Monday, February 13, 2012

The Ominous Implications of Corporate-Personhood'

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

I do not and cannot support the Libertarian party. Primarily --if the libertarian position re: taxation had been the rule, FDR could NEVER have spent the U.S. out of the GREAT DEPRESSION. Think of how fortunate we were to have had a great President in office! Think of how disastrous our fate had a 'libertarian' been occupying the White House!

As I understand their platform, the 'Libertarian party', would have opposed Roosevelt's 'New Deal' and, most certainly, Social Security. Therefore, I would hope that Libertarians have denounced the exploitation of the 14th Amendment to rationalize 'corporate personhood', which in effect, grants to corporations 'Freedom of Speech'.

I do not believe that Exxon (for example) may enjoy 'free speech'. Exxon is not a person. If EXXON were never allowed to spew their lies and propaganda on REAL people, it would not keep me awake nights. I have freedom of speech. A 'legal abstraction' does not! I don't care what myths, lies and voodoo are subsribed to by ilk like Scalia.

But this issue is of considerable interest to anyone considering whether or not to support Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a strong supporter of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and so am I. But SCOTUS recently applied the 14th to 'legal abstractions', i.e, corporations.

IF corporations are people, then nothing can be done to prevent them becoming monopolies, enslaving 'real people' in various ways. IF corporations are people, to restrain them violates the 14TH amendment. Ron Paul's vocal support of the 14th must not cloak any support whatsoever for 'corporate personhood'?

If I were opposing Paul in a run for a nomination, I would demand he answer this question: are you for or against corporate personhood? This is, in fact, the 'cutting issue' that will define the election. With the 'possible' exception of Paul, every other Republican (prominently Mitt Romney) is in accord with the GOP 'line', i.e, the infamous Citizen-United decision in which SCOTUS bestowed upon mere legal abstraction the miracle of 'personhood'. Previously --only our 'creator' had been capable of such a miracle.

Even so, the following question must be put to every Republican seeking the nomination: If you are for the 14th but against corporate personhood, how would you propose to avoid a nation in which 'corporate-persons', in fact, legal monstrosities would exploit that unique status in ways that are yet still unknown?

If corporations were allowed 'personhood' today, nothing would prevent that 'concentration of wealth' in very, very few corporate-elite hands! Ergo: corporate personhood is a recipe for a NEW GREAT DEPRESSION. It would be the immediate onset of BIG BRO.

If corporations were allowed 'personhood' today, nothing would prevent that 'concentration of wealth' in very, very few corporate-elite hands! Ergo: corporate personhood is a recipe for a NEW GREAT DEPRESSION.

Libertarians cannot have it both ways. If 'people' are to have this brand of freedom AND if corporations are people, then what 'power' would restrain them, the government being reduced in power and status?

Rather --corporations should be restrained by a government responsible only to REAL, real people. Pin Ron Paul down on this point! It should be made clear --beyond any shades of gray or doubt --that CORPORATIONS are NOT people! It should be made clear that corporations exist at the pleasure of a government that was described by our founders --a government of REAL people, BY real people, and FOR real people!

I suspect that just such an outcome is precisely what 5 ideologues on SCOTUS had in mind. SCOTUS, certainly, does not care about R. Paul's problems. SCOTUS, kissing up to corporate 'sponsors' re-created the Frankstein monster but on paper! It's a monstrous problem for anyone but more so for anyone claiming to be a 'libertarian'.


by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Julian Assange has been in 'custody' illegally! His right of 'habeas corpus' has been denied him though not formally. He is simply detained, denied his freedom of movement and, presumably, his access to the international press! In fact, no charges have ever been filed against him. No judge has demanded of his captors that they produce 'probable cause' that he has --in fact --committed any crime of any sort! He is a political prisoner in every sense of the word. He may be the picture of a fascist future when 'authority' or 'force of arms' may simply decree one to be an enemy of the state.

Assange is locked up though the burden of proof in almost every western nation has rested upon those making accusations. Officially, he is not accused of a specific crime. He is --simply --a political prisoner, a 'captive' of a crooked state(s).

The arrest warrant for Julian Assange should not stand and breaches "a matter of fundamental legal principle", the supreme court has heard .

Dinah Rose QC, defending the WikiLeaks founder in his final appeal against extradition to Sweden to face allegations of sex crimes, told the panel of seven senior judges that to consider the Swedish public prosecutor as a judicial authority was "contrary to a basic, fundamental principle of law".

Reaching back as far into European legal history as the Codex Iustinianus, dated 376AD, Rose said the Swedish prosecutor was a party in the Assange case and therefore not independent and impartial, breaching the principle that "no one should be judge in their own cause", which Rose said was one of the pillars of natural justice.
--Julian Assange extradition breaches legal principle, lawyer claims
This is an outrage! If Julian Assange can be imprisioned though no charges have ever been lodged against him, NO ONE IS FREE!

When the U.S. Bill of Rights had not yet been trashed, subverted by the likes of George W. Bush, the crooked court made crooked by the likes of Thomas, Scalia et al, the Bill of Rights had GUARANTEED every American DUE PROCESS LAW. The principle, it was hoped, would have been universal among 'western nations'. In fact, no one should be denied the right of Habeas Corpus.
Latin for "that you have the body." A writ of habeas corpus is used to bring a prisoner or other detainee (e.g. institutionalized mental patient) before the court to determine if the person's imprisonment or detention is lawful. In the US system, federal courts can use the writ of habeas corpus to determine if a state's detention of a prisoner is valid. A habeas petition proceeds as a civil action against the State agent (usually a warden) who holds the defendant in custody. It can also be used to examine any extradition processes used, amount of bail, and the jurisdiction of the court.
--See, e.g. Knowles v. Mirzayance 556 U.S.___(2009), Felker v. Turpin 518 US 1051 (1996) and McCleskey v. Zant 499 US 467 (1991).
Simply, if charges cannot be found and filed upon PROBABLE CAUSE, the person targeted should be, must be released! Habeas corpus originated in the English legal system, embraced by the American founding fathers, and made law in the Bill of Rights! It is, likewise, guaranteed in many nations.

Make the Right of Habeas Corpus a Principle of International Law

It is an essential safeguard against tyranny, arbitrary state action, 'official vendettas! ORGANIZE to demand that Julian Assange be 'arraigned' and the charges against him heard together with the probable cause that he violated any laws whatsoever. If the 'authorities' cannot produce the 'probable cause' to file a formal complaint with a judge, then ASSANGE MUST BE RELEASED!