Power of Story
Send a Tweet        
- Advertisement -

Share on Google Plus 1 Share on Twitter 1 Share on Facebook 3 Share on LinkedIn 1 Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend (6 Shares)  

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

What Does Corporate Personhood Have to Do With Climate Change? Everything.

By       Message the web     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 9/22/14

- Advertisement -

Original published at Reader Supported News

By *Carl Gibson


The Supreme Court of the United States.
(Image by (photo: Steve Petteway/SCOTUS))
  Permission   Details   DMCA
- Advertisement -

300,000 people took over Manhattan Island this weekend demanding climate justice (Full disclosure: I was one of them). While it's important for the continued existence of the human race to minimize greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane emissions that generate heat in our atmosphere, simply using sustainable energy sources and consuming less isn't a cure-all for climate change.

If we really want to get to the root of the problem and have real climate justice, we have to end corporate personhood. Until corporations are no longer considered people, they'll always be able to claim their inalienable constitutional rights to make a profit at all costs and get around any new regulations, like emissions laws or energy usage limits.

- Advertisement -

How Artificial Entities Gained Constitutional Rights

Corporations have been people since 1886, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad case that the constitutional right of equal protection under the law, originally meant for freed slaves in the 14th Amendment, applied not only to human beings, but to artificial entities like corporations as well. Since then, these artificially-created legal entities meant to shield people from liability and risk have had the same constitutional rights as living, breathing human beings with a pulse, like you and me, and have finagled those rights to gain control over every aspect of society.

Previously, corporations were chartered for very specific projects solely for the public good and kept on a tight leash -- if a corporation did anything it wasn't specifically chartered to do, its corporate charter was revoked. This changed in the 1818 Dartmouth College vs. Woodward ruling, in which the Supreme Court agreed that Dartmouth College's corporate charter was a contract between private entities, and beyond the regulation of the state legislature.

After corporations gained personhood rights in 1886, they became persons with Fourth Amendment protections in 1906 with the Hale vs. Henkel decision. A major antitrust case against a group of tobacco corporations was stopped short when, after the U.S. government demanded a tobacco farmer turn over his financial documents, he alleged that his corporation had the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure as a corporate "person."

In 1976, corporate money became protected by the First Amendment in the Buckley vs. Valeo ruling. Seven justices agreed that donations to campaigns were the same as free speech. The 1979 First National Bank of Boston vs. Bellotti Supreme Court case established precedent that corporations' money was not only free speech, but that corporate money could be allowed to influence the outcome in a ballot initiative rather than simply go to one candidate or another in an election.

Interestingly enough, the justice who wrote the majority decision in Bellotti was Lewis Powell, author of the 1971 Powell Memo. Powell wrote the memo to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce when he was still a corporate lawyer, laying out a strategy for corporations to take over society by first taking over the schools, the media, and the courts.

- Advertisement -

In more recent history, the 2010 Citizens United vs. FEC case said that corporate money in elections was free speech and could be completely unregulated through independent channels. This year's McCutcheon vs. FEC case ruled that money in elections was free speech, and current aggregate limits on individual donations were a violation of the First Amendment. While Citizens United and McCutcheon are the most well-known cases, simply overturning those cases while ignoring all the rest is akin to scratching off the scab but doing nothing about the infection.

Essentially, immortal, fictional, man-made legal phantoms that neither eat, drink, breathe, make love, nor die, are fully armed with every constitutional right you and I have. The difference between corporations and us is that they often have more money to play with to hire expensive lawyers that can undo the will of the people. One case study is what happened in Humboldt County, California.

What Corporate Constitutional Rights Has to Do with Climate Justice

In the 1990s, Humboldt County voters passed strict guidelines establishing ownership of their environment, along with zoning laws to prevent public land from being converted into something the people didn't support. Walmart attempted to open a location in Humboldt County in 1999, but the zoning laws prevented them from doing so. Walmart spent over $200,000 hiring petition gatherers in the community to overturn zoning laws, but the ballot initiative to overturn the people's own zoning laws fell short. A victory, right? Think again.

In 2003, the Maxxam Corporation's subsidiary, Pacific Lumber, wanted to cut down a portion of Humboldt's redwood forest, and submitted a logging plan adherent to the county's environmental standards. After the Department of Forestry sanctioned it, Pacific Lumber ended up cutting down far more trees than originally proposed. After enough citizens complained about the water quality and damage to the environment caused by the logging, newly-elected District Attorney Paul Gallegos sued Pacific Lumber for fraud.

Maxxam then mounted a recall campaign against Gallegos in retaliation for his enforcement of the law, and the recall cost the people of Humboldt County $300,000 to keep their elected official. Gallegos kept his job by a 69 percent to 31 percent margin, and continued his lawsuit against Maxxam, which amounted to over $250 million. Another win for the people, right? Wrong.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

anonymously sourced from either the web or a forwarded email.

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.

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)

Jim Cramer Uses CNBC to Manipulate Stocks

Video: Is Bristol Palin Baby Trig's Mother? Evidence & Pictures

BabyGate: Explosive New Details and the Smoking Gun Photo

Romney's Storm Tips

Feeding The Homeless BANNED In Major Cities All Over America

Most Massive Natural Disaster in US History-- and you don't know what caused it.