Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 3 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 9 (12 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   4 comments, 2 series

General News

Interview Transcript: Thom Hartmann on Corporate Personhood and How the Supreme Court Justices Have Become Kings

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 3 of 11 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 3   Supported 2   Well Said 1  
View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H1 12/7/11

Become a Fan
  (286 fans)
- Advertisement -

Rob: Yet, that's what happened with Citizens United, isn't it?  

Thom: That's exactly right. So from 1789 when we became a country, when the constitution was ratified, until 1803, the Supreme Court never did anything other than be the final appeals court. In 1803, there was a case where -- I can give you the details of the case if you want, but the bottom line is basically, it's called Marbury Vs Madison, and Madison was James Madison. He was the Secretary of State in the Thomas Jefferson administration and Marbury was a guy that James Madison was suppose to make a judge and didn't and he sued. The court, John Marshal was the Chief Justice who was Thomas Jefferson probably number one political enemy, and the court ruled that Jefferson won, Jefferson and Madison won the case and they won the case because the law under which Marbury was saying that he should be entitled to be a judge, was unconstitutional.

Now Jefferson found himself in a terrible bind because on the one hand he won the case which is what he wanted; on the other hand, he freaked out. He wrote, and this I can do from memory, he said, "If this decision is allowed to stand, then indeed has the constitution become a [inaudible]," which is Latin for a suicide pact.  "For with this constitution one branch of government and of that, the one which is unelected and unresponsive to the people has taken upon itself the ability to declare what is and is not the law of the land." And so he said, "If this allowed to stand, the constitution has become a thing of wax in the hand of the judiciary and the republic is doomed." That was in 1803, Thomas Jefferson said that.  

The violence the ferociousness of Thomas Jefferson's response to that Marbury Vs. Madison case was so intense that for the next 25 years the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court...

Rob: Marshall?  

Thom: Marshall, thank you. That Judge Marshall was on the Supreme Court, for the remaining 25 years he never again decided a case based on constitutionality. It wasn't until after he died. 

So basically, for the first 50 years of this country's existence, the Supreme Court never decided or very rarely decided constitutional issues. Now the Supreme Court does nothing but decide constitutional issues and as I said, this is a power that was not given to the court by the constitution. And arguably, Congress has the right to take this power away from the Supreme Court. Here's an of example of when it was tried. 

In 1935, Franklin Roosevelt passed a series of laws including a minimum wage and child labor laws as part of the collection of laws to be called a new deal and the [inaudible 23:26] the right to unionize and the Supreme Court struck them down; said these are unconstitutional because the Supreme Court is very conservative. Most of these guys were over 70, most of them had been put in the court back in the 1910s when they had also struck down child labor laws. There was one in 1914, there was 1917 that they struck down. That one said that children over the age of 7 couldn't and they established the age at which children could work at as 12 including in prostitution. 

- Advertisement -

In "35 when they struck down child labors laws and the union of laws, FDR went crazy and he was like, "What should I do?" So he came up with a scheme in 1935 that, because Congress could regulate the Supreme Court, that they would pass a law, he wrote the legislation and was going to have it introduced into Congress, and he actually would have passed it. There's a fascinating book written about this. Roosevelt kind of screwed up the politics of it, he missed an opportunity but he could have gotten this passed. 

He was going to have this law passed that said that, "Any justice over the age of 70 could no longer vote. They would become what's called a Justice of Martyrs and because there was to be 9 votes on a court, then all of the justices over 70 and aggregate would have one vote as Justices of Martyrs." No matter how many Justices of Martyrs there were, the Justices of Martyrs and aggregate would have one vote. Now that's when there were 5 guys who over 70 on the court. Then the president could appoint 4 new people to be on the court. So the court would end up, not with 9 but with 14 but 5 of them would be Justices of Martyrs; they'd only have one vote. So he would be able to get enough people on the court that he could pack the court and have them start ruling that his laws were not  unconstitutional.

He tried to that, there was so much blow back from the Republicans who freaked and most Father Coughlin actually, who went nuts; got the whole nation inflamed about this and that is why after the election in 1936, not only did Roosevelt back away from his court packing but that gave the conservatives so much power that he actually scaled back the new deal which is why we slipped back into the depression of 1937. 

So that was the one time in the history of this country when the President and the congress actually tried to use Article 3 Section 2 where it says that "The Supreme Court shall operate under regulations as defined by Congress." And frankly, there hasn't been a president or a congress that has had the balls to do it since then. But the constitution, in my opinion, and that of many legal scholars, the best book on this topic is actually written by the Dean of the Stanford Law School, is operating totally independent of the constitution. You have 9 kings here in Washington DC who decide what the law of the land should be, which is absolutely not just not what the founders thought they were doing with the constitution, but it's the opposite of what the founders thought they were doing with the constitution. Constitution starts out with, "We the people," not, "We, 9 guys with lifetime tenure in Washington DC."

Rob: Yeah, you said"

- Advertisement -

Thom: Have I sufficiently blow your mind?  

Rob: Say that again.  

Thom: I said have I sufficiently blown your mind?  

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  |  9  |  10  |  11


Rob Kall has spent his adult life as an awakener and empowerer-- first in the field of biofeedback, inventing products, developing software and a music recording label, MuPsych, within the company he founded in 1978-- Futurehealth, and founding, organizing and running 3 conferences: Winter Brain, on Neurofeedback and consciousness, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology (a pioneer in the field of Positive Psychology, first presenting workshops on it in 1985) and Storycon Summit Meeting on the Art Science and Application of Story-- each the first of their kind.  Then, when he found the process of raising people's consciousness and empowering them to take more control of their lives  one person at a time was too slow, he founded which has been the top search result on Google for the terms liberal news and progressive opinion for several years. Rob began his Bottom-up Radio show, broadcast on WNJC 1360 AM to Metro Philly, also available on iTunes, covering the transition of our culture, business and world from predominantly Top-down (hierarchical, centralized, authoritarian, patriarchal, big)  to bottom-up (egalitarian, local, interdependent, grassroots, archetypal feminine and small.) Recent long-term projects include a book, Bottom-up-- The Connection Revolution, debillionairizing the planet and the Psychopathy Defense and Optimization Project. 

Rob Kall Wikipedia Page

Over 200 podcasts are archived for downloading here, or can be accessed from iTunes. Rob is also (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

A Conspiracy Conspiracy Theory

Terrifying Video: "I Don't Need a Warrant, Ma'am, Under Federal Law"

Ray McGovern Discusses Brutal Arrest at Secretary Clinton's Internet Freedom Speech

Cindy Sheehan Bugged in Denver

Libertarian Legacy? Ron Paul's Campaign Manager, 49, Dies Uninsured, Of Pneumonia, Leaving family $400,000 Debt

John Kerry's Odd Symptoms-- Eyes and Tongue


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
4 people are discussing this page, with 4 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

I listened to the podcast, re-posted it here as a ... by Steven G. Erickson on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:27:55 AM
send them to me and I will post them on my youtube... by Rob Kall on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 at 7:56:19 PM
Comments for discussion of strategic weakness... by Larry Kachimba on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 at 4:54:12 PM
Maybe we need a song contest to get the attention ... by Mari Eliza on Thursday, Dec 8, 2011 at 3:31:46 AM