Maine House votes down denial of corporate rights

[bluedigger]

Source: Associated Press

AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) — The Maine House has overwhelmingly rejected legislation differentiating corporations from people when it comes to constitutional rights.

Opponents said Wednesday that the bill, which is linked to the debate over water extraction, is obviously unconstitutional. Supporters sought to frame the issue as one that will be coming up more often as citizens try to affirm their basic rights against those of large corporations.

The Portland Press Herald said lawmakers voted 124-23 to accept the "ought not to pass" report by the State and Local Government Committee.


Read more: http://www.sunjournal.com/story/318079-3/MaineNews/Maine_House_votes_down_denial_of_corporate_rights/

---

That's the whole story. I thought this would be of interest to the anti-corporatistas at DU.

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[emsimon33]

2. I couldn't access the article: Broken link

[bluedigger]

3. Sorry, worked a few minutes ago...

Try this http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/newsupdate.php?updates/maine-house-votes-down-corporations-bill

It has a little more info, as well...

[emsimon33]

10. Thank you; it did work this time & was very interesting!

[bluedigger]

11. No prob!

And welcome to DU!:hi:

[Vidar]

4. Republic hell! We live in a coprorate duchy. Feudalimn reighns minus the noblesse oblige.

[avaistheone1]

5. WTF?

They must not make people too smart up there.

[ixion]

6. the concept of Corporations as individuals is distinctly unconstitutional

not vice-versa.

Really shows you who holds the power, though.

[Piewhacket]

7. Corporations are godless machines, they have no rights, they don't even have a soul!

Not to mention that, having but one orifice,
they are exceedingly unsanitary.

No rights for machines!

[Arugula Latte]

8. Lots of bad news today. Very discouraging. nt

[Pab Sungenis]

9. Gather signatures. Put it on the ballot.

Do it in Maine, then take it to California. Then to every state that allows initiatives.

[bluedigger]

12. My take

is that it was a well-intentioned, but poorly written, law. Interesting that at least someone's trying, though...

[cascadiance]

13. How is a bill that RESTORES constitutional law over a "court clerk activist" decision...

... unconstitutional?

That's patently ridiculous! There was NOTHING constitutional about "corporate personhood". The only reason it is regarded as "law" is because of a head note (not EVEN a judicial decision!) written by an ex-railroad exec court clerk that invented the notion that corporations had these rights from the case of Union Pacific vs. Santa Clara back in the 1800's. That and corporate lobbyists that seek to keep this mythical "law" in place, by "owning" elected officials and the court justices they appoint over the years!

It would be interesting to read what basis this ruling has aside from that "head note" if at all!

[mbperrin]

14. Here's some info I've found helpful:

http://www.iiipublishing.com/afd/santaclara.html
The Santa Clara Blues:
Corporate Personhood versus Democracy

by William Meyers
What Corporate Personhood Is

Corporate Personhood is a legal fiction. The choice of the word "person" arises from the way the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was worded and from earlier legal usage of the word person. A corporation is an artificial entity, created by the granting of a charter by a government that grants such charters. Corporation in this essay will be confined to businesses run for profit that have been granted corporate charters by the States of the United States. The Federal Government of the United States usually does not grant corporate charters to businesses (exceptions include the Post Office and Amtrak). lots more at link

[defendandprotect]

19. This is anti-people, pro-corporate power activism . . .

Thanks for the link -- I've faved it for the moment

[ProudDad]

15. Still maintaining the fiction

that there was an actual, bonifide decision by SCOTUS "granting corporations personhood"... There wasn't. It was a headnote inserted by a former Railroad Company Board Member that fucked us all!!!

--------------------------------------------

Text of the 1886 Supreme Court decision, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, which gave corporations the same rights as people based on the 14th amendment to the Constitution. Key passages cited on p.185 of The Post-Corporate World are:

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE said: The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.

The summary record includes the Court's findings that

The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Korten then observes, "Thus it was that a two-sentence assertion by a single judge elevated corporations to the status of persons under the law, prepared the way for the rise of global corporate rule, and thereby changed the course of history."(p.185) He goes on to point out the legal contradiction implicit in corporate personhood. A corporation is the property of it shareholders. But it is also a legal person (technically, a "legal subordinate fiction"). With such "persons" being owned by others, a condition of slavery exists which is prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/seeingPCW.html

------------------------------------------------------

[cascadiance]

17. Yep, we need to frame this as "court clerk activisim" to highlight it as worse...

... than anything the right can claim as "judicial activism" that they complain about with Roe v. Wade, etc.

Any questioning of future supreme court justice replacements, if it goes ANYWHERE down the road of whether the candidate would engage in "judicial activism", or whether they should follow the constitution (to try on the right to solicit what they would do with Roe v. Wade), should be followed up with a question on how they view the notion of "corporate personhood" being supported by the constitution.

The right, if they want to go after Roe v. Wade in questioning a SCOTUS candidate in this manner, should be made to pay the price. We need to make sure someone like Russ Feingold on the Judiciary committee is prepared to ask these questions if the wingnuts start this line of questioning, and have them know up front even that those questions will be asked if they touch Roe v. Wade in this manner.

[ProudDad]

16. Corporations are inherently evil

THE PATHOLOGY OF COMMERCE: CASE HISTORIES

To assess the "personality" of the corporate "person," a checklist is employed, using diagnostic criteria of the World Health Organization and the standard diagnostic tool of psychiatrists and psychologists. The operational principles of the corporation give it a highly anti-social "personality": it is self-interested, inherently amoral, callous and deceitful; it breaches social and legal standards to get its way; it does not suffer from guilt, yet it can mimic the human qualities of empathy, caring and altruism. Four case studies, drawn from a universe of corporate activity, clearly demonstrate harm to workers, human health, animals and the biosphere. Concluding this point-by-point analysis, a disturbing diagnosis is delivered: the institutional embodiment of laissez-faire capitalism fully meets the diagnostic criteria of a "psychopath."

----------------------------------------

CORPORATIONS ARE PSYCHOPATHS...

http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=312

[defendandprotect]

18. Corporations don't breathe . . . and it's time we ended this crap --

Surprised at Maine!!