CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO CORPORATE BAILOUTS

[Morpheal]

CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO CORPORATE BAILOUTS

There is a potential and major constitutional challenge that can be argued in regards to corporate bailouts by the Federal government. It involves argument that is fundamental to the question of what good, true and just governance really is, and it involves the fundamental question of what the rights and obligations of governance, under the constitution, really are.

The challenge initially revolves around the question of what constitutes a bona fide entity for constitutional purposes. We know that corporations are bona fide legal entities in the courts, but this does not really respond to the more fundamental question. Are they truly and legitimately legal entities in terms of the constitution, and if so do they have the same status and rights, as such, as any individual citizen under that constitution ? What then happens when the one prejudices the rights of the other ? Particularly what happens when government action seeks to favor corporate entities in ways that are arguably contrary to the interests of individuals ? Even more so what happens when one class, or category, of corporation is favored by government in a manner that is potentially or actually prejudicial to the interests of other classes, categories, of business entity, and of individuals as legal entities ? We are contending here that there ultimately has to be a constitutional and more fundamental answer.

The issue must necessarily be considered in light of the original intent of the constitution and its framers, not in the subsequent light of common usage, even considering the special role of common legal usage, as we are not dealing with a case law based definition at the root of the issue, but rather something much more fundamental. We must remember that subsequent actions by government and the courts can result in corruption of original constitutional meaning and intent.

Is the large corporation, as a class of legal entities, entitled to gain from government in a manner and in a way that can be proven to discriminate against another class of legal entities ? Ultimately that question would need to be decided on the basis of which group of legal entities takes precedence in terms of the constitution and its original intent.

For instance in the case of the three big auto makers, is government constitutionally right in giving large sums of money directly to the manufacturers of cars and trucks ? Is that class of entity the properly and justly favored in terms of the constitution ? Would the constitution, instead, favor government actions which give the financial power to purchase automobile products from the manufacturers to the class of legal entities that are individuals, rather than granting special privilege to corporate entities ? Which action is truly and rightfully in keeping with the original intent of the framers of the constitution ? We argue that government has no constitutional right to give large sums of money to large corporations. We argue that government has a right to provide individuals with the means to support those corporations, by means of purchasing the product, thus fulfilling the original intent of a constitution and the government under that constitution existing to serve those individuals, as a class of legal entities, the citizens, not the class of legal entities that is comprised of the corporations.

So we have argued that it appears that constitutionally, and thus on the basis of the most fundamental principles of law, that government has acted entirely incorrectly in providing fiscal bailouts to large corporations, while ignoring the needs of the class of legal entities that are individuals under that governance. The action taken is prejudicial to that latter class, both in terms of potential and actual cost to them, and in terms of their own needs, considered in conflict with the alleged needs of the corporations.

The preamble of the constitution reads: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

We must consider that the constitution was never written, nor was it meant to be interpreted, as a document that serves “we the corporations”, but instead that it was based on the assertion that it is written to serve the needs of “we the people”. It is that fundamental distinction, at the very roots of the constitutional documents themselves, and at their very origin, that makes all of the difference in the argument. It should, we argue, define the precedence of various classes of legal entities, more clearly and hierarchically, so that government must, necessarily, serve the people, not large corporations. Where that fundamental principle can be legally argued to have been violated, government would be seen as violating the constitution of the United States of America, and legal recourse would have to be granted to the adversely affected classes of legal entities who are seen in competition for both justice and fairness in governance. Precedence as to recourse against bad governance, such as favors the financial interests of large corporations, would be constitutionally granted to individuals as a class of legal entities, and not to the corporations.

We must also conclude that where legal argument can effectively be made that the “general welfare” (interpreted as well being) is not properly and justly best served by favoring a particular class of legal entities, then that action is itself constitutionally illegal, and illegitimate. It would be easy to make solid legal argument that the favoring of the corporate entities involved in a fiscal bailout scheme of significant magnitude creates a situation where the more pressing and immediate needs, not to mention the certainties surrounding the meeting of those needs, must take precedence under the constitution. Thus the government’s funds must be spend differently and not given to corporate entities, when the class of legal entities categorized as individuals, the “we the people” of the constitution, have needs that can be readily legally argued to necessarily take precedence. In that case of argument the needs of the people would have to be met before any surplus to those needs could be granted by government to other classes of entities..Whether it is the need for individuals to have transportation, or whether it is other needs that take precedence is less of a point and might in fact be a mute point, in comparison to the more basic problem of whether government can legitimately and legally provide government bailout funding, from government revenues, to corporations, as anything other than surplus to all matters of funding that can be argued to be for the “common welfare” of the legal class of entities known as “individuals”.

It is long past the time that the United States of America, and other nations following its current lead, rethought their position on how they are legally entitled and empowered to stimulate an economy and what their rights and responsibilities to the people are in direct legal distinction to their rights to give money to corporations. The latter action would seem to be constitutionally illegal in the United States of America, though presumably untested in the courts, due to lack of adequate class action and the persistent inability of constitutional and class action lawyers to mount a suitable and effective case. Similar problems exist in other nations, but as I have said, it is largely due to following America far too closely, in its unconstitutional rampage at the expense of the “we the people” taxpayers of what ought to have been a constitutionally governed nation.


Robert Morpheal

Anyone may copy, distribute, and reproduce this article in any form, by any means, anywhere, and in fact anyone is encouraged to do so.

[gizmo1979]

1. Why post this 3 times?

[Why Syzygy]

2. Exactly.

If they want the rights of individuals, they must bear the same burdens.