Power of Story Send a Tweet        
- Advertisement -

Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter 2 Share on Facebook 2 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit 1 Share on StumbleUpon 1 Tell A Friend (6 Shares)  

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   No comments
OpEdNews Op Eds

How Citizens United Killed the Gettysburg Address

By   Follow Me on Twitter     Message Michael Bonanno       (Page 2 of 3 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page.     Permalink

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...)  Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It


Become a Fan
  (7 fans)
- Advertisement -

As of today, all of those elected officials who serve on the federal level are voted into office by a majority of voters in each of the respective states.   It is only the presidency and vice presidency that is still out of the reach of democracy.   As we saw in the year 2000, even if a majority of Americans choose one candidate, the other may still capture the presidency based upon a flawed and horrifically undemocratic system called The Electoral College.

The Electoral College, as we all know, gives each state a quantitative importance based upon the population of the state.   This, in and of itself, carries with it unfair advantages and disadvantages to both large and small states.

For example, Wyoming, whose population is 568,158, has been awarded 3 electoral votes.   That means that there are 49,315.67 electors per electoral vote .   On the other hand, California, whose population is 37.7 million people, has been awarded 54 electoral votes.   California, therefore, can claim 108,540.80 electors per electoral vote.   Using the number of qualified voters in each of these states, in Wyoming, each person's vote actually counts as one vote.   However, in California, each person's vote counts as .45 votes .   This is hardly democratic.

The Electoral College hurts small states as well in presidential elections.   Presidential candidates feel as if they can ignore those states with a small number of electoral votes. This does not mean merely not visiting those states during the election, it means, literally, ignoring the needs of small states.  Our presidential candidates are way into "What's in it for me" when it comes to campaigning and even governing.   The media makes this clear and even perpetuates it.

- Advertisement -

Nonetheless, and maybe even more importantly, people vote for their representatives to Congress, as well as those who govern their states.   So, even though the "by the people" isn't totally true, even to this day, and was even further from the truth in Lincoln's time, especially on a national level, amendments to The Constitution still depend on who is put into office by the people.   It admittedly takes 3/4 of the Senate and 3/4 of the House to pass an amendment, but it wouldn't even get that far if 3/4 of state legislatures voted against the proposed amendment.   "By the people" can be argued, but not dismissed altogether.

Finally, "for the people" is easier to verify.   This is because the words of The Constitution are, for the most part, words written to protect the rights of "the people", i.e., those members of the species homo sapiens who are citizens of The FUSA (united as they were at the time of the creation of The Constitution).   In very few instances were the words of The Constitution, with malice aforethought, written to deny rights, not only to citizens of the then United States of America, but also to people who may have been in this country as visitors from another nation.   The Constitution was written to protect the rights of people.   This is true starting with The Preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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."   That guideline can only be read and interpreted in such a way that the resulting effect upon the people is a positive one.

Article I describes the responsibility which Congress has to keep the people of this nation safe.   It ensures that a majority of that (ultimately) elected group of many people will have the final say in whether or not citizens of The FUSA are sent to kill and be killed in war.   It prescribes a fair method of keeping the U. S. budget as close to being balanced as possible by raising revenue in as fair a manner as possible"It ensures that laws cannot be created to deal with an act that was legal when the act was committed but had become illegal after the act was committed.   It ensures that titles of nobility cannot be accepted by standing members of Congress, which would be a marvelous way to put the leadership of The FUSA on a path toward monarchy, a certain killer of democratic republicanism.   It ensures that a group of people has the power to determine if one person, in the person of the president, is kept in line and not able to "go rogue" in a dictatorial manner.   Article I is written to protect the majority of people living in or even visiting The FUSA at any given time.

- Advertisement -

Article II is also written with safety and fairness to the vast majority of the citizens of The FUSA in mind.   It makes clear that one person, a unitary president, may only make strategic decisions about war and peace only after Congress has decided whether there will be war or peace.   The War Powers act of 1973 may give the president a small window in which to start a war, but that war can only be maintained if Congress decides to turn what the president has done into a Declaration of War.   Again, the safety of the nation's citizens does not lie in the hands of one person.

As mentioned, Article III merely states that nine people who have the ability to read and interpret that which is written in the English language is not being circumvented by either the executive branch or even the legislative branch of government.

Article IV basically says that we are states united by a federal government and that states must work together so as to protect citizens of one state from criminal acts committed by a citizen of another state.

Article V simply states that those who agreed with and signed Madison's document were not soothsayers and/or fortune tellers and could not predict the changes in the landscape of the landscape years hence.   It opened up a methodology to amend The Constitution in such a manner as to reflect any changes in that landscape.   He assured the citizens that they wouldn't be bound to laws that may have made sense in the eighteenth century but would not, and do not, make much sense in the centuries following it.   Article VI reinforces that, in spite of laws which one state decides to put on its books, the laws of The United States federal government shall take precedent over them.   It basically says that The Constitution is the law of the land.   The most important line from Article VI, however, is "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" (emphasis mine).

Article VII merely asks those who would be signing The Constitution a three word question: "Are you sure?" and the signatures answer the question with one word, "Yes."

Of the Amendments, the eleventh, twelfth, sixteenth, eighteenth, twenty-fifth and twenty-seventh amendments weren't necessarily written to protect the rights of the vast majority of citizens.   However, aside from the sixteenth and eighteenth amendments, the other four amendments mentioned didn't truly inhibit the rights of citizens.   The only two that, prima facie, were written to have a negative effect on citizens were the income tax amendment and prohibition.   Of course, prohibition was repealed.   And, as far as the income tax is concerned, there are arguments that can be made to support the hypothesis that the vast majority of citizens might be helped by an increase in revenue.   That amendment is, to this day, controversial.   Is the "take from" ethically warranted by the resultant good of the "give to" portion of that amendment?   You decide.

- Advertisement -

Consequently, Lincoln was spot on in his "for the people" statement.

In fact, nowhere in The Constitution can one find the word "corporation". Consequently, the fact that all of the decisions by past Supreme Courts that culminated in the presently seated Supreme Court verifying that corporations are people has, for sure, no basis in The Constitution, the document against which all courts are supposed to measure cases which they adjudicate.   Nowhere in the majority opinion of Citizens United does it state how, in fact, one can tell what a corporation's true opinion is.   After all, what/who makes up a corporation?   If one does not include the shareholders, the employees, starting with the CEO and working down to the janitor (for those corporations who still hire their own janitorial staff) and the customers, one is leaving out an important part of the corporation.

When corporations reach into their treasuries to withdraw millions, even billions, to give to campaigns, via PACs, do we believe they first take a survey to make certain that everyone who is part of the corporation agrees with their choice of candidate or their position on a particular referendum?.   If they do a survey, which, of course, we all know they don't, do they survey those who are part of the corporation who are not citizens of The FUSA?   Do they take those "foreign" opinions into account?   When they reach into their treasuries, do they, inadvertently, pull out some of that foreign currency and donate that to their PACs?   If not, how do they efficiently keep the origination of the profits separate?

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3


- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It


Michael Bonanno is an associate editor for OpEdNews.

He is also a published poet, essayist and musician who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Bonanno is a political progressive, not a Democratic Party apologist. He believes it's (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 Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

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

Follow Me on Twitter

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

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

Teabaggers; Children of the Sixties?

Will "Americans Elect" Their President in 2012?

It's OK to say "Merry Christmas"

Why Anarchism, Communism and Libertarianism are Pipe Dreams

Is The Constitution Really That Unfair?

LA Socialist Party Local Holds Organizing Meeting (Discussion with Mimi Soltysik, Local Chair)