[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
