railbed route, the US Supreme Court deemed that a private > corporation was a "natural person" under the US Constitution and > therefore entitled to protection under the Bill of Rights. Suddenly, > corporations enjoyed all the rights and sovereignty previously enjoyed > only by the people, including the right to free speech. > > This 1886 decision ostensibly gave corporations the same powers as > private citizens. But considering their vast financial resources, > corporations thereafter actually had far more power than any private > citizen. They could defend and exploit their rights and freedoms more > vigorously than any individual and therefore they were more free. In a > single legal stroke, the whole intent of the American Constitution -- > that all citizens have one vote, and exercise an equal voice in public > debates -- had been undermined. Sixty years after it was inked, Supreme > Court Justice William O. Douglas concluded of Santa Clara that it "could > not be supported by history, logic or reason." One of the great legal > blunders of the nineteenth century changed the whole idea of democratic > government. > > > > This message powered by EMUMAIL. -- http://www.EMUMAIL.com > _______________________________________________ > This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy > All messages must be signed by the senders actual name. > No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list. > To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit > http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona > Any problems or suggestions can be directed to > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact page at > http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org > _______________________________________________ This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy All messages must be signed by the senders actual name. No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list. To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona Any problems or suggestions can be directed to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact page at http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org
